Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2006

Cameron Crowe

• Crowe's article's well written, comprehensive, has a concise lead section, proper headings, and images where appropriate. RomeoVoid 18:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It definitely needs a lot more sources and a lot more details. I.e. one sentence on Elizabethtown - there was a lot written at the time about the film's reception by critics, etc. Same thing for Vanilla Sky or any other film that just has one sentence or so on it. Mad Jack 18:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You should be able to get a GA (Good Article) status, though :) Mad Jack 18:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object images need fair use rationales Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose images need fair use rationales, articles needs refereces, those references need to be inline, there needs to be some piece of criticism that is mentioned, and the lead really needs a NPOV overlook ("Crowe has made his mark with character-driven, personal films that have been generally hailed as refreshingly original and void of cynicism.") Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Any article that reaches FA status is going to need a lot more than 8 sources. --PresN 03:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

World of Warcraft

A thorough and well written article on a very popular game. I believe it fufills all the requirements of a featured article. No major problems as far as I can tell, but then again I've never nominated an article before so I may be wrong. RyGuy17 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Contains a number of one-sentence paragraphs, and has many section without inline references. Some sections are not written in an encyclopedic tone. Should be sent to Peer review, and then re-nominated. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object this articles has some issues that needs to be fixed

1. images need fair use rationale
2. Very little on criticism of the game
3. Several sections, especially the Major world events part reads very uncyclopedic
4. Needs much more refs, and several of the refs come from the World of Warcraft Community Site page, which is not an valid source
5. Many one sentence paragraphs

Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. It is long enough and well written Deananoby2 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object Please fix the following:

1. Subjective statement in lead: "Featuring a low learning curve, easy level advancement,"
2. Unsourced weasel words in lead: "The game is widely regarded as a success"
3. The first paragraphy of the body does not need to include detailed contents of the collector's box (e.g. "A cloth map of Azeroth.")
4. Cite sources for statistics like "The game sold more than 240,000 copies in its first 24 hours on the market, more than any other PC game in history" and "As of March 2006, World of Warcraft has more than 6,000,000 players worldwide."
5. Avoid unencylopedic tone as in statements like "As is common with the launch of an MMORPG, World of Warcraft had its share of problems at first," and "And, as with any game, it has its own language or terminology." Starting a sentence with a conjunction is not ideal either.
6. Statements like"Due to World of Warcrafts high sales it has been described as a "runaway success" with "overwhelming popularity"", even if footnoted, should tell us who is saying these things in the body of the text.

That should be enough for a little while. MarkBuckles 07:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object: Good information present, but its presentation is lacking in many ways:

1. The tone is simply not conducive to an encyclopedic presentation throughout
2. Critical analysis is a bit lacking (I realize that there's a daughter article specifically for that, but it's an important aspect of an article, so you should include more of it)
3. Far too few references, especially where important sales figures are concerned
4. Don't bold things like "Blizzard also stated that at any given time at least 500,000 subscribers are online". The objective is to provide readers information about the subject, not to suggest to them some parts are more important than others with things that the eye can't help but be drawn to. Usually only the primary term in an article requires bolding
5. The lead-in to the Major world events section is good, but I'm not so sure that going into that much detail on every one of them is. Perhaps a daughter article could be made on the subject and then you could just provide a brief overview of them here if you felt it necessary to offer some details on them (but do it in a single paragraph, if possible). I just think this section is going a bit far beyond what an uninitiated reader would be interested in, and would, in fact, be a little daunting to them. I do applaud the way the sections above transition the reader into the terms being used (such as "professions" and "realms"), but the inclusion of all this detail is a bit sudden and probably would leave most people feeling a bit out of their element
6. Images definitely need to be summarized better and need some fair-use rationale. For some examples of an effective way to include that, see Final Fantasy X's images
7. Do we have any development info? Information from the creators on how they got the idea, how they went about implementing it, why they chose to do things a certain way? The closest the article comes to really offering any is in the Deviation from the MMORPG archetype and Major world events sections. As far as it goes, the latter only presents the impression — but not the declaration with reference — that fans who felt Warcraft was too static prompted Blizzard to try giving it a more dynamic angle. Development info is really valuable, so if you can get some of that, it would be great
8. Overall, try to remember that the target audience for an article like this is the people who are entirely unfamiliar with Warcraft

I think that you should try to address all of these issues we've brought up here, then take it to Peer Review to iron out any other major-to-minor issues that might be present, and then give it another shot at FA. You've got some good information here in a lot of places, but a lot of it's not presented properly, not properly sourced or just doesn't consider the uninitiated reader as well as it should. Good luck with the future of the article. Ryu Kaze 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Póvoa de Varzim

This article is about my home town and has been peer reviewed (thanks User:Yomangani), as I'm not a native English speaker, it is already a featured article in Portuguese language wikipedia, and it is expected to be so in the Spanish. It is not one of those huge cities, but it has its own personality and regional "importance", and will be a different article in the FA list. People, from the city and beyond also liked it, and even the City hall has used information from the WK:PT article. I was not to put it as a candidate for FA, but... I liked the peer review. It gave me a lot of work, so be nice judging it. Remember you can edit it ;)--Pedro 20:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object- citations not numbered correctly, and pictures are too large. Everything else looks all right though. QuizQuick 21:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • citations are correct, that's a wikipedia script, not an issue of the article, you see the same citations being used more than once, as these are citations to books, not websites. As for the pics, I think these are ok, but if you ppl think it is too large I don't mind reducing them. hugs. images reduced from 250 -> 220px and 200->165px. the saame for other images with different sizes. --Pedro 22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. `'mikka (t) 23:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This needs severe copy-editing. And why are the simple years and centuries in blue? Even the autoformatted dates aren't all done correctly. Tony 03:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It has already been done. If you find an error, the best is to edit. The issue over the dates, that's a common practice in wikipedia. If you want to see the article without "blue things" click on "Printable Version". --Pedro 09:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'd like to see the proper links. What I don't want to see is a whole lot of useless links, like "20th century" (Gee, that leads to valuable information related to this topic) and dictionary words. Why dilute the high-value links with these? Tony 09:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC) And BTW, reviewers here are under no obligation to edit. It's your job to find collaborators; if you're not willing to do that, withdraw it now. Tony 09:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• you should read "Supporting and objecting", and reviewers should also read the article instead of objecting because of links to dates that every article has.--Pedro 10:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object Image:Autoestradas Póvoa de Varzim.jpg and Image:Siglaspoveirasbase.png should be converted to SVG. It would be nice if Image:Mapa da Póvoa de Varzim.png and Image:Freguesiaspvz.png are in SVG too. Good to see that Image:LocalPovoaDeVarzim.svg is in SVG. WP 11:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object This article needs copy editing, not only for language but for technical details. For instance, ref marks should be placed after punctuation with no space between the punctuation and the ref mark. Gimmetrow 16:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This article is 64kb long, but is concurrently listed as a GA candidate. A lot of the phrasing reads as translation. Very long articles should have near-perfect prose or they are difficult to read all at once. Gimmetrow 17:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • done: refs placed after punctuation with no space. thx, I was not aware of that rule.--Pedro 19:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Still quite a few not matching WP:FN. Extra spaces here and there, at least one extra period after a footnote, and at least one note before a period. Hint: search for ". [", "]." and "] [" ok? A few other easy-to-fix details that jump out:

• History: arrows to list evolution of word Euracini: is this common style? "...many aristocrats" or just "aristocrats"?
• Sports: why is "Long." given after a lat/lon cite? Should "Marina" be capitalized?
• Culture/traditions: Personal pref, but I tend to dislike parentheticals at the end of sentences (as in Brittany and Denmark). Same thing in History (most notably in garum).
• Writing system: "Coat of Arms" capitalized or not? "The siglas" or just "Siglas"? Is "Siglas" capitalized when not the first word of a sentence?
• Festivals: Is there a way to avoid saying "These days"? "They still believe that this saint..." shorten or combine with previous sentence? Why is understood in single quotes?
• Famous Poveiros: spacing for date after Saint Peter

General points: be consistent with capitalizations, reduce uses of "many". Gimmetrow 19:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My point about "many" is to generally avoid weasel terms such as "some", "many", "most", or the similar word "also". This doesn't mean completely eliminate them, but the process of rewriting required will make the text more crisp. Gimmetrow 20:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your input, all your ideas where used in the article. The article has improved. More ideas are welcome. Feel free to edit it. ;) --Pedro 21:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. There are some flaws, but overall it's an alrihgt article. Hezzy 18:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't usually comment on other reviewers' comments, but: if there are flaws, and you think the article is only "alrihgt" (sic), why do you think it should be promoted to FA status? Tony 02:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object Clearly fails 2a. A couple of simple fixes: remove contractions, and changing also to furthermore looks even worse. Just delete it. If the content is so different that it feels as though you need to say "also", it's likely there's not sufficient context for the statement. Choose links more wisely (don't link dates, do link subjects of the topic sentence of a paragraph). Please have this thoroughly copyedited by a native speaker-- MarkBuckles 03:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've removed links to dates.--Pedro 20:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Connie Mack Stadium

I think that Connie Mack Stadium is a great article. --South Philly 03:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Is not comprehensive, is not fully sourced, and suffers from an overlong infobox. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Whoa. Waaaay too short. Not specifically sourced - just contains a bibliography. Prose is a little un-Wiki-ish in places. Not really FA material at all just now. Seb Patrick 10:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Objectditto Rlevse 21:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Battery electric vehicle

This was put up for peer review on July 3rd, in hopes that it might be a Main Page FA by July 21, when Who Killed the Electric Car? opens in theatres, but getting up to FA quality and incorporating all the peer review recommendations took longer than the several editors who have since been trying to improve it to FA status expected. Anyway, it's pretty much there now, and the movie opens tomorrow, so at least there's that. LossIsNotMore 10:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support Well written and comprehensive article. My one concern is that the puts the Horsepower of the Venturi Fetish at 300hp, but the article for that automobile states that its output is 245hp.--Thud495 14:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: 300 hp is correct.[1] AnAccount2 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Although the article appears well referenced, there are large sections with no references, and there are some prose problems (Most people do not require fast recharging because they have enough time (6 to 8 hours) during the work day or overnight to refuel. ) Can someone check the images? I suggest a second look after the article has been thoroughly copy edited by a fresh set of eyes, and completely referenced. Good start !Sandy 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: all of the images have been checked, and it has had a copyedit of every single section over the past three weeks (compare to pre-peer review version.) AnAccount2 14:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object: 2a. Striking object; well done. Tony 06:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Thud495, have you read the article? Let's take a look at the opening.

A battery electric vehicle (BEV) is an electric vehicle storing chemical energy in rechargeable battery packs to power one or more electric motors.

BEVs were among the earliest automobiles, and are more energy efficient than common internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. They produce no pollution while being driven, and almost none at all if charged from most forms of renewable energy.

• Single-sentence paragraph undesirable.

Fixed; thanks.

• "Storing" should be "that stores".

fixed; thanks

• "Energy efficient" should probably be hyphenated, even in AmEng (pipe it if the link requires).

fixed; thanks.

• Isn't "common" redundant?

No, ICEs are common now but there was a time in the past when they were not and they might not be in the future.

• "internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles" is an ungainly quadruple group, worsened by the abbreviation in the middle.

fixed; thanks.

• Tell me, do they produce pollution when they're not being driven?

Yes, if the batteries leak or are disposed of improberly (as mentioned in the environmental impact section)

• "at all" is redundant.

fixed; thanks.

• "Most" - so there are some forms of renewable energy that do pollute?

Yes, biomass for example is renewable put produces large amounts of CO₂. 64.175.85.206 20:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The density of problems here exemplifies the whole text. Please find someone who's unfamiliar with the text to go through it thoroughly. Way below standard. Tony 16:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Some of these specific criticism are incorrect. Energy efficient does not need to be hyphenated, some forms of renewable energy do pollute, I would argue that commom is not redundant (redundant with what?, nothing else mentions popularity), that fact that it is an ungainly term is why an abbreviation is introduced although "internal combustion engine vehicles (ICE vehicles)" may be clearer. Rmhermen 18:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

or simply internal combustion vehicles? Pedant 01:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• You're right: thanks for the explanations. Tony 07:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: all of these objections have been addressed; more similar are welcome, although more substantial problems are more welcome. 64.175.85.206 20:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"The density of problems here exemplifies the whole text." Fixing those specific examples isn't enough: the entire text needs a thorough copyedit, and thorough referencing. Sandy 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object - controversy section should be all prose, claims should have cites, like this

The three major US automobile manufacturers, General Motors, Chrysler Corporation and Ford Motor Company have been accused of deliberately sabotaging their own BEV efforts through several methods: failing to market, failing to produce appropriate vehicles, failing to satisfy demand, and using lease-only programs with prohibitions against end of lease purchase. By whom?

Production annonucements and prototypes is messy, should prototypes even be there since wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Quotes should not be in italics, per MoS. There are also a couple of fair use images that don't add much, esp Image:DynastyEVSedan.jpg which causes a big white space above the table. The sentence on Replacing doesn't seem to warrant an entire section.

--Peta 04:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object Image:New Vehicle Purchase Preference.gif should be a SVG. WP 06:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Working on it. I've got Inkscape but am having font troubles. Will you settle for a PNG? AnAccount2 16:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've copy-edited the lead and history sections. While one or two changes related to personal preference, most did not. Can you find someone to spruce up the remainder? Tony 10:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try. I've already printed it and gone at it with a pencil per your suggestions, but, well, it clearly didn't get me enough strategic distance. AnAccount2 15:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object Potentially good article, needs attention.

1. Very underreferenced. min 1 per paragraph.

   Gasp! Is this really a crierion? This would take it from 20 to about 80 refs! Todays featured article only has 39 references for 52 paragraphs.

   Citations for contentious facts are a criterion as far as I'm aware. If you start using this style of referencing:- <ref name="reference source1> reference descriptions, dates, authors, etc. </ref> then you end up with a list at the end only as long as the number of sources you have used but with a b c d e f g h i j etc. next to them - much more space efficient. --Mcginnly | Natter 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Too many red links

   Would it be better to unlink them if they can't be created? I'm pretty sure this isn't an actual criterion, either; is it? But I will try to stub them.

   If they are notable stub them, if not, remove the link.--Mcginnly | Natter 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

3. I think Hybrid vehicles should be mentioned in the lead to disambiguate the article.

   I completely agree and will do so right away.

   Don't over do it - the lead should set out what is in this article, not what is in another article - It just needs to make sure the reader isn't led into reading this article, thinking it's about hybrid vehicles.--Mcginnly | Natter 11:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

4. I can't claim to know much about the subject matter, but the article general reads as a eulogy to BEV's without sufficient balance or counter arguments as to why these vehicles aren't on every road. eg. in the 'cost' comparison to internal combustion engines, the running costs are compared but not the initial costs of the vehicles. I am left none the wiser as to which type of vehicle costs the most other than a vague 'depends on the cost of the batteries' statement. Perhaps some comparative examples would help. so weak object on this point. I acknowledge that there is a section at the end of the article which attempts to deal with proponent and detractor issues, but my bias criticisms exist in the body of the rest of the article.

   The detractor issues are also summarized in the intro, but the exciting fact is that recent battery technology improvements (delveloped for laptops and cellphones, mostly) have completely changed the landscape in this respect. I suppose that should be in the intro, too, as well as the Batteries section if it isn't already.

   Sorry mate, but even your response sounds POV. If there's a source saying this technology will revolutionise mass transport then great, but even that will need to be noted as conjecture (regardless of how exciting the prospect might be). --Mcginnly | Natter 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

5. The lead states:- Some models are still in limited production, but the most popular BEVs have been withdrawn and most of those have been destroyed by their manufacturers. I'm intrigued by this and want to know more and why. A brief look at the TOC doesn't immediately indicated where this information might be found, so I read the history, which ends in the 1960's. The next section is then about a number of models which are in production followed by a table which mentions the destruction, but not the reason. So I'm now really confused. I need these questions answering:- 1. Why was it that the most popular models were withdrawn. 2. Why were they detroyed by their manufacturers (artistic outburst? guilt? bribery by petroleum companies?). I finally find the answers in the controversy section at the bottom of the article after numerous references to the destruction of vehicles. Whilst suspense might be a good writing style for novels, I'm not sure an encylopedia is where you should be practising it.

   Well, it has been something of a mystery, and there aren't many good references, because the big automakers have been caught lying about whether the cars were actually destroyed, so the actual answers are actually more complex. I agree this should be expanded and put in up front.

6. There's still quite a bit of prose that requires attention. The former group points, among other issues, to:-??? It does make sense after a thorough reading of the preceding paragraph (also not too hot), but I think a clearer prose style would help.

   I completely agree and will get right on that

--Mcginnly | Natter 13:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your very helpful comments. AnAccount2 15:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Mitigate Global warming. 2 problems here, firstly choice of the word mitigation - it has a sense which can mean "to lessen the severity" so this becomes ambiguous. secondly reading the global warming article it does caveat that the 'prevailing scientific opinion' is that xyz contributes to the warming. I'd skirt the controversy and focus on the low carbon emissions and imply the link to global warming rather than explicitly state it.--Mcginnly | Natter 11:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object images are either inaccurately tagged or poor candidates for fair use. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Australian Football League premiers

This article contains the entire list of VFL/AFL premiers, with scores of Grand Finals, Venues and attendences. It also has a tally of the Premiers and thier last Grand Final apperence and Premiership to show readers when the team last reached the grand stage of the AFL Grand Final.AFL45 10:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a list and not really suitable for consideration as a Featured Article. I would recommend taking this to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. --Allen3 ^talk 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Allen3. And why are the years and decades in blue? Please delink them, except for piped links that focus on the topic. Tony 16:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support a move to Featured List Candidates. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Wouldn't that be an object? Sandy 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The featured article candidates page is not an appropriate location for this nomination. Perhaps you wanted wikipedia:featured list candidates? Raul654 02:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ohio Wesleyan University

A few dedicated editors have vastly improved this article in recent months. There have been 2 peer reviews, and it is currently a GA. POV issues have been addressed, organization has been vastly improved, no major prose issues exist. The article is comprehensive and is structurally and graphically sound. Nomin schools 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. There are a number of issues with this article, including that fact that it has too many lists and that the timeline needs formatting. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 16:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Still has some POV issues, particularly in the recent activism section, and reads like a brochure throughout by quoting a fair number of statistics of questionable usefulness to an encyclopedia and using a style of prose that seems intended to attract potential students. Also, there was an editor who was looking to cleanup portions of the article not too long ago, so it may not be completely stable either. Indrian 17:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Support. Apart from perhaps the formatting of the timeline in the beginning , this is a great article. Froshowu 04:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  Could someone check if this new editor isn't just a sock puppet of the nominator? Orane (talk • cont.) 03:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Major organizational issues. TOC is far too long and confusing. Article contains far too many lists. Sections are not appropriately covered. For example, "Internationalism" has three subsections consisting of six paragraphs, whereas "Student Organizations" has one short paragraph. "Notable Alumni" has a section to itself, but contains no content, except for a link to the main article. Use of summary technique and links to related articles is poor. Also, some POV issues. No criticisms of the university are evident. Main issue, however, is organization. 16 sections is absurd. See FA's University of Michigan (11 sections), Michigan State University (9 sections), and Cornell University (9 sections) for good organization. Also, order of sections is something to be desired. "Further reading" should be after "Alumni," and, in general, the flow of the article is poor. For example, after talking about "Traditions," the next section is "Wesleyan and Delaware, Ohio" and then after that "Athletics." Completely non-sensical. Lastly, reference format is not appropriate and 24 references is not nearly enough. Many unreferenced facts and figures are presented. General content is fine, but still needs thorough copyedit, major organizational restructuring, and better use of linking to related articles and summary techniques. Has a lot of potential and basic skeleton is there for future FA, but not seeing this pass anytime soon. -Bluedog423 05:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object All logos should be svg.WP 05:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. References need to be correctly formatted. Orane (talk • cont.) 03:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object Many foreign langauge links incorrectly name the university as Wesleyan University. Change this. 24.2.244.245 05:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually they correctly insert Ohio everywhere or translate to Wesleyan University in Ohio...this is what OWU's original Latin seal still imprinted on all OWU docuemtns reads as well: 'Wesleiana Universitas Ohioensis Delawarensi'. The confusion that you state is not recent...it has been around for years. Rcct 12:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ralph Wiggum

This article is great. It's well written and easy to read. Covers every aspect of Ralphs behaviour. Has references where needed. Very good article. Jimmmmmmmmm 11:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Object I'll have a proper look at this when I get home, but here's a couple of simple things I noticed:

• Needs references. I can only see two, and they are just external links.
• Images need fair use rational.
• The 'outcast', 'pixie' and 'paste' links go to dab pages.
• The 'Weirdo' link points to a magazine, which isn't correct in that context.
• Spelling mistakes: 'bizzare', 'reminicent', 'inadvertantly'.

Icey 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean "rationale"? Spelling mistakes are easiest to fix if you fix 'em when you find 'em aren't they? Pedant

CommentOk fixed the spelling but couldn't for the life of me find 'inadvertantly' and I read it three times. If you know where it is fix it please. Fixed the two links to dab pages and unlinked weirdo and outcast. Might add links to wiktionary if you think needed. As for the picture, well I'm not to up on copyright law, especially US copyright law so to prevent me from having to read the whole history can you explain what needs doing, what could be done with the pic? Jimmmmmmmmm 15:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"inadvertently" is found in the "Future" section (I found it by just doing a simple, two-second search). It is spelt correctly. --Oldak Quill 16:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's because I fixed it:I'm sorry I forgot to comment here that I found it with a simple search. The article needs a through copyedit and referencing. Sandy 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

To be fair on the referencing most of this will only be referencable from watching the show. Any episode which are singled out have the link to the Wikipedia article. Don;t really see how this can be reference alot more. There are some subject that won;t have book/internet reference adn will only be known from watching the show. Jimmmmmmmmm 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You could try the Simpsons Archive, for example, here's a page all about Ralph. Icey 16:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well can that just be added to th e bottom of the page rather than referencing each bit? I'm no expert on this, so if I find pages that are references to whole the page I can stick it a t the bottom rather than reference just on section. Jimmmmmmmmm 18:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Typically, you should add an in-line reference everywhere that someone is being quoted, vital information is being presented or info that is or might be disputed is present. Ideally, there should also be more than a single source for the entire article too, but you work with what you have. This is probably the most favored method of citing references, so review that page if you need some help with the subject. Ryu Kaze 14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support I think it's actually a great article as it is at this point, better than most Simpsons character articles Pedant 01:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object; no references, no inline citations (four inline external links is all, which is poor formatting anyway), poor prose quality, and little out-of-universe perspective. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 12:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Unreferenced, speculative, etc. Definitely does not represent the best of Wikipedia, IMO. Ori.livneh 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

This article plainly states everything that is needed to be a featured article. Kitia 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This was created July 7th, but was never added to the list. Medvedenko 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object Lack references, too many lists, poorly written and formatted. Medvedenko 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving on then...--Kitia 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object Not referenced. Sandy 22:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object as per Med and Sandy. BTW, it's such a boring lead—full of fifth most populous, second biggest, fourth this, third that. Tony 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The first thing it says about Philadelphia, after giving its nicknames and etymology, is that it's the fifth most populous city in the United States. That shouldn't happen anywhere except articles on American Idol runners-up and the like. Also concur with Medvedenko and Sandy on the rest. --zenohockey 22:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think this is a comprehensive article. --evrik 15:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It may be comprehensive, but does all of this information belong? This is an encyclopedia, not an almanac. Several lists give names but no information or context. Does a list of names of adjacent counties enlighten me about Philly? If it belongs at all, it would be better converted to prose and given some context that explains why that information is important. ("Bucks County, to the northeast, is the home of many of Philadelphia's day laborers.") There are several sections in this article which are very short and not very informative. Surely there's more to say about public education than one sentence. If there isn't, why does it merit a whole section?
  • I don't agree with Tony and zenohockey that "fifth most populous" isn't important. However, I do agree that the lede should grab my attention, and "fifth best" doesn't do that. Surely, Philly is interesting and vibrant enough that you can find something better? As a general rule, the lede should summarize the article. If something is important enough to merit a section header, it should at least be mentioned in the lede. By the same token, if something isn't significant enough to put in the lede, it probably doesn't deserve its own section. I'd like to see more arresting information in the lede, fewer sections with more information, and in general less raw data and more context explaining the importance of the facts you do include. Peirigill 07:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object stubby, listy, multiple improperly formatted references. Rlevse 21:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Spider

A basic topic, complete and already listed as a "Good article". --ZeroOne 13:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I haven't read the article, but there are some points I've immediately picked up on:

• Plenty of red links - these should all be stubs.
• At nearly 50KB the page is too large.
• There is a bit of a link farm at the bottom. The external links need to be trimmed.
• Some sections have inline references, others have nothing at all. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Overall size is 49KB, prose size is 40KB. I haven't yet read the article, but I don't believe that 40KB of prose is always a problem: I look for Summary style when prose size passes 50KB. Sandy 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment In terms of looking for things to trim, we could start with the "Spiders in symbolism and culture" section. This is far too large and not especially relevant to an article on spiders (a few lines would do tbh). Also, I don't think it's necessary to list all these different species of spider. A bit too listy for my liking. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The article is too long. Several sections need to be spun out into child articles. See my edit on the last section (when I'm done). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I started copyediting the article, but more needs to be done. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The article is underreferenced, and it does appear there are areas that could benefit from Summary style. If you can thoroughly reference the article, shorten it, and mimimize the link farm to the most essential external links (per WP:EL), it looks like it could be a good candidate. Sandy 22:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object - As above. Additionally, there is an inappropriate heading: "Do female spiders eat their mates?" - Wikipedia is not an FAQ, and should not be phrased as such. Fieari 23:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object - I think it's pretty good now. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.149.133 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 27 July 2006

• Object - I don't think that it's too long, but I do feel that there are nowhere near enough references. Also, in the "Taxonomy" section, there's a red link, Opisthothelae, that really needs some fixing, even if the 2 subsections of it are blue links. --PresN 03:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object - not too long, but there are some issues. "For a guide to identifying spiders, see Spider finder (under construction)" - everything on Wikipedia is under construction, and this article should really be transferred to Wikibooks. Also, don't make wikilinks part of the heading, they should be incorporated into the section text. Apart from this, I think it's a very good article! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Darth Vader

It is a very good article, or at least I think so. It has several images, plenty of words, and lots of information. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 13:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support I am the nominator. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 13:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment it has some {{fact}} templates as well as a {{in-universe}} and a {{Unreferenced}} at the bottom of the page. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are unreferenced and cleanup tags at the end of the article: aren't they supposed to be at the top? Kind of hard to support an article with tags. Sandy 14:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the reason I didn't see those... GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 14:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lacks references. The Wookieepedian 14:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object due to the lack of references. -- Underneath-it-All 17:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object due to an extensive amount of fancruft.Dan 18:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This comment is not particularly helpful. Raul654 06:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The entire "Talents and powers" section is wholly unencyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Ever seen an article about Darth Vader in an encyclopedia? However, I quite agree and I have moved that section to the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose due to lack of references and excess in-universe details that need to be compressed, trimmed, and reworded. — Deckiller 19:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object. I concur with the above. Moreover, the article contains possible OR in such speculative lines as "Judging by the origin of the other Sith names, Vader may also possibly be a derivative of the word 'invader,'" and "Darth Vader also resembles an inverted King Arthur in relationship with Luke Skywalker as an inverted Mordred." I'm unsure if this is objectionable, but I also dislike the biography's structure: shouldn't the prequel and its developments precede discussion of the original triology?--Monocrat 04:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No, because it isn't a biography; it's a plot summary. Putting the prequels first moves the emphasis away from how the character developed in real life (from fearsome blackguard to conflicted villain to fallen hero) to how the character developed in a fictional universe. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the writing could be much cleaner, the references are lacking and are mostly cruftic in nature. Surely there have been numerous commentaries on Darth Vader from scholars which are independent of the Star Wars fan club and their work should be cited. The cultural figure section is not very good, focusing on a list of examples (some of which are shall we say... marginal...) rather than commentary. The talents and powers section is crufty beyond belief. No effort is made towards conciseness, especially in the plot sections (also crufty, e.g. "Vader turns on his master and throws him into a deep shaft, where he explodes in a fury of dark energies."). Pascal.Tesson 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose misplaced spoiler warning disrupts flow of article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • How is it misplaced? Where should it go? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

{{spoiler}}

• • • "the Death Star is destroyed moments later," should be removed, a paragraph break and a spoiler tag should be inserted before "Vader then reveals his true identity...", all mentions of "father" should be excised from Return of the jedi, paragraph break and spoiler tag before "Unable to bear the sight of his son in pain," remove vast majority of "Prequel trilogy," as it is better explained in the Anakin Skywalker (seperate issue), except for stub describing the transition and reasons for, which requires no spoiler tags. Spoilers should only be provided for plot details that would severly detract from an individuals ability to enjoy the movie - only the father in empire and the ending of return do so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It's absurd enough that there's a seperate page for Anakin Skywalker (the same person) without creating a spoiler tag tornado of "begin/end" tags here. There's a single tag at the top of the page before the table of contents already. Organization and presentation on this character have already been infringed enough without further breaking down format through the use of several "begin/end" tags and the removal of vital information. For that matter, I really don't see how this qualifies as a spoiler in the eyes of any culture anyway. Prior to the release of the prequel trilogy, "Anakin Skywalker" was synonomous with "Darth Vader" (we'd never known him as anything but that), and when the prequel trilogy came along, the filmmakers themselves casually talked about the fact that Anakin's transformation into Darth Vader would be revealed. Even one of the posters advertising The Phantom Menace showed young Anakin standing beside a wall, with his shadow being the silhouette of Darth Vader. Ryu Kaze 14:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Try and find a few more references :)... --Skully Collins 07:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: There's far too few references, too great an in-universe presentation, unencyclopedic and flowery wording (ex: "Vader still possesses his former persona's amazing engineering skills..."), a lot of cruft mixed with fan speculation, and it's just way too bloated. Quite simiply, there's a lot of unnecessary information that isn't vital to an understanding of the character (most of which is the aforementioned cruft, in sections like "Talents" and "Cultural", though "Behind", "Cultural" and even "Expanded Universe" have some too).

Overall, it needs a complete copy-edit, with the original trilogy info being condensed a bit more (though I'm pleased to see that it's as short as it is; Return of the Jedi is the only one that's excessive in terms of quantity; Hope and Empire aren't bad at all). Additionally, an out-of-universe perspective and encyclopedic tone needs to be assumed all throughout. This means lines like "However, he controls his anger..." through "...Jedi's funeral" could be condensed into something as simple as "However, he restrains himself and refuses to kill Vader. Due to this, Palpatine decides that Luke is unsuitable as an apprentice and attacks him with Force lightning. Unable to defend himself, Luke begs Vader for help, finally prompting him to betray and kill the Emperor by throwing him into a shaft leading to the Death Star's core. However, errant bolts of Palpatine's Force lightning destroy Vader's life support system, and he orders Luke to escape from the Death Star without him. Despite Luke's protests and attempt to save his father's life, Vader soon dies from his injuries, but is able to reconcile with Luke and pass away peacefully. Luke then escapes from the battle station, taking Vader's body with him, and later burning it in the manner of a Jedi's funeral". Basically, let the facts speak for themselves. The reader doesn't need to be blatantly told that Luke refuses to kill Vader while realizing that his anger was just sending him down the same path that his father had walked. An understanding of what happened to Vader will convey that well enough on its own.

There's good stuff here, but a lot of it needs to be reworded and seperated from the unencyclopedic material. Ryu Kaze 14:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. "Behind the scenes" should be named something like "Character design". Ryu Kaze 14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object far too many citation needed templates in use, the lead section is not a good summary of the main points of the article, "Expanded universe" needs to be rewritten (at the very least explain what an "expanded universe" means in Star Wars terms), there is a "Trivia" section (bad, bad, bad!!!) that should be merged into the main article. Very far from being ready, though I do see a lot of effort has gone into it, and I do appreciate the effort that has been undertaken to get it to FA status. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Indonesia

I find this article extremely informative and proffesionally done. I think that it has been very well-written, and is therefore some of Wikipedia's best work.

• Object Unreferenced Sandy 18:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object Needs references. -- Underneath-it-All 20:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object unreferenced. AdamBiswanger1 04:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object only one ref, very little on culture, Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object; yes, very proffesional, with a single reference. —Nightstallion (?) 13:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Some odd prose here and there.
  • "Though Japan captured Java by March 1942, it initially could not find any national leader willing to collaborate with the Japanese government against the Dutch." What other government would they want a national leader to collaborate with, besides themselves?
  • "Most Indonesians speak at least one of the several hundreds of local languages (bahasa daerah) as their first tongue." How can you speak more than one language as your first language?
  • "The parliament chose Mrs. Megawati Sukarnoputri as the new Indonesian president from 2001 to 2004. Mrs. Megawati Sukarnoputri is the daughter of the first Indonesian President, Ir. Sukarno, and the leader of PDI-P, the winner of 1999 election." Do you really need to spell out "Mrs. Megawati Sukarnoputri" twice? Why not just "Sukarnoputri" or just "She"? I don't understand whether "the leader of PDI-P, the winner of 1999 election" refers to Sukarno or Sukarno's spouse. "Winner of the 1999 election" would read better.
  • "Indonesia's first direct presidential election was held in 2004, and won by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono." How about "Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono won Indonesia's first direct presidential election in 2004"? "It was the largest one-day election in the world." This claim begs for clarification (what other kind of election is there?) and citation.

In general, the prose seems heavy and turgid; reading goes slowly. The article would benefit from some pruning, saying the same in fewer words. Peirigill 09:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Andy Lau

One of the best Wikipedia articles ever. Well written. Soundoflolllermania 01:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object - no references, Cantonese names of albums need translating. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Soundoflolllermania's first edit ever was to nominate this article, and all edits so far are only related to this FAC. Looks odd to me. -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - needs major copyedit, completely unsubstantial (no bio information, etc.), long lists, etc. I have to assume the nom was a joke. Matt Deres 03:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - for one, no sources. "Trivia" sections are unencyclopedic, need to be inserted into article itself. Filmography could use formatting into standard style (i.e. see Lindsay Lohan) Mad Jack 06:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose no word about his life; too long lists; no references, it's very far from FA... NCurse _work 19:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose As above + tables often don't have any english translation.--Mcginnly | Natter 11:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose submitter does not understand FA criteria. Rlevse 21:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Denis Diderot

This man is as close as they come to being the ultimate role-model for encyclopedia editors, and the article is excellent. - Eric 11:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the following reasons:

• No references given.
• The structure is a bit puzzling to me: the section "Other works" contains information about the end of his life and his death. The article may benefit from being splitted in one section for his life, and one separate section about his works
• There seems to be one inconcistency about what happenend with his library. One paragraph says he saw no other alternative than to sell his library (and he sells it to Catherine II), and in the next paragraph, His heirs sold his vast library to Catherine II.Schutz 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Referencing consists of a single embedded HTML link and a statement that the "article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition". This level of referencing is inadequate for a featured article. --Allen3 ^talk 12:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object as per Allen3 and Schutz. I don't want to find slabs of text lifted from another encyclopedia, especially without quote marks and attribution. A WP FA should be better than that source in a number of ways. Tony 03:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Object: it seems to rely heavily on the 1911 Britannica and is thus out of date. There has been a lot of new research on Diderot since then. I believe some of the dates in the article are inaccurate. --Folantin 08:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. As per Allen3, Schutz, Tony and Folantin. Some amounts of contributors and sources are needed not to rely on the encyclopedia of 95 years ago. __Okc 09:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Social promotion

I believe this article now meets the criteria for featured article. Please read it carefully before objecting! (I'm so bored)

• Object -- It does not even meet half of the featured article criteria. No references, no pics, short sections, poor prose (use of slang), discusses only Canada and the United States. What about other countries? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: What kind of pictures can you put in it? A picture of a student being promoted! Social promotion is only in the US and Canada. They don't have it in other countries. There wasn't any slang. (I'm so bored)

Comment: If it isn't used in other countries, why not? How do other countries handle students who are lagging? What do educational experts say about these differences between the U.S. and other countries? John Broughton 14:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- ditto Rlevse 15:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Nothing has been fixied since last nomination, also the nominator should learn how to move and archive articles properly.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  15:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object per the reasons I gave in the previous nomination. --Wisden17 15:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object: Too short (8.4 K's according to popups), no refs per Cite.php, and one large intro (split that into three). Everything else fails the criteria at WP:WIAFA. Move to WP:PR to get ideas on how to improve it. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object: Between June 11, 2006, when this article was first submitted as a candidate for a featured article, and now, the article has had a total of SIX relatively minor edits (four of which I did myself; none of which were done by the person submitting the nomination). Nothing basically has changed since the original submission, so I repeat my original objection: As someone who has contributed a number of edits to the article, but has given up fighting about minor points (like redundant information, poor grammar, etc.), I'd be among the last to consider this article an exemplar for wikipedia. John Broughton 16:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Fodor

This article has been listed as a good article for several months, has had a peer review which resulted in some major restructuring of format and a general overall improvement in readability, and it is extremely well-documented and stable. I literally do not think it is possible to do much better given the lack of offical and unoffical biographies and the nature of the material.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object, there is no fair use rationale on the image - you may as well upload a clearer fair use image too. The lead is not a good summary of the article. The biographcial info is a bit scarse, is he married etc.? There are some concepts that should be linked for clarity like triadic relation. There is some redundancy in the text and too many bracketed statements, and more commas than I want to count - a copyedit by someone who hasn't worked on the text would be a good idea to improve flow.--Peta 10:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use again?? Oh boy!!!Here's the fair use rationale right here:

:::This work is a copyrighted publicity photograph. It is believed that the use of some such photographs to illustrate:

* the person, product, event, or subject in question * in the absence of a free alternative, * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Publicity photos.

Additionally, the copyright holder may have granted permission for use in works such as Wikipedia. However, if they have, this permission likely does not fall under a free license. As well, commercial third-party reusers of this image should consider whether their use is in violation of the subject's publicity rights, if the photograph is of a person.

I don't see any brackets actually. If you're talking about parentheses, I'll see if some can be removed without altering the content. Other than that, this article has been praised by almost every philosopher I know of.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarise yourself with [this].--Peta 10:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm suprised no-one has brought up that point in all the time I've been editing Wikipedia. Anyway, just to keep folks intersted informed, I've added my rationale on the photo page. I cannot possibly get a better quality photo. It's difficult to get any photos of current philosophers. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is subject to deletion -- you're using a template on it that indicates that the image is from a press kit, when it is actually web content from a university. Use {{Non-free fair use in}} if you really think that this image somehow meets Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. I don't understand why we would make such a claim -- it is an image used to identify Mr. Fodor for a website, and we are using it to identify Mr. Fodor on our website -- ther's no transformative use here whatsoever. Further, the subject is still alive; why can't we go photograph him? Jkelly 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the answer to the last question is quite simple if you're referring specifically to me: I LIVE IN ITALY!! I shall delete the photo if that's what you all really want. I have found, through exprerence however, that this sort of thing obviously detracts unconsciously from the appeal of the articles on Wikipedia. Philosophy is not a very image-conducive sort of topic. But without any images at all?? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 06:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in New Jersey. Jkelly 22:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So you propose someone should click on a random user from New Jersey and ask him to track this person down and photograph him? --Shardsofmetal ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 04:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object—2a.
  • Which is better: "1959-1986" or "1959–86"?
  • Is this a good paragraph: "He has two grown children and currently lives in New York City with his wife and his cat."
  • There's a very long quote in the biography section; is it possible to ration the text, perhaps by the deft use of ellision dots?
  • Can this: "Fodor presented one of the fundamental conceptual bases of his thought: the idea that ..." be reduced to: "Fodor introduced one of his fundamental concepts—that ..."

The flab needs to be trimmed throughout. Then I'll support. Tony 02:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. These sorts of stylstic things should not be much of a problem. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 06:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support (dunno if this is too late): the stylistic issues seem to me to be minor, and essentially a matter of taste. The article's content is impressively clear, accurate and in-depth. There aren't enough philosophy articles of this quality on WP, and I think the exceptional nature of this one should be recognised. Cheers, --Sam Clark 12:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support A clear and well-researched article. Sam, I also find the stylistic objections above rather petty. Some minor work on citations is needed. I would also like to see his influence on Zenon Pylyshyn, Murat Aydede and Steven Pinker explained. Banno 22:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...well, the citations are fairly easy to find.

the realation with Murat Aydede and Zenon Pylyshn can probably be explained in a few brief sentences, IMO. But the Pinker would require a whole new section!! Damnit. Excellent point too. But since this is not really an objection....Also, I take everyone's input very seriously. The troublesome photo is gone, the intro is now much closer to being a summary of the rest which can "stand alone" as an artcile, I've removed almost all of the parens, brackets and so on. These objections are supposed to be struck out if they have been addressed. The first commentator seems not to be following the matter though. (he may have legit reasons, of course). The complaint about "flab" is something I have also been working on without assistance. Well, I'll stop blabbering and try to deal with some of this stuff as best as I can.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to explain the link in the Pinker article? Either would I think be fine. Banno 08:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The German Wikipedia is being used as a source. Punctured Bicycle 09:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, for one sentence about the fact that his wife's name is Jean Fodor!! Take a look at it, for heaven's sake. The fact that he has a wife is confirmed in his own writings. I will try to find another source to "verify" that his wife really is the linguist Jean Fodor!!! Oh, for pete's sake!!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

... Punctured Bicycle 11:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Quality of writing is poor (2a). A thorough copyedit is required per WP:WEASEL, WP:PEACOCK and WP:WTA. Examples include:
  • Fodor argues that mental states, such as beliefs and desires, are relations between individuals and mental representations, that these representations can only be correctly explained in terms of a language of thought in the mind, and that this language of thought itself is an actually existing thing that is codified in the brain and not just a useful explanatory tool or hypothesis. Fodor adheres to a species of functionalism and maintains that thinking and other mental processes consist primarily, but not exclusively, of computations operating on the syntactic structure of the representations that constitute the language of thought. (whole paragraph has wording problems)
  • Fodor also maintains that significant parts of the mind, such as perceptual and linguistic processes, are structured in terms of modules, or "organs", which are defined by their causal and functional roles in the overall structure.
  • Fodor suggests that the informationally closed and independent character of these modules permits the possibility of the causal relations with external objects that, in turn, makes it possible for mental states to have contents (meaning and reference) that are about things in the world, while the central processing part takes care of the holistic inferential relations between the various contents and inputs and outputs which is characteristic of the traditional functionalist view.
  • Although Fodor originally rejected the idea that mental states must have, what are now called, "broad contents" in the sense described above involving causal relations, he has in recent years devoted much of his writing and study to the philosophy of language precisely because of this problem of the externally-influenced meaning of mental contents.
  • His most significant contributions in this area include the so-called asymmetric causal theory of reference and his many arguments against semantic holism (both discussed below).
• Almost every sentence needs fixing. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object 2a, prose. Sandy 18:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This article has been sitting out there almost untouched for nearly 6 months. I originally wrote most of it back in February or March. You can check the history. In that time, no-one has apparently seen the need for a thorough copyedit of every sentence. I out it through peer-review and the result was the sort of nonsense that you can see for yourself. I, of course, am incapable of writing by your lights, so I shall not dare to touch the article anymore. If you can fix it yourself, please go ahead and do so!! The point here is to make actionable objections, if I understood the policy correctly. You have, by defintion, disqualified me being capable of acting on your objections. Let me make this extremely clear though: No one else who knows anything about philosophy is going to touch this article. They have all praised me on it, including Professor Dean Buckner. Umm....there are some profoundly differing opinions here, it seems to me. In any case, I suggest that you now go and take a look at the article I have just nominated for FA Hilary Putnam and offer your delicate and refined thoughts on that piece. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You understood us incorrectly. We haven't disqualified you from copyediting. Instead we have provided some excerpts that need fixing. This is an actionable concern and we want you to take action on it. If you can't, ask an experienced editor to do it. There are many of them. We haven't questioned the content, we are only questioning the quality, that anyone, even someone completely unaware of the topic can do. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why don't you help me out with it?? For example, I have just made a few changes to the intro.

Is this better or worse or what, from your perspective? Stay with me here please. I've never been criticed in this way and I do not feel well at the moment.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You are moving the the right direction. Your imrpovements are quite satisfactory, and you need to apply them to the whole article. Since you ask, I have already got an article featured through similar harrowing process, and in the end it was worth it. The article is a beauty now. I am currently taking another article through Peer Review, another through Featured Article Review, almost single handedly doing the improvements. You can see the history for the improvements I have made to those articles. Do you still feel that I don't contribute, and only pass by and curse. You asked about any editor who will help with the article. Why don't you go and ask at WikiProject Philosophy. I am sure someone will help. Best of luck. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, no,no... I was not referring to YOU at all in that comment in the first place. Also, I was making two separate points, neither of which was intended to refer to you. Anyway, I appreciate your response. As to asking for help, etc,...I suspect the problem is that you have not had to deal with philosophy articles and the philosophy "project" on here. There is no such thing. Or, to the extent that there is, it is total chaos, illiteracy, madness. You just have to take my word for this. This is my only other Featured Article. The total number of philosophy FAs is about 6 or 7. I AM the philosophy of mind section and it is not even my main area of expertise!! Look at the history of the "philosophy of mind" article. I took it over, discarded everything that was there and merged it with the article mind-body problem. The peer review was completely useless. The FA was somewhat helpful in incerasing the number of refernces. Other than that, I had to do it all myself. Anyway...--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

History of Singapore

Many editors have contributed to this article. It provides a broad overview of the subject, with a number of daughter articles available to furnish the details. It has many references and the content is stable. --Vsion 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object, the lead is full of weasel words and does not provide a very good summary of the whole article. Fair use images don't have rationales, I'm not sure about some that are claimed as PD either, as there is no verfication prodided on Wikpedia for copyright expiry for Singapore to back up the claim that they are PD. I'm also uneasy about the use of LOC country studies as reliable sources - they shouldn't be wrong - but they might be. It's not as if there aren't lots of good books to use, even the LOC has a list of sources they used.--Peta 02:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mind you, the LOC is a neutral take on what the government pumps out in its education system every day, so IMO it's a fairly reputable source to use, given that I find nothing particularly wrong about them and it's basically a source for facts citizens have been schooled about. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. per Peta. Also, an article of this length should have a lengthier lead. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO for a country with a history of less than 200 years, the lead has enough information; of course if you think otherwise, please suggest on how to lengthen the lead.

• Comment'. Sorry, how is the lead full of weasel words? A lead section is a lead section, it's supposed to have weasel words for risk of being wordy (see Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia). Why should it be longer? As I see it - this is the perfect size for a lead section, which isn't supposed to exceed 2-3 paragraphs. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I see a couple of weasel words right off the bat: "a relatively minor role" and "becoming one of the most important port cities." How about "a minor role" and "becoming a key [or 'pivotal,' or 'influential'] port city"? My rule of thumb regarding the length of the lede is that if a topic is important enough to merit a section heading, it's important enough to be in the lede. That's not the case here. Either some of the sections should be consolidated, or the lede should be expanded, or both. Peirigill 00:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I went through and typo-edited the entire article, not that there were many to find. I will say that it's really anoying to look for typos in this though- silly British spellings, with your U's and your S's. --PresN 03:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Perhaps the editors of the article could decide on whether they wish to use British English or American English. I've spotted a mix of both after skimming through the article. --R4ge 01:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Support. The article lead seems to have been extended, and I believe the weasel words have been removed. Overall it gives a very accurate and detailed history of the country. R4ge 05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra

I know that this article could use some cleanup, but I think that there is a ton of useful information on here that, if formatted properly, could easily become one of Wikipedia's best articles. Soakologist 20:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, the discussion of Sinatra's place in music is brilliant. We do need to get the links with organized crime sorted out though. Gareth E Kegg 21:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object—2a. I do hope that this becomes a FA, but it will need work to satisfy the criterion. Let's take a look at the lead, which needs to be rewritten, I'm afraid.
  • "Francis Albert Sinatra (12 December 1915 – 14 May 1998) was an American singer who is one of the most highly acclaimed male popular song vocalists of all time." Remove "an American singer who is" as mostly redundant. By taking out "American", you strengthen the scope, which is justified, IMV. Tell us in another sentence that he was American, or slip it in here in a way that doesn't narrow the scope.
  • The second paragraph is a one-sentence stub. Either merge it (two paras would be OK, I think) or expand it.
  • Please get rid of "also"—every sentence is an also, and here, it weakens the impact.
  • The "Chairman of the Board" reference should be relocated further down, where it can be explained on the spot, or enlarged on in the lead. There's not even a reference for it.
  • "Similarly, he found considerable attention given to his alleged connections with the Mafia." Similarly to what? The previous sentence is about something quite different. "He found" is clumsy ("There was") might be better—I'm unsure. This third paragraph needs to be recast so that the fragmented morsels are set in a clear, all-embracing statement. At the moment, the lead is disorganised; in particular, the epithets describing his style are disconnected.

Although the rest of the article doesn't suffer from quite the same level of disorganisation, it could do with TLC by a good copy-editor. My eyes should not catch sentences such as "Sinatra had begun appearing in movies in the early 1940s, but usually in musicals, often undistinguished ones. ("But" needs to contrast with the previous statement; we don't need "usually" and "often"—why not "... 1940s, in many cases undistinguished musicals".) You know where to find the copy-editors? Tony 02:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- please replace all of the unfree images in the article with the freely-licensed images at commons:Frank Sinatra. Jkelly 21:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object prose problems mentioned above, some weasle words, and lack of inline citations. It appears that the citations are available (in the Further reading), but not used inline. Also, please convert your References (which should be Notes) to a more formal style (I did two – FBI and Mafia – as an example). Sandy 02:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It was rated as a B-Class article Tomer T 17:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Charizard

Previous failed FAC

This is the second time this has been nominated for FAC. After fixing all the problems in the last FAC, me and a few other PCP members fixing the refs, and making a few changes, I think its just about ready now, cheers —Minun ^Spiderman 18:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. References section should be split into "Footnotes" and "References" sections, "References" including the DVDs, publications and volumes. — Wackymacs 18:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment, have I done it right? —Minun ^Spiderman 19:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yep, thats one improvement...However as the others have said, there are problems with the sources. — Wackymacs 19:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know what "small number" means in order to be "fair use". I noticed however that all 6 images are property of "Pokémon USA, Inc." and it is possible that that exceeds the "small number" allowed. Sijo Ripa 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Basically nearly everything, anime, video games and toys etc, is owned by Pokemon Inc and it would be very hard to get pictures that adequately describe the subject matter without resorting to fair use. You can't really illustrate the video game without using images from the video game or box art, if you know what I mean. Harryboyles 04:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote now: Conditional object. First of all, images are not necessary for an article to be a FA (see: Wikipedia:What is a featured article?). Secondly, only the first image seems to be really necessary for this article, because it is very difficult to describe such a fictional creature. Thirdly, the fair use rules takes precedence over our wishes. I think the number of pictures should be trimmed down to 1-2 (perhaps 3), which is without any doubt a "small number" and "proportional". There shouldn't be any doubt left for a FA, which are after all our leading and shining examples. Sijo Ripa 12:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the anime, lead and TCG images are the most important, since the manga isn't described at all, and the game atwork isn't a screenshot. CHeers, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 12:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to describe the anime and manga in the article text, as this is by itself not too hard (the creature is decsribed and shown above and anime and manga are two well established genres (and the Pokemon anime and manga perhaps even have their own articles available on Wikipedia). It seems more difficult for the TCG and the lead, so I think that those two images constitute "fair use". I'm not an expert though. Sijo Ripa 12:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the style of battling is very different in the anime, and Pokémon can often look different. What's it doing in the picture, battling an Articuno is also a reference to its imense power. Th reason the TCG is fair use is becasue that card was at one point the most expensive and elusive card in the whole game, and probably still is. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 14:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object there are still not enough secondary sources. And there hasn't been any visible check of all the references, after it failed the refernce spot check 5/5. Nothing has been chaged in the article, why bother? Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 21:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Per above. Hezzy 18:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object We don't need another pokemon as a FA. This article isn't important enough to be a FA in my opinion. We could have a country or famous person and that would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan the Magnificent (talk • contribs)
  • Not a valid reason to object. Subject matter is not relevant to FAC. —Cuiviénen 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If you wish to keep the balance of featured articles on the side of countries, I recommend you get to work. We don't, and shouldn't, retain a balance by suppressing perfectly good Pokemon articles, we do so by working on other articles to bring them up to standard. The failings of our country articles are not the fault of Pokemon articles and we shouldn't treat Pokemon articles as if this were the case. Of course, everything I've so far said ignores the fact that we promote features articles on grounds of quality, not content. PS. It is considered against etiquette (or Wikiquette) to post a comment without signing it.--Oldak Quill 02:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Goldfish

Samsara and I have helped to reorganize, wikify, reference, and greatly improve this article. This is the third time this article has been nominated. QuizQuick 20:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Scarcity of inline citations and references. Wisdom89 21:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object - in addition to the above concern, the article is once again in need of a thorough copyedit. Why not wait for the Good Article decision first? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object - entire sections without references. Morgan695 04:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• *Support. Hezzy 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC) On second thought, Object.Hezzy 18:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hezzy, just so you know, FAC isn't a vote, so objecting without a reason given is meaningless. Fieari 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• That said, Object, for the reasons above. Fieari 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • The first line feels weak. I expect the first line to define the subject, and to start strong. While the early domestication and popularity of goldfish makes your topic notable, it doesn't tell me what a goldfish is, and the notability is markedly weakened by the phrase "one of the...". I'd suggest starting with something like "The goldfish is a popular aquarium fish belonging to the carp family."
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lede should summarize the article, and should not include details not found later in the article. My rule of thumb is that if a topic is important enough to merit a section header, it should at least be mentioned in the lede. I see nothing about feeding, behavior, breeding, etc., in your lede.
  • Similarly, the lede should include only the most important information. The fact that the carp family includes koi and crucians, or that proto-goldfish were "gray/olive/brown," isn't central enough to your topic to merit inclusion in the lede. Both of these facts would be better mentioned in the History section. The mutation of cyprinids belongs in History or Breeding, perhaps, but not in the lede.
  • Word choices often weaken the meaning, almost becoming "weasel words." The goldfish is "one of the earliest" fish to be domesticated. It is "one of the most commonly kept" fish. Goldfish are "relatively small" as carp go. Goldfish "may grow" to 23 inches. "Most" goldfish "generally" live for six to eight years. "It is quite possible that owners will notice." "Goldfish should learn." See if you can strengthen the impact, perhaps with concrete data, like "Goldfish are highly popular aquarium fish, accounting for 55% of aquarium fish sales worldwide." You could also simply say that the goldfish is "a small member of the carp family" and that "goldfish grow to a maximum length of 23 inches" without changing the meaning. You could say "however, household goldfish have an average lifespan of six to eight years" or "household goldfish average only six to eight years."
  • Some words get unnecessarily repeated. The phrase "one of the" appears twice in the first sentence. "Domesticated" is mentioned twice in the first paragraph. The word "egg" appears twice in the passage "Goldfish, like all cyprinids, are egg-layers. They produce adhesive eggs that attach to aquatic vegetation."
  • You rely on several devices that impede flow. "Gray/olive/brown," for example, practically stops me in my tracks. Even after stopping to parse this phrase, I'm not clear whether you mean that each fish was all three colors, that each fish could be any one of these colors, or that the fishes were an indeterminate color that mixed gray, olive, and brown together. Your use of parentheses also impedes flow: "(which also includes the koi...)" and "(first domesticated in China)" both slow down reading and imply that the information is of secondary importance. If this information really is of secondary importance, it doesn't belong in the lede.
  • "Goldfish, like all cyprinids, are egg-layers." How about "Golfish, like all cyprinids, lay eggs"? Use strong verbs when available and appropriate.
  • The organization needs improvement. For example, you mention in the first paragraph that goldfish are "relatively small," but you discuss their size in detail in the second paragraph. Find a way to bring the topic and the supporting details together. The section on Mosquito control is too short to justify its own section; either expand it or merge it into another section.
  • I'm not crazy about the lists. Since you tell us more about the different varieties later in the article, why not remove the list altogether and replace it with a table of links at the bottom of the article? The section on Chinese varieties should be easy to convert to paragraph form.
  • Several sections, including Feeding, Native environment, and Breeding, have no references. The Behavior section has only one.
  • Why is "cyprinid" blue-linked in the Breeding section but not in the lede? Please fix the red link on "generalist."
  • Per WP:MOS, section headers shouldn't include the title of the article. You should rename the five section headers that include the word "goldfish." "Edibility and cruelty" implies that goldfish are edible and cruel, which is not what you mean.
  • Per WP:CAPTION, try to take advantage of some reviewers' preference for captions that are complete sentences. Instead of "Goldfish swimming in a goldfish bowl," use the caption to reinforce some fact about the goldfish's size, or popularity as aquarium fish, or coloration, so that the image illustrates the article rather than just decorating it.

I hope these suggestions help. Peirigill 00:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Earth

Great article about essential topic. Luka Jačov 20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Support - per nomination. Luka Jačov 20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Temporary oppose This is mostly an aesthetic issue. Can you somehow integrate section 7.2.1 "Extremes" so the material is at the same header level as the other sections? It sticks out like an ugly duckling at the moment. The heading "Descriptions of Earth" did not give me much of an idea of what to expect. Presumably the whole article is a description... "Symbolism"? "Cultural significance"? I also corrected a layouting issue by placing one picture on the right rather than left. If you really want to have it on the left, let me know, I may have an idea how it can be done. Cheers. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Also please respond to User:OldakQuill's concern, below. My support is conditional on this. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional support. The article is nice but could use a few improvements:
  • The "Geography" section is waaay to listy.
  • Plate tectonics is a theory? I thought it was an established fact... (I'm no expert though)
  • "Extreme" section is listy.

That's all I can think of atm, but these should be fixed. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Theories can be true. My impression is that this change in usage happened in the evolution vs. creationism debate - now any theory with solid evidence is called a "fact". Facts, however, really are observable little fragments. Hypotheses about how things work are often not directly observable contemporaneously in their entirety and therefore couldn't be considered "facts". Talk about scientists getting emotional... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Facts, theories and hypotheses are three quite distinct things, their meanings have not changed in recent times. A fact is an objective and verifiable observation. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural phenomena. A hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon or reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. Despite all the evidence we have for plate tectonics, the entire process has not been objectively and verifiably observed. --Oldak Quill 04:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose for now. Right off the bat, 21 inline citations and another three non-inline refs to reference the planet upon which the subjects of most other Wikipedia articles resides is just too thin. Obvious things that need easy sourcing exist, as with the paragraph on Hitchhiker's Guide. Two page references, one for the "Harmless" entry and one for the "Mostly harmless" entry. The see also section could (and should, IMO) be converted into a template rather than an odd table of links in the article (it would connect various "Earth" topics much more nicely). Also, the development of life on Earth is rather jumpy in the summary history section, maybe the topic warrants a subsection of history (certainly needs some expanded coverage). Also, the article seems heavily scientific. The Descriptions of Earth section isn't very well written, is very thinly referenced, and doesn't include what seems like a logical section to be merged in - the "Symbol" section from Lexicography. Even that single section of non-scientific content is heavily scientific with little note of lore. Earth has played a massive role in images and stories from various societies, but figures like Gaia get half of a parenthetical in one sentence that isn't referenced? Finally, the lead could probably use some trimming. Basically, to summarize:

1. More references, preferably inline.
2. See also section converted to a template.
3. Expand the development of life on Earth info one way or another.
4. Merge "Symbol" into "Descriptions of Earth"
5. Properly reference what text is currently in "DoE"
6. Expand and possibly rewrite "DoE".

Sorry for the long list, but this is a pretty wide piece of subject matter. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Only 21 citations and 3 references for Earth? That's really low for something like this. There obviously have to be thousands of books you could get information from. The section needs to be beefed up. I'd like to see at least 10 books and 50 cites for a scientific article of this importance. --SeizureDog 00:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. One of the most amazing features of Earth is that it has had the correct conditions for life to evolve. There is too little information on this (primordial soup to present day biosphere) for this article to be featurable. --Oldak Quill 04:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

See the first paragraph of ==Environment and ecosystem==. If there is not enough info there, it it is due to the necessary summary style of the whole article. -- Rmrfstar 15:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Support—Mostly well written.

• • The link fairy has been hard at it, diluting the value of the important links (I've removed some at the top).
  • The third paragraph requires references.
  • "Changes in the orbit of the planet may also be responsible for the ice ages that have covered significant portions of the surface in glacial sheets."—Doesn't the changing tilt of the planet also contribute to ice ages? Insert "partly" before "responsible"?
  • You state that "The Earth does not have another natural orbiting body other than the Moon" and that the Moon is the Earth's "largest natural satellite". Tony 16:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support

**Geology and atmosphere sections are too short **Magnetic field should be before Earth in the solar system section **Geography is like a data list. It should be in prose. At least the first part of it

• • Earth's future section: what about the impacts of human being?

**Needs mush more references and external links. BTW: good article. NCurse _work 20:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Without actually reading most of the text, the formatting of the article is clearly poor and lists (as opposed to prose) abound. Try to turn some of the lists into paragraphs, improve the use and spacing of images and expand or merge some of the shorter sections. —Cuiviénen 03:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Easily meets FA standards. We do not need citations for citations' sake, and the facts are well-referenced where necessary. Again, we must remember that not everything about Earth can be dealt with here in full. -- Rmrfstar 15:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not enough inline citations, there are entire sections which as far as we know are somebody's fictional ideas: 'Lexicography', 'Atmosphere', 'Earth in the solar system', 'Magnetic field', 'Plate tectonics'... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Gulf War

Good Article, well written. Mercenary2k 11:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support A well reference, well written article. Good use of pictures and an informative structure of writing. While the article is a bit long (83kbs), I think that the infomation included justifies this. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose,

1. Lead is not a decent summary of the article, see WP:LEAD
2. Quotes should not be in italics
3. TIME cover is not necessary or justified - we don't need a TIME cover to prove the event happened - which seems to be the only purpose the images is serving
4. The text is flabby, there is duplication of the same information in several places, for example the coalition is described in Diplomacy/operation shield section and another section on the coaltion, isn't there a better way to present this without the duplication (mabye a table?); the health effects of DU are discussed in two separate sections.
5. No reference for the cost section. Also it is unlcear who those costs apply to.
6. Consequences is unreferrenced, opinions should have propper cites. Same goes for the casualties section
7. I'm not sure the technology section is necessary, and may be better merged into some other part of the text

--Peta 13:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Mild Object A good article, but the lead could be improved (especially by summarising the end result of the conflict). The Time magazine image could also be moved to the media section.--Thud495 14:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose This is a really good, thorough, well presented article, let down by a lack of spit and polish. As above, the lead needs work

1. Hostilities commenced in January 1991, resulting in a decisive victory for the coalition forces, which drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait with minimal coalition deaths. Previously in the paragraph we are told that the war started on August 2 1990 with the invasion of Kuwait. The sentence above should make it more clear that allied hostilities commenced in January 1991.
2. Minimal should be thought about as well I think. Is it minimal in comparison to the Iraq forces or just a few blokes and goats died? Too woolly.
3. The image Image:Tanksatdocks.jpg is a broken link.
4. Could use some more inline citation (One per paragraph min?).

--Mcginnly 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose, simply because of ambiguous/misleading title; an unambiguous title should be chosen that does not confuse this with the first Gulf War. 195.250.64.76 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Image:GWI DU map.gif should be svg. I can barely read the text in the current version. WP 06:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Myanmar

See also: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myanmar/Archive

Nomination for featured article quality- Since 2006 (last nomination) the article has been greatly expanded, particualrly the "Culture" section and the lead paragraph. Information on the country's history has been extensively covered and referenced since last nomination, and every paragraph is thoroughly referenced with citations of reputable sources (NGOs, government agencies, academic journals, encyclopedia, etc.)

Self nomination After an extensive peer review of this article, tremendous changes have been made, improving the article's quality, tone, and verifiability. Therefore, I nominate this article. --Hintha 17:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support with quibble. All objections I pointed out at the last FAC were solved. The only thing is that I would rather see the lead expanded slightly to reach 3 paragraphs instead of 2, given the article length (48k). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The first reference I clicked on (currently number 41) doesn't go to the article indicated. Please doublecheck all your refs, and let me know when you're done. Sandy 17:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Not sure what you mean by "doesn't go to the article indicated". I clicked on #41 and it went right to the correct note at the bottom.--WilliamThweatt 19:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Oh, now I see -- the link itself pointed to the wrong article. I have fixed the link and checked the others. They all appear to be fine now.--WilliamThweatt 19:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support article has vastly improved over last FAC. It went through Peer Review answering all concerns raised there. A tremendous amount of research, fact-checking and general copyediting has went into this version of the article. Article now appears to meet all the criteria for FAC.--WilliamThweatt 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support as it meets all of the Featured article criteria. Hintha 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• SupportMild Object, the article switches between DD MMM YYYY and MMM DD YYYY. They should all be the same, preferably MMM DD YYY. Other than that, good work. Rlevse 20:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Those have been fixed. --Hintha 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and mild object. The article shouldn't use MM DD YYYY as this is not Myanmar's standard, MM DD YYYY is only used in the US, Canada, Micronesia and Indonesia. --Oldak Quill 12:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Response That seems to be user preference issue, because despite how the date is placed in the editing box, its display (MM DD YYYY > DD MM YYYY and vice versa) can be modified in the user preferences. Hintha 13:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Since anons, who make up the majority of our readership, do not have this choice, it is not an issue of preference. The date format should be determined by the subject matter. --Oldak Quill 16:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
      • That has been taken care of. --Hintha 21:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Although the sentences are still a little choppy, I think the article's strengths outweigh its weaknesses and deserves to be featured.

**Comment Also:

"endowed upon its peoples a rich and unique heritage"

The lead is not a brochure. Every country in the world has a rich and unique heritage. Again, see the lead in Canada
Otherwise beautiful article --User:Jaw101ie 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• worked on that. Rlevse 00:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Image:Daw_Aung_San_Suu_Kyi.JPEG needs fair use rationale. Andrew Levine 23:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Taken care of. Rlevse 00:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object there are some referencing problems, and prose problems, which call for a thorough copy edit by a fresh set of eyes. Picking a random section in the middle:
  • Myanmar is one of the poorest nations in the world, suffering from decades of stagnation, mismanagement, and isolation. Needs a reference: there are various ways of measuring wealth, and the reader isn't told what this is based on.
  • Lucrative industries of gems, oil and forestry remain heavily regulated. They have recently been exploited by foreign corporations which have partnered with the government to gain access to Myanmar's natural resources. Needs a reference.
  • Myanmar was designated a least developed country in 1987.[39] Tourism has been encouraged by the government. However, fewer than 750,000 tourists enter the country annually.[40] Prose is choppy.
  • Not comprehensive: Many nations, including the United States, Canada, and the European Union, have imposed trade sanctions on Myanmar. Why? Problems with human rights are mentioned in earlier sections, but this sentence leaves us hanging.
• Those are examples from a few paragraphs only. Sandy 02:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. 1ne 17:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object Image:National League for Democracy flag.png, Image:MyanmarAdministrativeDivisions.png and Burmese characters should be in SVG. Also, is it necessary to include so many government departments in the external links? WP 11:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It is comprehensive, has undergone mostly minor edits recently, etc. --Gray Porpoise 19:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose

1. The politics section should be about the government now - not other counties and human rights organisations views of the government. The article doesn't even mention what sort of parliamentary system the country operates under, that there are political parties or that the country has elections or the frequency of those elections. Discussion of foreign relations, sanctions, military abuses ect should all be moved to a section on foreign relations and military. At the very least the internal politics need to be distinguised from the international politics.
2. The image Image:Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.JPEG should not be there, I don't think that fair use is justified here.
3. There is no mention of media in the culture section, is there freedom of the press in Myanmar?

--Peta

• • Response The government does not have a parliament (it never convened) at present. The majority of political parties elected in the last election (held in 1990) have been illegalised (which are all in the History section). The government is the military. --Hintha 05:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • This section should explain that - it should not be coloured by whether we think that is a bad thing. The way it is set up does not present a NPOV.--Peta 13:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I've added information about politics, and moved foreign relations/military to a new section. I've also removed the Aung San Suu Kyi image. Hintha 00:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm a casual browser of this article, and would like to know why Peta thinks Image:Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.JPEG would not be not fair use here. She's being discussed in the Politics section, and the caption giving an overview was sourced. I won't readd the image, since it's not essential, but I thought her image illustrated an important element of Myanmar's politics, and added a visual human element to the Politics section. The next prominent face is several sections below, in Demographics. TransUtopian 04:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • The photo of Aung San Suu Kyi should be replaced. She is one of the foremost politicians/leaders/symbols and known worldwide. Her contributions and legacy are very important, as the article discusses so I believe the use of the photo is not only justified but added quality to the article.--WilliamThweatt 04:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• The image of Aung San Suu Kyi is not necessary for us to understand what is going on in the text, it is not commented on in a meaningful way - so the rationale for fair use is just not there. Read WP:FU if you need more infomration on what is and isn't a fair use. The politics secion has improved - but still needs work, the last paragraph in particular should be divided between history and foreign relations. there is still no mention of media in the country and as Tony points out below, the grammar needs work.--Peta 00:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Would a public domain photo of her be okay? I'm still looking. state.gov's only Burma pic of her is credited AP/Wide World Photo. TransUtopian 02:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Sandy. It's good in many respects, so why not network to find someone else to go over it properly. For example, the lead has the following blemishes:
  • "on the north" should be "to the north" - I notice that after a sequences of ons, we do finally get a "to".
  • "overcome coups d'état" - is this a reference to the current military dictatorship? If so, it's unclear.
  • "The country's culture, heavily influenced by regional neighbours,..." - Pick the two redundant words.
  • "One-third of Myanmar's total perimeter" - Just "A third" will do; remove "total".
  • "Myanmar's diverse population" - This is vague.

Please don't just fix these examples; the whole text needs serious attention. Tony 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. A citation spot check turned up enough problematic cases to suggest a wider issue with referring to sources that relate to but don't directly support the article's claims (results here). Someone needs to go through and straighten that out; also, books cited need ISBNs. --Robth^Talk 05:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

Already a good article, and already has had a peer review. Its a fantastic article. All that put together makes a Featured Article. 11kowrom 18:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- Why do we think that Image:Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader.jpg is the work of a federal government employee? Jkelly 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment\Object -- The Image source is www.house.gov, which does make it public; however, this article still needs several citations, especially under the consumer advocacy section. Furthermore, while the coverage of his political ambitions is lengthy, I think that sections on his consumer advocacy and clashes with the automobile industry need to be more comphrehensive.--Thud495 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not everything at house.gov is in the PD. Everything that is created by a federal employee in the course of their duties is. House members get webhosting from house.gov that they can publish their own photos in. They don't become PD by being uploaded to house.gov. Jkelly 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object Not all citations are inline, tons of citation needed tags, not enough detail in some sections (mostly on early career), etc. Quotes should be in wikiquote. Mad Jack 20:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object I diddn't have time to read the entire article, but I noticed a few things.

1. Way to many red links, not sure if that is a valid point, but there is a giant list of almost all red links, not very useful
2. History of his political career is lengthy, a triming would help.
3. Very few pictures. If no more can be found, then this can be ignored.
4. as mentioned by Mad Jack, the quotes should be moved to wikiquote.

Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object—2a. Here are examples from the lead that suggest that the whole text needs a good massage.
  • "Issues he has promoted include consumer rights, feminism, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government. Nader has also been a strong critic of"—Why not: "He has promoted consumer rights, feminism, humanitarianism, environmentalism and democratic government. Nader has been a strong critic of ..."—Go through it and weed out the "such as", "including", "etc", tags unless you really want to indicate that you're only giving us some of the items. Redundant "also"; remove it for better flow.
  • "the creation of many governmental and non-governmental organisations, such as the EPA, OSHA, Public Citizen, PIRGs and many more"—The "such as" says it all, doesn't it? Remove the over-informal "and many more". Again, there's an overuse of listing and subset tags—remove "many"?
  • "(1996, 2000, 2004)"—Make it "(1996, 2000 and 2004)".
  • "In 1996 and 2000 he was the nominee of the Green Party; Winona LaDuke was his vice-presidential running mate" These two ideas are so close that you might consider replacing the semicolon: "In 1996 and 2000 he was the nominee of the Green Party, and Winona LaDuke was his vice-presidential running mate."
  • People will hate the extent of your reliance on bulleted lists. See if you can recast some into running prose, and trim or eliminate others. This will sink the nomination otherwise. Tony 04:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object, citations need to be cleaned up. Inline web links are mixed with ref tags. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

New York Yankees

Great team, great article. Deserves to be featured. Sportskido8

• Object. I will not debate the merits of the team, but the article has several issues that need to be addressed before it is featured quality. 1) The article has an active dispute that needs to be resolved before it can be considered stable. 2) Besides a handful of embedded HTML links there is no form of inline citation. 3) As per WP:CITE, full citation are needed for the embedded HTML links 4) The "Quick facts" section is a bulleted list of triva that needs to be converted into prose. 5) The bottom half of the article is very list heavy. I would recommend combining the "Season-by-Season Records" and "Postseason appearances" sections into a single table to reduce this problem. --Allen3 ^talk 15:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object per all of the above, and no refs gets a speedy object from me. We can't ask Wiki readers to just "take our word for it". Sandy 18:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object This article is a) too long (86kb's is way too much for the info that's on here), b)Way to listy for an FA (Borderline listcruft in places), c)fails 2a d) doesn't have as many pictures as I would like too see for an article of its size and cultural importance. Thε Halo ^Θ 22:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object Image:Yankees ny1.jpg and Image:Al 2005 newyork 01.gif should be SVG or PNG. WP 09:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Update I fixed the ugly list and combined the records and postseason into 1 table. I'm also trying to add more pictures but these copyright laws are a pain and I'm having problems adding them in even with permission from the picture owners.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Good thurough article that has been peer reviewed. Thirds times a charm! --The_stuart 03:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First nomination Second nomination

• Object unreferenced. Sandy 03:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If this is the third time this article has been a FAC, then links to the two previous nominations ought to be provided so people can see what action has been (or havn't been) taken to improve the article. WegianWarrior 07:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object Compression artefacts on Image:Roger Rabbit.jpg; there are still {{fact}} tags WP 09:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object, just about no inline citations. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Thermopylae

Very informative, well written, neutral, cites its sources and provides many references and outside links, goes indepth about the battle itself, the aftermath, why it was notable, and its impact on modern culture. --DA Roc 23:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong object:

• Lead is too short.
• The level of inline citation is utterly inadequate for an article of this length. Such citation as is present is a confusing mix of footnotes and parenthetical references. Many of the footnotes are ambiguous or simply meaningless. ("VII, 202"? How is the reader supposed to know what this means?)
• All the sections from "Oracle at Delphi" onward aren't real prose—much less "brilliant" prose—as they are composed primarily of extended quotes and lists of trivia.

This needs a lot more work before it can be featured. Kirill Lokshin 00:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object Besides all of the above, please put refs after punctuation. Prose also needs a lot of work. Here is a random section:
  • It must be noted the 110,000 Greek troops of Plataea did not include forces from Thebes, Thessaly and the northern Greek kingdoms, which, from a belief of inevitable Greek defeat and desire to save their land from destruction or hope for a change in the political status in Greece that would put them on top, defected to the Persian side after the Persian army advanced to their region.
• It's hard to even wind my way throught that: by the time I got to the end I really wasn't sure what I had read. Sandy 01:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Not enough inline sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The article lacks appropriate detail in places and inline citations to identify its sources. For example:
  • Monuments at Site:
    • "There is an epitaph on a monument at site of the battle with Simonides' epigram, which can be found in Herodotus' work The Histories (7.228), to the Spartans:" When was this monument erected and by whom? Does the monument have a name?
    • The eight translations of the epitaph need inline citations to identify their sources.
    • "A note on translation: This should not be read in the imperative mood," Which of the eight translations does this statement refer to? The paragraph reads as though it may be a quote from a text?
    • “Visitor, please confirm to the Spartans that we indeed remained faithful to them until the very end …just in case someone else tells them otherwise.” This quote is presented without an explanation of its context and lacks a citation.
    • "Ruskin said of this epitaph that it was the noblest group of words ever uttered by man." A citation is needed to support this statement.
    • "Additionally, there is a modern monument at the site, called the "Leonidas Monument" in honor of the Spartan king." When was this monument erected and by whom?
    • Good luck with developing the article. Jazriel 10:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Object I am responsible for the references (bofore my edits it had none) and I must say that I did not do a good job then since this was among my first works. I have been working on other aricles and I must say that I did not manage to get back to improving it. I intended to put up a paragraph on why Western historians believe it was 200,000 troops only, and then set it for peer review, not FA status. In it current status it is prematureIkokki 23:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Surrealism

I nominate this article as I consider it highly informative, well written and structured, and one of the prime articles on forms of art contained on Wikipedia. tyx

• Strong oppose, no inline citations for the dozens of statements in the article that need them, including howlers like "Trey Parker and Matt Stone's animated television series South Park often seeks to make points by employing satire that is surreal in nature" snd "Some Surrealist theorists have stated that Surrealism has somehow 'gone beyond' or 'superseded' philosophy, or that philosophy has been 'outclassed' by Surrealism." None of the quotes are sourced either. Andrew Levine 08:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object no inline citations. Please reference the entire article, and remove vague language as pointed above. A very thorough copy edit is needed as well. Here's a sample: The Marxist dialectic and other theories, such as Freudian theory, also played a significant role in some of the development of surrealist theory and, as in the work of such theorists as Walter Benjamin and Herbert Marcuse, surrealism contributed to the development of Marxian theory itself. This text can be made more user-friendly. Just seeing the word theory five times in one sentence makes me lose track of who's on first. Sandy 12:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. In addition to the above, the paragraphs are too short and choppy, and there is an infobox right in the middle... RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

World Jump Day

Tomorrow is World Jump Day, so why shouldn't we have this article on the Main Page? --Emx 14:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, but please read the criteria for featured articles; the article does not meet most of those requirements. First, it is extrememly short and not comprehensive, providing only basic information. In addition, the article is not sourced, leaving the impression that the latter part may be original research. Finally, the article is not stable: as the event has not occured yet, the article is bound to change after the event. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• I've read that and I agree with you, the article is really short (much shorter than most of other featured articles). Maybe it could be featured article for Friday, after it occurs? --Emx 16:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm, no. Read the description of a perfect article and tell us how many of those criteria this article fulfills. Phoenix2 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as above --Mcginnly 16:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose meets none of the crtiera for an FA, just barely over a stub Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose speedy removal needed from FAC.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose it hasn't been peer reviewed - it hasn't been a Good Article - if there is any FA criteria it doesn't totally fail to meet, I'd be suprised. It should never have been proposed as an FAC - speedy removal please. SteveBaker 19:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose No adequate referencing, not an encyclopedic tone, the list goes on! —this is messedrocker (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as above, and it also contributes with the hoax. Irelevant. --Yago Stecher 03:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with everyone else and feel like this nomination should be withdrawn. -ScotchMB 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Bears

This is the article about the American Pro Football Team. It is a well-written article covering all the basics about the franchise and its illustrious history in the National Football League. In my opinion, I believe that it is even better than the New England Patriots article, which has gained featured status. I have worked hard on this article and so have other Wikipedia members. This is the third nomination attempt, and I believe I have fixed every single objection that has been presented about this article. As I have been working on this article I have modeled it after Arsenal F.C. featured article, which I believe is one of the best articles written.

Previous Nominations
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive1
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive2

--Happyman22 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support (Nomination) --Happyman22 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• oppose: the Honey Bears and Bears inn pop culture sections are not necessary, and could be incorperated into the rest of the page. A lot of the information about the remodeling of the stadium is POV w/o citation, and the History Section is not as descriptive as say the New England Patriots article. The uniforms section should be shortened.Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 22:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • To False Prophet: If these sections are not necessary in the article then the Arsenal F.C. article should be removed from the featured articles list because it has a section involving Arsenal in popular culture. The history section is not as descriptive as the Patroits history because the Bears franchise history is twice as long, and that is why there is a separate daughter article detailing the Bears franchise history. --Happyman22 02:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • RE:To False Prophet The Bears have only a song and some minor things that are easily incorperated into the article. The Arsenal F.C. article covers a lot more in it. My point on the History Section it that it is a long section that is not divided up into subsections like the Patriots Article. It would be better if you divided it up into time periods, as do most professional sports teams articles and Player bios. There you can incorperate the Bears in Pop culture section. If you find more info, and can improve it, be my guest and go ahead and I'll re-asess it. Try and use the New England Patriots article for a good layout for the logo and uniforms section, and the history section. You won't have similar events of corse, or the same groups, but shows a good break down of how it should be divided up into sub-sections. — Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 02:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Corrections The stadium section has in-line citations now in the section. --Happyman22 03:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have pointed out, using the straigtforward peerreviewer script, quite a few compliance issues for common Wikipedia guidelines. Some of the I already tackled; others are still recommended to be corrected. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC).

• Neutral for now. Pretty good article. Many of the sections should be integrated into the history section to provide a chronological account of the team's history. Stuff like logo and uniforms, which may break the pace of the history section, can obviously have its own subsection. Ownership can easily be integrated into the history as per my suggestions. This will make the history section long enough to satisfy almost all opposes. The only opposes you'd probably get after that point (and after some POV neutralizing mentioned above) would be for the prose, which may be a minor issue. — Deckiller 02:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I kind of see what people are trying to point out, but is the question calling for the merging of ownership, uniforms and logos into the history section the only obstacle preventing this article from achieving featured status? --Happyman22 03:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, I believe I raised other issues about the Honey Bears, and the Bears in Pop culture section, along with re structuring the History section, and another editor mentioned there are still issues from the previous FAC's to be adressed.

• What is wrong with the Honey Bears section or the Bears in Pop culture. The pop culture section covers more than just a song. It talks about Brian's Song, Super Bowl Shuffle, and the SNL skits involving Da Super Fans. Would you like the section to be expanded maybe? I don't believe it should be removed because it is necessary. --Happyman22 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• I believe I had said the pop culture section needs to be either expanded or merged into the rest of the article. Here's a list of Professional Sports teams featured articles:

New England Patriots

Arsenal F.C.

Manchester City F.C.

IFK Göteborg

notice how not one of them mentions their cheerleading team. Considering the Honey Bears aren't even active, I don't see why they should be included. I still also think the History section should be split up into subsections, to make it easier to read. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 17:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Corrections I have merged the ownership section into the history section, which I have also expanded. Also, I am about to divide the history section into sections as per the wishes of False Prophet, Deckiller, and other Wikipedians. --Happyman22 19:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Corrections The Honey Bears section has been placed into the history section, and the mascots have been left where they are for now, but they will probably be deleted or moved to the Staley Da Bear page. Any new comments? --Happyman22 23:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Still not completely satisfied with the Pop culture section, but like how the colors and mascot section is now if the mascot section is shortened to a paragraph, with the rest going to the Stanley da bear page. I'll change my vote to Conditional Support. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 00:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I know the concerns I mentioned about organization are not specifically highlighted in the criterion, which is why I remained neutral. It does, however, make the article more comprehensive by integrating things into the history section, giving the reader a good idea of the timeline. — Deckiller 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Corrections The mascot section has been shortened to a paragraph as per request and the Bears in Pop culture has been expanded to include more information. --Happyman22 02:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support Good job. All of my concerns have been adressed, and I can't find anything left critisize. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 02:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The only major issue here is the prose in a few areas, but I'm sure if this is an issue to people, they will address it. — Deckiller 05:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Logos, helmet and uniform should be in SVG. WP 06:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is invalid, so it has been struck. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 01:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Where does it say in the critera that images have to be in SVG? --Happyman22 17:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Critera 1 says feature articles should "exemplifies our very best work" and Wikipedia:Uploading images#Technical aspects says SVG is the preferred format for drawings and line-art illustsration. WP 01:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Critera 1 also says that the images can be in PNG just as the helmet and logo are just like in the New England Patriots featured article --Happyman22 15:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment unless the author of the previous complaint can elaborate more, I request that the previous oppose be striken. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 16:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose sloppy writing. RomeoVoid 06:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the writing? --Happyman22 15:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment the previous oppose has been striken as to raise a valid oppose, you must suggest how the article can be improved. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 16:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object Has a number of good parts, but overall currently not a featured article. Jeronimo 18:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think the "Current roster" section belongs in this article, it is too specific and biased towards today. It should go to a separate article.
  • The "Statistics and records" section consists entirely of one or two sentence paragraphs.
  • The "Bears in popular culture" section has longer paragraphs, but is also rather choppy and jumps from fact to fact. Some facts are outdated and/or unencylopedic (e.g. Urlacher was a rising star and sold a lot of shirts in 2002).
  • The "Famous players" and "Headcoaches" sections should be included, but should have a little more than just tables/lists. A little could be said about the persons involved. Maybe some overlap with "Stats & records".
  • "Since the founding of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the Bears boast the most enshrined Hall-of-Famers (26)" - this is incorrectly phrased. It's currently saying the Bears have always had the most enshrinees (which is false).
  • The external links need some annotations. It is unclear why there are so many links to fan sites; Wikipedia is not a web directory.
  • It is unclear why the history section is split up in 1920-1967 and 1968-2006.
  • Nothing is said about the popularity of the team. What about spectators, tv viewers, fan club members etc.?
  • Comment The current roster is on every sports team page and cannot be moved, and the "Famous players" and "Headcoaches" sections are the way they are. If a reader wants to read about an individual, they can click on the link to its own page. As for the other points brought up, I will see if there are some ways I can improve them. --Happyman22 21:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Corrections The Hall of Fame statement was revised so it made sense, the history section was divided up on pre- and post merger, and the stats section was revised and expanded. --Happyman22 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Object This article has some very severe images problems, there are quite a few images their that are claimed as GFDL but they are clearly copyrighted and not the case, while other images are claimed as fair use but has no rationale. This has to be fixed Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly object - per Jaranda, lots of false GFDL images. FCYTravis 23:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object image:Virginia mccaskey.gif is unlikely to be fair use and I'm going to need to see some pretty good evidence for the GFDL claims on Image:Soldmain2.jpg, Image:Payton5.jpg and Image:Honeybears.jpg.Geni 23:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment How does one know how to correctly tag an image? --Happyman22 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Charizard

Us PCP members have put in 2 and a half days of work into getting this article to featured status. We have added at least 30 new references, improved all the sections, and added a couple of extra images. I think its time that this article gets nominated, if you object it, please provide a good reason, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 13:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object - still in Category:Articles with unsourced statements. I'll have another look when this is fixed. —Celestianpower ^háblame 14:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Looking better. Now, what on earth is a "Fire/Flying type combo"? That paragraph needs to be made so non-Pokémaniacs can understand it. Appropriate linking to the subsections of Pokémon types would help immensely. —Celestianpower ^háblame 08:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright, thanks for making suggestions, i'll get to it. Minun ^{(マイナン)} 10:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm... I think I know what you mean, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 10:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Done, is there any other changes needed before you support the nomination? Minun ^{(マイナン)} 10:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
        • No, not done. I wasn't under the impression that "combo" was an English word. Plus, you have to link all of the types. Maybe explain what a type is? Oh, and "come at a cost" sounds POV to me. —Celestianpower ^háblame 12:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed Minun ^{(マイナン)} 15:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • • • • Fixed, i've replaced combo with combination and added extra links Minun ^{(マイナン)} 13:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Thank you, though one of the links is broken and in English "/" means or, surely you mean "and"? Anyway, I've noticed another thing. You seem to have mixed up plural and singular, a common problem when dealing with Pokémon articles. Remember, when you're talking generally, use "they" (intro, characteristics and video games), otherwise, use "he", "she" or "it". Thanks! —Celestianpower ^háblame 14:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Sure, i'll get to it. Anyway, is it alright using references from fan sites, because someone seems to have problem with that, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 15:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
                • I think i've fixed all the problems now, if you still object, please point out any more problems. Cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 15:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • No, I'm afraid that you have not. "It spits flaming hot fire hot" for instance (needs to be "they spit", and needs a comma after fire). This is a problem through most of the video games and characteristics sections. Speaking of the characteristics section, try and cut down on the number of times you use "Charizard", it gets a pit grating after a while. —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • I've fixed the problems you have pointed out, if you still object, please give another reason, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • (Re-indent) "They spits flaming hot fire", "When it gets angry", "The temperature of its breathe" - all terrible grammar/plurality issues, and these are not isolated - it's a problem throughout. It should be them throughout the video games, characteristics and intro sections. —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed, point out any other problems if you still object, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 10:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object not finished. FAs take more than 2 and a half days. Highway ^Batman! 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC) I support, Highway ^Batman! 14:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object again. ;) Sorry, but after all these things have been cleaned up, I feel the article needs more secondary sources. As far as I can see, I count 4 secondary sources out of 72. By the way, secondary sources are things which are the games, manuals, guides, fan sites or DVDs. They are also not the Amazon site hidden under a different title. This article needs way more. Sorry. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me clarify, there are random links, huge spaces and paragraphs drowning on about unimportant stuff. I am dealing with Dorapion, Pachirisu and Chierimu, but I will deal with it soon. Highway ^Batman! 15:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for leaving comments, thet will help, I'll just review the article and look for important stuff Minun ^{(マイナン)} 15:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Things still wrong -

• In other media doesn't cover Charizard in the real world nearly enough, look at Torchic, or even Bulbasaur. You should have let editors have a chance to work on it.
• Characteristics is in a "in-world" view point, as is In the video games.
• The writing has weak areas, the prose in characterstics is poor.
• Evolving, types and other Pokémon terms aren't explained.
• There are unsourced statements in the anime.
• The plurality of Charizard is muddled, they are sometimes referred to as singular, some times plural
• Things are over linked, or linked multiple times.

This FAC was before it's time, Highway ^Batman! 10:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the mix of singular and plural words M inun ^(Spider-Man) 15:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And now i've added the references for the anime M inun ^(Spiderman) 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you support yet? —M inun ^Spiderman 16:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• He has: after where he has crossed out object, it says I support. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object, some of the above stuff is also true, but what really stands out is "In Other Media", which could (and should) be far longer, at least ten lines. Charizard is one of the more well-known Pokemon. —Cuiviénen 16:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I know, I want to remove that section, but HighwayCello won't let me, and its my own work, so I don't see why I shouldn't be able to delete it, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 18:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You absolutely need that section, and I'm glad you've kept it. The article has been much improved, so I support. —Cuiviénen 17:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking alright, with a vote of 3 supports and 4 objects, I just need to help fix the problems Celestianpower pointed out and then the FAC will be looking a lot better. Thanks for supporting, you've improved my wikimood. Minun ^{(マイナン)} 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. In other media section seems like an afterthought, too short. Surely more can be added? — Wackymacs 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've merged section per a comment on my talk page, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 19:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support All I can say is wow... I saw the objections and a nominated Pokemon article and figured this would be easy. In comparison, however, to other featured fictional characters (even other featured Pokemon articles) this is perfectly fine in terms of comprehensiveness. The references are very well done (love the formatting), and I only have two small issues. First, the statement at the end of the TCG section should be sourced. Just dig up an old copy of Scrye or something, should do fine. Second, are you sure the TCG section should be it's own full section and not a subsection of "Other media"? Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, thanks for supporting, this is the first time someones supported a fac started by me, so you have definitely improved my Wikimood, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 10:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm sure. Highway ^Batman! 06:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, since Bulbasaur has a seperate section, Charizard should have one to, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 10:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support; this article was nominated somewhat too early. However, much post-nom cleanup has taken place, and I now feel I can support it. I've referenced the fact Staxringold pointed out. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 07:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, thanks for supporting, this is the first time someones supported a fac started by me, so you have definitely improved my Wikimood, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 10:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object—you call these references? Answers.com, Pokemon fan sites, etc. Who runs these things? Serenii.net is one of the main sources you use, but what on earth is it? For all I know it's run by some guy working out of his basement. I expect the sources we cite to be more reliable than Wikipedia, and I'm not feeling good about that right now. Please use the print sources you mention and remove anything that only appears in fan sites; verifiability and reliable sources are important. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, almost everything is from fan sites, so we would be removing everything Minun ^{(マイナン)} 15:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Serebii.net, the main site used, is considered quite authouritative on Pokémon, a subject for which not a lot of paper sources exist. Admittedly, Answers.com is mainly a Wikipedia mirror, but as it was only used for a dictionary definition, I've moved it across to Dictionary.com. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I've got the felling this is not going to succeed, we'll have to try really hard Minun ^{(マイナン)} 15:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Knowing a little bit about Pokemon, I think serebii.net can be considered reliable. Fan sites are not necessarily unreliable if the site is prominent enough, and Serebii is definitely the most prominent Pokemon fan site. —Cuiviénen 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but I suggest WP:JAPAN contributors channel their energies in more constructive ways, like History of Japan articles. But then, this is purely my personal opinion. -- Миборовский 21:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Most of us don't know a lot about Japan; I think almost everyone at the Pokémon Collaborative Project came because we like computer games rather than Japanese culture. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 21:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we can find a public domain or similiar free resource about Japan M inun ^(Spiderman) 10:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
      • anyway im glad the supports and objects are even, we just need one more before the supports are in the lead M inun ^(Spiderman) 10:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
        • FAC is not a vote. —Cuiviénen 15:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object For two reasons:
  • The whole "Bellyzard" thing (second or third paragraph under the vg section) is wholly unencyclopediac.
  • Also, much of the article seems to have too much info about charizard in the pokemon universe rather than in the real universe.--Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. A couple of things, the Bellyzard is perhaps the most well known strategy in the meta-game, so it definitely deserves a mention. And two, could you highlight the areas in-universe? Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 17:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am retracting my comments. I read through the article to quickly, so I am changing my opion to Support.--Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 17:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. First, 5 out of 5 citations checked in a citation spot check had problems (results here), and I see that this leans quite heavily on a site (serebii.net) that looks quite unprofessional (its articles are littered with spelling and grammatical errors). Other sources need to be found to replace serebii.net, and someone needs to go through the references one by one and fix all cases where the statement in the article is not directly supported by a statement in the source.
• Second, this needs a copyedit. The first section provides some good examples of issues that crop up throughout:
  • "Through evolution, a metamorphic change within a Pokémon caused by gaining experience in battle,": Perhaps replace with "through evolution, a sort of metamorphosis that Pokemon undergo as a result of gaining experience in battle'? Within is not the right word here, and the current structure of the sentence fails to identify who is doing the gaining (not that it isn't clear from the context, but it's grammatically necessary to clarify it).
  • "Charizard grow a pair of powerful wings, which allow them to fly at altitudes approaching 4,600 ft (1400 m), supplementing the fiery breath they would inherit": This sentence changes voices halfway through; it needs to be either all indicative or all subjunctive. Supplementing is also an iffy wording here; replace it with "and supplement" and remove the comma after "(1400 m)", perhaps?
  • "...earlier forms of Charmander..."; Change to "...earlier forms, Charmander..."
  • "However, the flames they produce as Charizard are even hotter than those produced by Charmeleon; at full intensity they would have the power to melt solid rock or large glaciers.": Why "however"? This doesn't contradict any previous statements. Perhaps change to "furthermore"? This is another sentence that goes from indicative to subjunctive in midstream. And why "even hotter"? "Hotter" will suffice.
  • "are said to ": Drop altogether.
  • "noted to rely on claws...": Change to "and rely on their claws..."
  • "Nevertheless, the strength of their flame is said to be so volatile, that accidental or careless uses have been noted to cause forest fires and other disasters.": Perhaps "Their flame is so strong that it has caused forest fires and other disasters when used accidentally or carelessly." "Nevertheless" is unnecessary, as it "have been noted to", and what does it mean to say that the "strength is so volatile"?
• Similar prose issues need to be fixed throughout; note that none of my above suggestions should be interpreted as endorsements of writing this section in an in-universe perspective; I was just going off of what I had to work with. --Robth^Talk 20:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

New York City

The principal objection to the last nomination was referencing. I believe this has now been largely addressed. Another objection was the length. The article has shrunk a little since the last nom, and I think most of the sections are concise and interesting summaries with little superfluous detail. However, I don't think it is practicable to get this article below, say, 40k. I will do my best to respond to objections during the FAC process. –Joke 13:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Archived nom, previously nominated version

• Mild Support. The facts, layout, etc. are all well-executed. Some of the prose could use polishing but there's nothing so ugly it makes me want to oppose. I'll take a shot at some of it later. Andrew Levine 14:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The article's citations are inconsistent - later sections are peppered with in-text citations, while the history and geography sections are largely uncited. At 62 KB the article is a little long, ~ 50 KB would be a good size. There could be less images on the page, at some points the images distract from the text. It is a lot better than previous, bloated versions though and is really close to FAC status. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. External links could use trimming as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Comment I tried to improve the citations in history and geography. Consistent with Wikipedia:Summary style#Citations and external links there are no citations for many facts, which are much more extensively discussed in articles like Industrial Workers of the World, New York City Subway and Robert Moses all contain authoritative references to their subjects, not to mention History of New York City. The three books by Jackson listed in further reading are also good references. Is there something else I can do in these sections? It seems inappropriate to put a citation with every sentence in such a brief summary section, but I have tried to add them where it seems they might be called for. –Joke 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Comment I find it really hard to see how the article can be made much shorter. I think the key here is to keep sections short and to keep the sections free of anything but the minimum useful summary. Do you have any suggestions? I have organized the external links. Aside from the official website, it wasn't clear what to do with them – it seems like if we keep any, we should keep them all, and if we remove any, they all ought to go. Comments? I will have a look at the pictures. –Joke 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object, prose 2a. Prose is not compelling, brilliant. Throughout the boroughs there are hundreds of distinct neighborhoods in the city, many with a definable history and character all their own. Please put categories in alphabetical order. Sandy 17:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Response I have fixed this rough passage. Do you have any other examples you would like to point out? I've been over the article a few times, and I think User:Wv235 has as well, but a fresh set of eyes really helps. (Categories: done.) –Joke 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• That was only an example: the entire text needs to be gone over. I've had another look, and the prose is still not compelling, but a bigger concern is the lack of references. Once the article is thoroughly referenced, I'll re-examine the prose. Also, the References need some improvement in terms of bibliographic style: they are inconsistent. For example, at times, the author of a newspaper article is available in the URL, but not given in the ref. Please remember that, if URLs are taken down, a reader needs to be able to find the article. Please make the references entry into a formal style; we can't depend on the URL to always be available. Here's an example of a large section of text with no references:

• New York City emerged from World War II as the unquestioned leading city of the world, with Wall Street leading America's emergence as the world's dominant economic power, the United Nations headquarters (built in Manhattan in 1952) emphasizing its political influence, and the rise of Abstract Expressionism displacing Paris as center of the art world. The growth of post-war suburbs saw a slow decline in the city's population. Later, changes in industry and commerce, white flight, and rising crime rates pushed New York into a social and economic crisis in the 1970s.

The entire article needs to be thoroughly referenced: the above section is only one small sample. "Unquestioned leading city in the world" can't make it without a reference. Sandy 12:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Response I am working on the references. They are now entirely consistent, and usually point to a reasonable source, although some things still must be referenced. –Joke 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• weak support While some sections don't quite meet 2a (only just missing it), I think that the article is well put together, well referanced, and informative. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Problems with referencing continue in the History, Geography, Cityscape and Climate sections. Also, the lead is quite short for such a long article and should be expanded. The length of the article itself does not concern me; New York City is a big subject, and the use of summary style and daughter articles is solid. —Cuiviénen 16:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  Response Ok, I rationalized some footnotes so that the figures in Cityscape are properly attributed. I would appreciate some more specific comments, particular regarding my comments on referencing History and Geography above. I feel like I'm working in a vacuum here. As for the lead, I think having a short lead is a feature: it hits the salient points and allows the reader to get right into the most appropriate part of the article. Is there anything really important missing? –Joke 16:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object - architecture, education and environmental sections are over-indulgent - the energy efficieny of the governments cars is not really interesting, nor does the reader need a two sentence description of all the colleges in the city. There is a fair bit of statistical information without sources, like the number out tourists, cabs and so on. The sport section is just a bunch of disconnected sentences.--Peta 04:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Also the TOC is bloated with unnecessary h3s, text doesn't need a heading if it only a paragraph.--Peta 01:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  Response I have fixed the TOC and I'm working on the rest. The references are now entirely consistent, and I'm trying to make sure all the statistical information is thoroughly referenced. I agree that the sports section is rather fragmented, but it is pretty hard to have any kind of narrative structure in the section. Basically, it needs to compactly list the major sports teams in the city without getting too bloated – it seems to do that, more or less, and doesn't seem worse than the sections in other FAs, such as Boston, Massachussetts. –Joke 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks for your efforts so far, writing a coherent sports section isn't that hard, see Canberra.--Peta 00:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  Response Well, I gave it a shot. I've asked people to try to find a reference for baseball being New York City's most popular sport – historically this is obvious, and it is probably true even now, but my research energy is drained for the day. Aside from that I think the section has been improved. –Joke 02:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment While I'm with you about the colleges, I do actually think that it is interesting and remarkable that the NYC government is a leader in energy efficiency policy amongst US cities. Although I removed the bit about the underwater turbines, as it is unlikely to have much impact on the city's energy needs. –Joke 00:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object, too long. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  Response Can I ask that you offer more than two words? What sections, in particular, are too long? Do you think the summary style has not been adequately used here? –Joke 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

2 months later, the nomination of New York City as a featured article returns! I looked over some of the problems with the last namination and decided to do some research:

Wikipedia Article	Total size	"readable prose"	# Words
Seattle, Washington	83K	49K	7800
Detroit, Michigan	69K	40K	6300
San Francisco, California	81K	39K	6250
Boston, Massachusetts	59K	37K	5900
New York City	57K	33K	5300

August 2006

These are other cities that are currently featured articles. In comparison, I think New York City should have made the cut since that was the main issue. Blackjack48 21:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• April 2006 FAC
• July 2006 FAC
  --Paul 12:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment So how much "readable prose" is there in the NYC article?--DaveOinSF 21:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

By my count, there are 5300 words and 33K of "readable prose" in the NYC article.--DaveOinSF 01:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just what do you two mean by "readable prose"? The text of the article excluding footnotes, captions & infoboxes? Please, let's try not to use jargon that not all Wikipedians either are not familiar with -- or are unable to easily find a published definition for. -- llywrch 16:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't think this was obscure. According to Wikipedia:Article size:

"Readable prose" is the main body of the text, excluding sections such as:

• Footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", footnotes, bibliography, etc)
• Diagrams and images
• Tables and lists
• Wikilinks and external URLs
• Formatting and mark-up.

--DaveOinSF 16:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Some items to address:

1. Please correct the links so that the article talk page links to the failed FAC as well as the new FAC. I can't find the old FAC, but I seem to recall that I objected to a POV issue, which still seems to be present. The failed FAC shouldn't be removed from the talk page: has the new FAC overwritten the older one?
2. I don't recall what the older objection on prose size was, but I come up with Overall 57KB, 35 KB prose, which is a "normal" and acceptable article size, but seems a bit short for an important city, in relation to the others. This should not be an objection if this article makes good use of Summary Style (and perhaps the others didn't). Without seeing the older FAC, it's hard to understand why this issue is raised. (For those who asked, here is how readable prose was explained to me.)
3. The article needs to conform to WP:GTL: please reorganize sections. (See all of the articles you referenced above: they are done correctly.)
4. I still have a POV objection, which I believe I raised in the last FAC.

   It emerged from the war as the unquestioned leading city of the world, with Wall Street leading America's emergence as the world's dominant economic power, the United Nations headquarters (built in 1952) emphasizing its political influence, and the rise of Abstract Expressionism displacing Paris as the center of the art world.[6]

   PBS very well may believe that New York City is the Center of the Universe, and they may have even found others who agree. But, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet aside, asserting that opinion as fact, even based on a reliable (albeit biased) source, is POV. "Unquestioned leading city of the world" is an extraordinary claim: it requires extraordinary sources. It would be easier to accept if London and Paris sources said the same thing.

5. Reference 8 is missing.
6. Please expand all refs (example ref 35, Safest cities according to SanJose gov.)
7. I cleaned up some typos in a couple of refs just to give you a sample of work needed. Since this is your second nom, the refs should exemplify our best work :-)
8. Lacking citations - examples from one section only - there are numerous others throughout the article:

1. (Where is this article?) Writer Tom Wolfe said of New York that "Culture just seems to be in the air, like part of the weather."
2. (Where did you get this number of seats?) The city's 39 largest theatres (with more than 500 seats) are collectively known as "Broadway," after the major thoroughfare through the Times Square theatre district.
3. (Likely true, so why not provide a source?) The Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, which includes Jazz at Lincoln Center, the Metropolitan Opera, the New York City Opera, the New York Philharmonic and the New York City Ballet, is the largest performing arts center in the United States.

1. New Jersey Nets are a New York Team? New York has two NBA teams: the New York Knicks and the New Jersey Nets.
2. Weasle words, no cite. New York is often called "the media capital of the world".

These examples are only a start: the article needs more work. Sandy 16:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, they were the New York Nets originally, and might be moving back there. In the sports world, they generally are considered a New York team. The article could explain this a bit better though. --W.marsh 22:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Sandy Georgia KnightLago 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object Some problems with the footnotes:

• 2 needs access date
• 4 needs access date
• 5 needs expanding; what is referred to?
• 8 is missing
• 9 needs page reference if possible
• 10 needs page reference if possible
• 12 needs page reference if possible
• 18 needs page reference if possible & WPA Guide needs publisher & year
• 24 needs page reference if available
• 35 needs expanding: who? when?
• 37 publication data?
• 42 publication date?
• 48 Bureau of Transportatin Statistics .. US? NYC? NY State?

I would love to see NYC get FA status, as it and London are the top two Global World Cities and they deserve FA-quality articles. I hope some editors take the suggestions mentioned here and make some progress. --Paul 17:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per referencing problems and above. Never Mystic (tc) 20:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Pickup truck

This has grown via collaboration to become an excellent example of a Wikipedia article. It discusses both the social and technological implications of the subject, and embraces the international veiwpoint. --DroopSnoot 22:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article is largely unreferenced. List formatting appears in the midst of several sections, sometimes with only one entry. Jkelly 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object/Comment The one note isn't near enough for this article. Also, some of the brands chosen in the see also section seem like arbitrary choices. This article would greatly benefit from a drive through Peer Review. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object no references gets a speedy object from me. Sandy 00:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Not very comprehensive. For example, towing (which every truck commercial mentions here in the U.S.) is mentioned only once in passing. Rmhermen 02:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

2005 United States Grand Prix

I have nominated this as a GA candidate but I also think this meets the FA criteria because it has some good information and sources. Kingjamie 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Object. For starters, the citations need to be done correctly using one of the preferred formats (see WP:FOOT). Also, why would you use the British spelling of tire (tyre) for an article about an event that took place in American? Although that is a minor issue.--NMajdan•talk 21:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: English vs US spelling - it's not a hard rule, but the bulk of the F1 articles use UK English because the sport is largely European and most of the teams (Even 'French' ones like Renault F1 or 'Austrian' ones like Red Bull Racing) are based in the UK. For example Bernie Ecclestone and Martin Brundle, whose conversation is quoted at (excessive?) length are both English, as is Max Mosley, the head of the sport's governing body. (Sorry - that was me, earlier today! 4u1e 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

• Object citations need to be fixed and the Martin Brundle's grid interview with Bernie Ecclestone is likely copyrighted, if not it should be in wikisource, not there. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak object - I want to support this, as it's by and large a comprehensive and well-written article on one of the most significant events ever to hit one of the world's most popular sports, but a few things need sorting. Obviously the citations need sorting out, and that Brundle section trimming (I don't think there's a "copyright" problem as such, since it's a televised interview, but I do think it's too long and the length of the header makes the contents table ugly). In addition, there's no real explanation early in the article about what turn 13 is - mention should be made of its unique (in F1) status as a banked corner being the apparent cause of the problem. I think it needs a thorough copyedit too, as I've seen a few sloppy examples of parentheses and punctuation use. I'm also not sure what the rules are about being nominated for Good and Featured status at the same time, so I'd suggest withdrawing it from one or the other (although I would like to see it become an FA at some point). Seb Patrick 08:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I also agree that "tyre" is the correct version of the word to use - it's always been the standard in F1-related media, the majority of which are European. The fact that this particular race happened to be in the US is irrelevant, not least because - despite the venue - there was barely any American-related involvement in the event itself (teams, drivers etc.)! Seb Patrick 09:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Jeronimo 10:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Apart from the inline citations (already mentioned above), the article needs more citing. A lot of the content is only from second-hand information ("according to Stoddart"), and we need to know which statement comes from who or which publication. It is also unclear if these accounts (mostly from Stoddart) are supported by other sources or not.
  • Some of the text needs to be rewritten, they currently appear to be added and written when the event was still ongoing (especially "The FIA's reaction"). Using a somewhat more summarizing style would be more readable here.
  • The interview should be removed - primary sources do not belong in an article. Furthermore, it doesn't add very much that isn't already discussed.
  • The "Refusal of coverage" section should be expanded or merged in other sections. I do not see any reason to pick out TSN's reaction in particular.
  • The contents of the "Notes" section should be moved into the article.
  • I miss any references to the 2006 edition, while there was talk about "The future of F1 in America?"
  • The quote by Sam Posey seems unnecessary in this article, and it is unclear why his reaction (as an EX-racer and EX-commentator) is relevant at all.
  • Not all persons are properly introduced, most notably Paul Stoddart - a wikilink is not enough, give his function/role/job.

Stanley Kubrick

Well-written and accurate, so let's see how it does for a nomination. --emc! ╬ ^{(t a l k)} 23:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object Underreferenced (He was a poor student with a meager grade average of 67), very large trivia section, too many large, direct blockquotes, images with copyright problems, lead too short, failure to meet 2a) brilliant, compelling prose. Some brief examples of prose problems:
  • Jacques, whose parents had been Jewish immigrants of Austro-Romanian and Polish origin, was a successful doctor. Did his parents stop being Jewish immigrants?
  • Kubrick was taught to play chess at the age of twenty by his father, and the game would remain a lifelong obsession. When he was 20, Kubrick's father taught him to play chess ...
  • Later in life, Kubrick would speak of his education and of education in general with disdain, and maintained that nothing in school interested him. Change in tense.
  • By the time of his graduation Kubrick had already sold a series of pictures to New York's Look. Tell the reader Look is a magazine, it adds one word, and not all readers are familiar with USA publications.
• That's a few examples only: the prose needs to be improved overall, and the text needs to be referenced. Please put categories in alphabetical order. Sandy 23:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object lack of Refereces and inline citations. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 09:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object - insufficient references/sources listed especially given the large number (too many) of quotations, which should all be sourced. Images do not contain fair use rationales and the copyright info is scant. Trivia sections should be avoided. If it can't be said in the body of the article, chances are it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Rossrs 14:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object, no inline citations and copyright status of main image is not particularly good. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Atmospheric reentry

• Support: Per my own nomination. I have not contributed to this article, but upon reading it, I was struck with how informative it was, without being too technichal for non-scientists to appreciate. Plenty of graphics. Its everything the Featured Article checklist says it should be. Give Peace A Chance 01:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: On my first pass, picking a random paragraph, I saw prose problems (Over the decades since the 1950s, a rich technical jargon has grown around the engineering of vehicles designed to enter planetary atmospheres), and the article is mostly unreferenced. Sandy 02:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Object. The informational depth of this article is impressive, but it suffers from a few small problems. Long stretches of the article have no illustrations, whereas others have a glut of images, that makes the text difficult to read. Also, there is too much bolded text through the main body of the article, bold text is usually only used for the opener, I believe. Other than that, an excellent article. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support conditional on changes suggested by RyanGerbil -- more illustrations, in particular, as there should be plenty that are GFDL (just look in the Apollo articles, etc.) and the format regularizing. I don't see the prose problems as particularly troubling. Crowbait 14:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support: there are long paragraphs without illustrations, more references needed. NCurse _work 20:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Many sections and paragraphs have no inline citations, lead is too short, WP:MOS needs to be consulted on excessive use of bolding, italic and lists. And what is 'Important text books relevant to atmospheric entry'? Further reading?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thierry Henry

Well written article. Details abou the man and the player. Not to listy either. Every detail needed about him is there. Jimmmmmmmmm 14:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Jimmmmmmmmm 15:44 14th July 2006

Comment—I'm glad to see that the text of the article is better than that of the nomination above (one typo, one grammatical error, one awkward phrase). However, the punctuation in the article could do with an audit, and in other respects the prose isn't brilliant. For example, commas would be nice in the sentence below after "first" and "however", and perhaps the comma after "games" should be a semicolon. "Since" appears twice in the final clause, making the construction circular.

"At first some doubted whether he was cut out for the English Premiership, failing to score in his first ten games, however since first finding the net he has flourished ever since."

What does "one" refer to here?

"In the seven seasons he has been at Arsenal, Henry has been the club's top goalscorer for every single one.

Comma before "instead" or "because", or both.

Thierry was put on the left wing by Wenger instead of playing his natural role of striker because the striker position was already occupied by ..."

"2005–06" is used, so why not abbreviate the other year ranges, such as "1992–1993"?

A few redundant uses of "also". Tony 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've done some copyediting to address the first two points. On the fourth, all descriptions of seasons in the article are abbreviated like "2005-06", but all other refences to time periods are written out fully, so the article is not inconsistent in that regard. --David Mestel^(Talk) 16:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this subtle distinction between seasons and year ranges is not worth making. Please go for simple consistency: avoid repeating the century digits and use an en dash. Tony 02:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Jeronimo 17:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This article has barely any references (inline or not).
  • Organisation is poor. Trivia should be incorporated in text or left out, there's a "honours" and an "awards" section, and the "Family" section can barely be called a section at all.
  • Trivia entries are usually not very suitable for FAs, but the final one here is particularly silly, considering Henry played only in two World Cups, and that France did not score in 2002.
  • Statistics are inconsistent. Just as an example, the sidetable at the top says Henry played 20 matches for Juventus, while the text says 12. The extended table below says 20 as well, but composes this of 16 + 1 + 1.
  • The accolades at the bottom seem rather random. Why is there one for Arsenal's current team, but not for last season's? Why two for Henry's World Cups, but not for his two European Championships?
  • Not NPOV: e.g. "spectacular play".

• Note Right firstly. The trivia part of your objection is wrong Henry has played in the last three World Cups. Secondly why sould there be a section for last season Arsenal squad? I undertstand about the European and World cup and they need adding but only the current squad needs including or would you have the last 7 since he joined?Jimmmmmmmmm 19:12 14th July 2006

I still think it's rather random to have the 2006/2007 season team (which hasn't played a match yet) listed, but not any of the other teams he played in. Jeronimo 05:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Another point the text says he started 12 games for Juventus. He played 20 in total but only started 12. You obviouosly didn't really read it properly. Jimmmmmmmmm 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did read it, and "started" could be considered ambiguous. Anyway, noticed you fixed up the other counts though. Jeronimo 05:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment
  • This is old, obviously, but for future reference, I thought these points ought to be addressed. The article definitely needs a lot of work to reach featured status. Until recently, World Cup squads were the only international squad boxes used. They were originally started only for the 2006 World Cup season - not intended as permanent fixtures. Less prestigious tournaments have only just been added, and add even more clutter to the bottom of articles. It's been proposed that they be removed (along with the WC squads). International team rosters for such competitions as the Euro (and World Cup, for that matter) can be found with the articles for those tournaments. Listing the squads for every competition would be excessive. Should we include the Olympics as well? Young tournaments like the FIFA World Youth Championship? The line has to be drawn somewhere. For club rosters, only the current squad is displayed. Again, including the squad list for every unique roster he's been on would be absurd. That would be at least one and often two rosters per season (because rosters often change in the January transfer window as well). If you have concerns about these squad boxes (international or club), a discussion should be opened on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football as this is the format used for all players on Wikipedia.
  • "Started" is not an ambiguous term in sports. It means he was in the starting lineup for those games - that is, not on the touchline as a substitute. It is also a relevant statistic given his short stay and criticized performance at Juventus. Substitutes in football usually come on in the second half, so the number of games he started - not necessarily the number of games he simply played in (starts + substitute appearances) - gives a clearer indication of the amount of playing time he was given to adapt to the new league.
  • Henry has played in three World Cups. 1998, 2002, and 2006. Slow Graffiti 05:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Object. Too many lists and short paragraphs. Text is choppy. Though not a requirement, could do with more pictures. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 17:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- Biography doesn't contain any personal info (who are his parents, how many siblings etc), which is surely an important thing.

This kind of thing isn't always known about famous people. It's known about the name of his wife and daughter but whats to say Thierry wants the worls to know his parent names and the number of siblings he has. An just because he doesn't want this why is that reason to say the article is bad. Jimmmmmmmmm 20:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object Too small not very well referenced bitty, no chuncks of info, FA requires alot more work than this. Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 09:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object Fails 2a, too litte referencing, not enough about his early career (he had a career outside of Arsenal, though you wouldn't know it from the article), I also think that there is not enough about his contributions to France's 1998 success, of which he was a major part, untill the final. Try Good Article first, and get a peer review done. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevis

I had no hand in writing this article, but I think Pia did a *wonderful* job with this, and that it's more than suitable for FA status. —Nightstallion (?) 12:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object pretty good, but footnotes belong at the end of a sentence per wiki style - not in the middle of a sentence, a few images need fair use rationales, and the geograhy section should be after or inside the history section, not after politics. Rlevse 14:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • My bad on history, I meant geography seems out of place. Also, there is little or nothing on pre-Columbian history, the culture section only has one paragraph and is music-oriented, and the recent history section should be a little longer to summarize the main article. Rlevse 22:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support, per Rlevse. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 17:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. Very nice, but I have some small issues. The names in the "Famous Nevisians" section shouldn't be in bold (making more paragraphs here might do the trick), and the "Parsishes" section could use some accompanying / explanatory text. The caption for Cicely Tyson seems incorrect, too. Jeronimo 17:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Having read this, I've sorted the fair use issues (I think), and fixed the footnotes. I've also also acted on Jeronimo's suggestions vis a vis the famous Nevisians. The caption is mea culpa, as I changed the image to one which fell under fair use, but forgot to change the caption. The images need a bit of neatening up following my replacements, which I'm not quite sure how to do. I actually disagree with the three editors above in that I feel that since the history section is largely concerned with the political history of the island, it is more logical to follow it with the politics and parishes sections, and then the geography section. I strongly agree that the parishes section needs some explanation, as nowhere is it made clear what their significance is. --David Mestel^(Talk) 18:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The placement and format of the sections were done in accordance with the standard template used for all the Caribbean islands on Wikipedia (maybe for other articles about countries or places as well? I haven't worked on any other geography related issue yet, so I'm not too familiar with the issue of what is standard and what isn't.) However, a map showing the division of the island into parishes would perhaps be a better choice (as well as self-explanatory)? A map would enable us to simply remove the "Parish" section altogether, since it seems to create confusion. I don't want to step on any toes in that regard though, since all the other articles are in compliance with the standard. I admit, I really wrestled with urge to change the order between the sections, with the same ideas as those expressed by Rlevse, but in the end I decided to just follow the template out of respect for the people who have put in the time, energy and effort to create these things. I'd be happy to help change the order though, if that makes more sense to a general reader. Pia 00:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object I see problems with 2b (Comprehensive) and 2c (Factually accurate). For example, one paragraph on Culture ? And seemingly trivial entries which are unreferenced, such as, Leonard Harris, a cricket player from Nevis, held the Leeward Islands' batting record in 1968. In spite of a good number of inline citations, there are a lot of unreferenced statements. Sandy 23:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Sandy, please refer more specifically to what is factually inaccurate or 2c cannot be corrected or dealt with. Would an expansion of the culture section take care of 2b? Cricket players are not trivial in the Caribbean, but if removing Harris from the list of famous Nevisians would make the article less trivial, I will certainly do that. The list of footnotes is becoming very, very long, but I will add references for all statements that seem controversial, or remove them, if you prefer. Please help by pointing them out, if you don't mind. Thanks, Pia 00:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

2c (Factual) has to do with referencing. I don't believe you can have too many references: the cricket player should be referenced. There are too many articles about towns, cities, counties, states, countries which claim notable residents, without giving us any means of knowing the person is actually a resident, and I've encountered many such inaccurate claims on Wiki. (Same applies to notable alumni on schools.) I'm not suggesting cricket is trivial :-) or that you should remove content, rather do what you suggest (add references), but add references to any statement which the reader might need to further investigate. For example, I saw the statement about the only 5-star hotel in the Caribbean. That screams for a reference (how many stars do the Ritz in Cayman, the Hyatts in Cayman and Aruba, have? Does that include countries that consider themselves Caribbean, like Venezuela, or is that only islands? I shouldn't have to go check.) Even items that seem to be straightforward still need a reference, not just those that may be controversial.

2b (Comprehensive) Culture was only the first I noticed, and it struck me that Culture warranted more than one paragraph. I've gone back and seen other areas: Recent history (1882 on) has very little content? There are Secession movement and constitutional issues that don't seem to be fully explored: as a reader who knows little about Nevis, I'm left unclear about where those issues stand today. Is the Economy discussion truly comprehensive? What are the advantages and drawbacks of an economy so dependent on tourism? I guess what I'm saying in general is, try to read the article from the point of view of someone who knows nothing about Nevis, and consider what we might not know. I have limited internet access because of a lightening strike, and am losing track of what I'm keeping up with, so please leave me a talk message if I need to respond further. Hope this helps, Sandy 18:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, thank you. I'll work on those sections and on adding more references.

• Temporary object—oh dear, I see a false contrast in the lead:

"The most famous beach is the 4-mile long Pinneys Beach on the west coast. In the lush interior, rivers and ponds fill up seasonally, but the gently sloping coastal plain (0.6 miles/1 km wide) also has natural fresh water springs, especially along the west coast."

Does "but" lead to a countering of the previous statement? Can someone go through the whole article to check for false contrasts (and other problems in the prose)?

• • Why not spell out numbers less than 10? (e.g., "The two islands are separated by a 2-mile wide channel.") Sometimes metric equivalents are provided, sometimes not. Sometimes "St" has a dot, sometimes it doesn't.

• • "Nevis is conical in shape, with a volcanic peak at the centre. It is fringed by long strands of golden sand beaches ..."—What, the volcano is fringed by beaches? Try: "Nevis is conical in shape, with a volcanic peak at its centre. The island is fringed by long strands of golden sand beaches ..."

• • "Of the approximately 12,000 inhabitants of Nevis, the majority is of African descent." Ungrammatical and awkward. Try: "The majority of the approximately 12,000 inhabitants of Nevis are of African descent."

Now that's just the lead. Tony 03:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all of your concerns, except for spelling out numbers. Personally, I find that having numbers written in figures allows me to see at a glance where the statistics are in a piece of text. Does anyone else agree? --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the whole point of the examples is to demonstrate that the entire text needs copy-editing, not just the lead. Let us know when it's ready to inspect again. Tony 09:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, you are right about the awkwardness of that particular sentence. More copy editing might indeed be useful and needed. I will go back to the text now and shorten some of the sentences in order to make the text easier to read and I will let you know when I am finished so that you can check it again. About the examples you pointed out: 1. Not to be picky, but "the majority" is singular and the majority in Nevis is of African descent, not "are". Sorry, Tony's sentence is better, and he's right. 2. The reason St sometimes has a dot is that American texts and book titles use St., but there is no dot in St in the Caribbean and British texts and book titles. Inserting or removing dots would violate the rules when it comes to leaving quotes intact and unchanged. To avoid other dot problems, the word Saint is spelled out in the text (but in book titles or quotes, the original is honored, naturally). 3. The island is a dormant volcano rising from the sea. Most of the land mass that connected the three-island chain during the ice age is now under water. I still like your changed version better. 4. The false contrast created by "but" was not meant to be false, but an actual contrast. The lush interior has only seasonal rivers and ponds, but the dry coastal plain has springs supplying fresh water all year around. The name Oualie, "land of beautiful waters", may seem illogical at first glance since the island has no lakes and only occasional, muddy streams, rivers and ponds during heavy rains. It is the hidden source of fresh water that make up the "beautiful waters", namely the natural springs. Pia 19:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC) 19:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• • But if you have to explain the contrast, it's not working in the text. Why not replace "but" with "and"? Tony 01:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that dot thing can be explained somewhere in a footnote: who knew St had no dot in Caribbean and British texts? :-) Anything that you had to explain above to Tony has to be explained to all potential readers. Tony's examples were only from the lead: remember to thoroughly peruse the entire text for issues of copyediting, comprehensiveness, and references. Sandy 19:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, I went back to check. I think we only have two references with "St./St" left now: the St. Kitts Nevis Observer. The publisher uses a dot in the publication's name (he's US educated). The official site of the Prime Minister of Saint Kitts also uses a dot, most of the time. Sometimes the press releases from his office do not. The British definitely prefer to leave the dot out, see for example the BBC. However, I don't think we have any quotes or titles from British sources with St in the article right now. Pia 23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I notice the BBC report says: By 2003, Nevis was home to around 17,000 offshore businesses operating under strict secrecy laws, making the islands a target for drugs traffickers and money launderers. Laws have been introduced to crack down on the problem. This goes to the question I was asking about whether the article is comprehensive. You've got to watch out that the article isn't just a tourism promo: the problems have to be mentioned as well. Oh, be sure to put your categories and interwikis in alphabetical order. Sandy 00:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Sentences like Antigua-based Admiral Nelson and his friend Prince William Henry, Duke of Clarence and future King William IV of the United Kingdom, partied here. do not belong in the article. --Hintha 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Des Moines, Iowa

This page shows why Des Moines is a regional leader in education, agriculture, insurance, and culture. I think it's high time that the city breaks free from its rural stereotype and shows its true metropolitan mettle.

Fezzador 07:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The lead isn't a great start, as it contains one out and out blatant inaccuracy. "Des Moines" does not mean "City of the Monks" - you could possibly say it means "of the monks" and derives from the former phrase, but even then, the article itself later goes on to state that the origins of the name are uncertain. The lead, therefore, is confusing, as within the first sentence the implication is made that the name definitely is taken from the French for "City of the Monks". That needs removing. The lead also has a misused "it's" in it, which would suggest to me that the article may be in need of a full copyedit. There are also no inline citations, and they're desperately needed in places, particularly when discussing the possible and disputed origins of the name. There's also a citation needed tag, which is never a good thing, and a fair few redlinks. And the article degenerates into little more than a series of lists in its second half - surely a good chunk of the "Culture" section could be prosified? Seb Patrick 08:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Per above, also featured articles must be referenced, and that includes Notable Natives. It's not usually hard to find a local press reference on them. Sandy 11:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Some unsourced statements. Also nominator seems to want to demonstrate a specific point more than showcase the city. -- Миборовский 21:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. I'll agree that it could use some improvement. --Iowahwyman 19:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above as well. Also, there are several unreferenced statements within this article. "Des Moines has grown considerably in recent years, and can now be compared to cities such as, Boise, Madison, Tacoma, and Hartford to name a few." seems very biased towards the city. Also, several section within this article needs to be expanded. Ajwebb 00:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction (film)

This article explains and diagrams the movie, very in-depth. Plenty of visual representation. --emc! ╬ (t a l k) 19:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment it has a {{unreferenced}} at the top of it. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support it is very in-depth and covers many viewpoints. ReverendG 21:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Grafikm. This can't be featured as long as it has cleanup tags. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. No inline citation. -- Миборовский 21:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object as one of the most important American movies of the 1990s, certainly one we should have an FA on... but alas, this is full of rampant speculation and conjecture such as in the "Plot devices" section, as evidenced by the lack of sources, the tags requesting them (which have been up for a while). Not our best work. --W.marsh 23:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object no references gets a speedy object from me. Sandy 23:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object No references. Big ugly tag at the top of the article. Too much of the article consists of "trivia", quotes and lists of cultural influences.
• 'Object - which is a real shame because as has been said this is one of the greats and should be featured. THe thing is theres loads of good content but the lack of references (those tags all over the place just arn't good) and the general conjecture throughout spoils it. Oh and it could be alot shorter too. -- Errant  ^talk(formerly tmorton166) 19:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object as per everyone else. No refs, Trivia section still in exsistence, and a shoddy cast section to boot. See Revenge of the Sith, Richard III (1955 film), or Casablanca (film) for ideas as how to improve. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzy logic

I've nominated this article as it immediately strikes me as extremely well written. The tone of the prose is excellent, explaining a concept that could otherwise descend into reams of mathematical symbols in plain english, without losing any relavence. It is well discussed in the main body, with a variety of different sections with their own layout and style but that are totally consistent within themselves and with the other text. The article also answers newcomers questions fully, while providing relavent links to further topics and further mathematical study. In my view, an excellent candidate for a featured article. AdamSebWolf 09:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I can't really speak for the article's comprehensiveness, not being a mathematician, but the following stand out to me:

1. It's alright to have a general bibliography, but the article needs some form of inline citation pointing readers to where facts given in the article were found.
2. Image:Warm fuzzy logic member function.gif could do with being converted to an SVG file, and possibly moved up to the lead if no better images can be found.
3. The "See also" section should be pared down a bit, either by linking within the article text or removing items that aren't particularly relevant.
4. The "Examples" section needs to be converted to prose.
5. The "Formal fuzzy logic" needs to be expanded into prose.
6. I don't personally like the portal link, particularly in the lead, as it smacks of WP:NSR, but I suppose it's not vital that it be removed.
7. Another personal issue is the number of redlinks in the Formal section. While the article can still be featured with these, it wouldn't take that much effort to create short stubs and convert them to blue links. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Informal language in lead in which the author seems to be talking directly to the reader, as opposed to simply stating facts. Also, I'm uncomforatble with the way the "Misconceptions" section is laid out; it reads like a FAQ, less like an acedemic article. Fieari 17:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think my main concern is that this article doesn't properly cover defuzzification. I also felt the article was a bit light on explaining fuzzy logic from an axiomatic point of view — though this is forgivable since the article is an introduction to fuzzy logic. However it is disappointing that all of the links in the "Formal fuzzy logic" section are red suggesting there is no explanation of a formal fuzzy logic system on Wikipedia. Cedars 11:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Still seems like a rough draft. The prose is not excellent, and the examples meander somewhat. One particularly bad prose example: as gender is often considered as a binary information. So, it is not so complex like being tall. On top of this, the "how fuzzy logic is applied" section needs a lot of rework. It needs reorganization, expansion, and just general cleaning up (it seems somewhat repetitive). I'm not picking on the section because I think it's worse than the others, I'm picking on it because it seems like the most important section. 65.241.152.139 19:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Randall Flagg

Self-nomination Very indepth article on King's "megavillain" which chronicles all his major and speculated appearences and his movie appearence.--CyberGhostface 02:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object.

1. Image:Randallflagg7.jpg has a Bookcover fair use tag, but it's art from within the book, not the cover itself. Also, the article is about a character, not the book itself. Needs a specific rationale.
2. Image:FlaggTheStand.jpg ditto above.
3. Image:Walterodimrevisedgunslinger.jpg ditto above.
4. Image:Flaggdeathx.jpg ditto above.
5. Image:EyesoftheDragonFlagg.jpg ditto above. The caption also needs to make explicit which of the two characters featured is Flagg.
6. Image:FlaggMovieSheridan.jpg has a Screenshot fair use tag, but the article is about a character, not the film itself. Needs a specific rationale.
7. Image:Andrelinoge.jpg ditto above. Also needs a more informative caption.
8. Only five of the references are cited. Where are the others used? Also, cites are kind of sparse throughout the article.
9. I'm not sure about the aliases section. Are they all really worth documenting?
10. Why is the generic List of villains in the See also section?

GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. We're getting there, but this is not worthy of featured article status yet. As mentioned above, the references are still quite lacking. I have even placed a [citation needed] tag in the article that was never replaced with a proper citation. All quotes should be backed by a full citation (which includes the page number), and any controversial and/or questionable statements need citations as well. It would also help to have some works outside of King's cited in there (there have been some books about King which could be used). -- LGagnon 16:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object Some things that need verification haven't used citation, such as LeLand Gaunt being assumed to be a possible incarnation of Flagg's. If a critic (s) has made this comment, feel free to cite them appropriately. And there's a sentence which goes "It is known for a fact" - since when? Some people will probably use this article for further reading on Flagg so they will not know "for a fact". Also, Randall Flagg actually does NOT originate from "The Stand" as usually presumed. He comes from an old poem King wrote in college, so please someone check this out. I'd also heavily disagree that this article is getting towards featured status - its currently nowhere near. All it does is chronicle what he does in each book - there's no quoted book critics on perceptions of the character, no King quotes from interviews, no mentions on what King wished to achieve with this character, no nothing. LuciferMorgan 22:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

...Yeah, it chronicles what he does in each book and his character arc. Thats the entire point of the article. How is some critic's opinion of him even needed? How is it essential to his character? Sheesh.--CyberGhostface 20:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

EastEnders

The article has GA status, and has fulfilled the criteria left on the talk page in order for it to be considered for FA status. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: 1) Poor lead, not detailing much about the series at all; 2) The trivia section is the only part that is well referenced. I've not looked much further than that. There is some good content, but this isn't FA quality yet. violet/riga (t) 21:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not there yet. Lead too short, and seriously lacking in references. Sandy 02:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree about what has been said about the short lead. I also believe there are too many short, one sentence paragraphs. Some of those need to be extended to put together to form longer paragraphs.--NMajdan•talk 13:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think it should have been given GA status. As Nmajdan says, there's lots of choppy writing in the form of one sentence paras. The lead is certainly too short, and worst of all there's a bullet-pointed trivia section. These should never appear in an encyclopaedia article - trivia is by definition unencyclopaedic. Even if that weren't the case, why bullet point it? Why not write it as normal prose? Worldtraveller 20:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Image:EastEnders CM.gif should not be in GIF. Is one picture enough? WP 09:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Self-nomination - This artilce has gone through two major Peer Reviews (fixed link) and has passed Good Article Status. Alot of work was put into this article to make it complete, but not "to large" that would make it a marraton to read. As a major contributer to the article, I am proud to nominate it to the FA board. (If it gets selected, may I suggest July 26? Marking the 98th year from BOI.)

This is not a voting process =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Supporting

1. Support - per nominator --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support It has references, good pictures, and is very informative without being too long. No article is perfect, but this one deserves to be a FA. --WillMak050389 20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support I found this article to be completly extraordinary. I saw it when it was unreadable garbage but now it has improved so much. This really should be a part of the FA. -ScotchMB

Objections

• Some other things:
  • Can you please complete your references. If the link to a news article is gone in a month, I should be able to track the article down via another source. For example, your LA times link needs date (March 8, 2006) and author (Allan M. Jalon). Some of your references could use a better bibliographic style.
  • Can you describe each of your external links briefly (the FBI ones are obvious, the others aren't described). For example, why should I have to click on "The FBI ...Past, Present & Future" to know what it is. Is it a news article, a book, what?
  • Ditto for further reading: provide complete bibliographic elements. Also, alphabeticize them.
  • alphabetical interwikis
  • "See also" needs a template for navigation
  • Lead is a bit short, and doesn't seem to summarize the article
  • I went into the article for a random prose check, and found the FBI's official top priority is counterterrorism. "Official"? Is that a redundancy, or is there something we don't know about extra-official top priorities?
• I'll be glad to come back for another look, good start. Sandy 22:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Sorry, but the article needs much better referencing, in terms of what references are used (for balance), inline citations, and thorough bibliographic entries. The FA nomination does seem premature, and what passes peer review or GA might not meet FA criteria. Sandy 01:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Too short. Stub-sections (Crime statistics, Media portrayal). Organization is basically a list of directors and a little about personel. Are there no organizational diagrams and such? Does FBI personel has any ranks? Very large see also should be merged with main body. Need more inline references - for example in the 'criticism' section there are entire unreferenced paras. And a few more pics would not hurt. The 'media' section, when expanded, should probably mention something about FBI in ficiton, including the two most famous fictional FBI agents ever (do I need to say who? :)).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. I think this nomination is premature. My main objection relates to the selection of references. Still, a vast majority of references are to the FBI's own website. As such, I'm not confident that the history section represents WP:NPOV. Also, all are online sources. This article would benefit from dead tree sources found at a library. The organization section can also use improvement, such as explain more about Quantico, Clarksburg, the field offices, and legal attachés. I'll continue helping out with this article and try and address my own objections, as well as those above. --Aude (talk contribs) 23:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Sorry, but not enough inline sourcing. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

*Object Introduction is too short and the sentence structures vary too much. Also, 23 inlines aren't too many. 63.23.7.233 05:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Many issues I raised in the peer review (admittedly late in that game) have yet to be resolved, apart from the good Hoover picture. (You might also want to double check your link to the peer review!)--Monocrat 03:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed them last night - a bit late yes. I will work on this, but it has yet to be corrected by anyone else. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 06:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reorganizing the history: it looks better. But, there are still a number of issues:

• Stubby sections in "Organization." "Publications" and "Crime statistics" are stubby and could probably be combined;

• Crime statistics is just a header of both the UCR and the NIBRS. Combining them would be very messy. That's like talking about one thing then going on about something else. That's why they are seperated. The main header of Publications (the text under this) I will expand, but your "Stubby" definision is unclear. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Lack of serious discussion of major divisions;

• I think you missed this. It's right under Organization. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• The copy needs a lot of work. Consider these sentences from "History:"

"This was just the start of modern violent crime as the FBI was again tasked to handle major violent crimes that happen within United States borders." "In the 1970s, the RICO act took effect and the FBI started investigating the former Prohibition organized groups, which had by now become fronts for crime in major cities and even small towns." "The 1980s was dubbed "the year of the spy" because of the large amount of spy-related cases bringing investigated and prosecuted."--Monocrat 17:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object—2a. Here are examples from the top.
  • "The FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list has been used since 1949 to notify the public of wanted fugitives. Its most basic function is to defend the United States Constitution." Does "its" refer to the list or the organisation? Many readers will regard the second sentence as POV, no matter where your references are sourced.
  • "When it first started it was responsible for ..."—Surely there's a more elegant wording.
  • "The latest agent to be killed was Leonard W. Hatton who died of a result of the ..."—More commas required, as here after "Hatton". "Of a result"?
  • "To this date only 33 agents have been killed"—spot the three redundant words.

And lots more. Tony 03:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I just killed all those things because I could not think of other ways to fix it. I don't understand this... why can't you guys work ont he article yourself if there are some miss cues. I am all for corlaboration. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 04:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Some things:
  • Needs a better/slightly longer and more comprehensive lead (see WP:LEAD)
  • the "see also" section is a bit bloated. Along with the "other facts" section (a euphamism for "trivia"?) some of this should be integrated into prose, or just removed if it's too minute.
  • The "History" section seems very thin in places, particularly about the role of Hoover in dominating the agency for so long, it doesn't even properly introduce him and his role, the first mention of him in the article reads "After J. Edgar Hoover's death"... Also, doesn't really go into COINTELPRO in enough depth, this event was (as I understand it) a major turning point in the history of the FBI. The articles on Hoover and COINTELPRO seem to do a decent job of covering this, but I don't think summarizing it in the FBI article would hurt either. At any rate it needs to cover it a bit better than it does right now. --W.marsh 21:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the trivia to Richard M. Nixon, where it fits better amongst all the other trivia there. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Just so it's out of the way. To answer some questions. A few things... there is no rank. There are Agents and Supavisors, but there is no "rank". I think --Aude has already fixed the See Also section, while I was taking a nap. The directors are now in another article. "provide complete bibliographic elements"? I can alphabeticize, I don't think I can expand them. I don't have these books and I would have to do some majjor looking. Thanks for the comments. I thought there was enough inline sources. :o --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 00:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I worked on some of these "ojbects". I am going to finsh them up tonight. Keep me posted in what you think is completed. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 02:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keeping the article below the recommend "size" has been hard. usually once I been adding information, it gets to long and then it goes totally against the WP:FA critiera. I guess it's ok to go over it a little bit? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 06:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Just to note, images are not required for FA's. There are not alot of "FBI" related images to be used. Trust me... I have looked. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 08:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• (And more notes from me..) This website: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/ seems to have a lot of information. After this article is at the FA standered this page can serve as a guide to help expand the articles that come off the FBI Main page and the {{FBI}} template. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 08:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• When I looked for more history on the FBI to source it most of the sites were bascily the same thing, using the FBI website as their source. I think we have to overlook that this is where a majority of the information does come from. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 15:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• lets make a note, I am not an English major. I have always been bad at English. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 04:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, you need collaborators who are good at English, if you're going to nominate FACs. Reviewers in this room are under no obligation to edit articles. For some of us, our work is cut out just reviewing.

I note that this person has just plastered the following comment on my talkpage:

"I would like suggestions not misguided comments please".

Tony 04:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Refering to "And lots more." (Above) --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 05:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- needs to go through a spellcheck responsiable, couninting first. Having section 3.2.1 is considered bad style. Left aligned images causes some headings to be switched to the right. Title 28 of the United States Code (U.S. Code) ... to investigate specific crimes. -- Too specific to be in the lead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed that section. spellcheck has been completed. Title 28 etc. has been moved it another location out of the lead. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think the text needs to go through a complete copyedit. 1. eg: Now the FBI actively attacks potential threats before the can take place. --> ...FBI precludes (or forestalls) potential threats? 2. The mission of ... terrorist and foreign threats,... "foreign threats"? that's vague: I checked the source: It says "protect against foreign intelligence threats". 3. =Overall mission= --> =Mission= 4. The FBI's chief tool --> "tool"? needs more encyclopedic wording. I've stopped here and not reviewed from the second section onwards. =Nichalp «Talk»= 21:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Will get to it later. Been up all night working on the Wikipedia:WikiProject FBI :) -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 11:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Kernel (computer science)

Self-nomination: This article has undergone quite a lot of work and has been peer-review in order to check it against the FA-checkpoints. Candamir 13:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of inline referencing here... generally, unless you have a plot-type passage you need to reference almost each statement you make, even if it is "elementry".

Now for a total side note and really picky pedantic point - "the kernel is the central part in most operating systems" - I'd prefer it to WHY it is a central part explicity. For example, "the kernel is the central part of most operating systems because because..." - or in other words, what makes it central? For the casual reader it seems to me that it would benefit from making the connection explicit.

I appreciate the hard work on an important article :) RN 02:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'll work on the citations and take into account your suggestion for the first sentence, as that's what most readers see from the article when it's on the main page ;) But anyway, what do you guys think about everything else in the article (despite it's lack of inline referencing)Candamir 06:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• OK. I'm working on the citations issue, but it's going to take a few days... Candamir 14:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a valiant effort. You have my respect. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• I will be in holidays for the next three weeks, so I am only going to work sporadically on WP, just thought I should tell you :P Candamir 19:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Problems—Who's going to fix the problems now that the nominator has gone? It's fairly well written throughout, but needs a little fixing to satsify 2a. For example, this blooper in the lead:
  • "The above listed tasks are done differently by every kernel, depending on it's design and implementation ..." Hyphen required, but "above-listed" is so ungainly. Please learn "it's" versus "its".
  • Redundant "in order to" is a few places.
  • Em dashes required where hyphens are used as boundaries for nested clauses. Tony 13:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Bus Uncle

This article has been peer-reviewed and FA standards are met. Cheung1303 08:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object underreferenced, for example, this direct quote with no inline citation: Clement So York-kee, Director of the School of Journalism at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, warned that methods to uncover Bus Uncle news "did not seem to...[involve the] traditional practice of news reporting". If you can reference the article, I will be happy to have another look. Sandy 11:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. An Internet phenomenon needs more inline citation... -- Миборовский 00:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object It's excessively underreferenced, and doesn't provide evidence of its claims at all. If this has become a cultural sensation in Hong Kong and inspired discussion about life, then could the main editor please back this up with examples? It should be remembered that Wikipedia isn't a place for original research.

Also it states that the person in the clip has said "this" and "that" in subsequent interviews, so these "quotes" should be cited also. Doesn't meet FA standards in my opinion, in fact, articles more comprehensive than this have been stripped of FA status. Still decently written though, but needs to cite its claims. LuciferMorgan 22:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hoi polloi

This is a second nomination. After the first nomination, the article has been substantially improved and all issues from the first nomination have been addressed. As a consequence, the article has been selected as a good article.
The article explains the origins, use (as well as misuse) of this phrase, with examples from both film and literature. Several misconceptions, such as who introduced the phrase into English, are debunked along the way. The article is well sourced and conforms to all style guidelines. As the primary author, I leave the determination of whether it is well written to other readers. Johntex\^talk 00:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Image:Lord Byron drawing showing the place of the hoi polloi.JPG should be in SVG, also the Wiktionary box looks out of place. WP 06:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good catches, thanks! I converted the image to PNG and replaced the old JPG. I also moved the Wiktionary box to the References section at the bottom of the page. Johntex\^talk 06:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've created an SVG version and included it in the Appearances in Literature section. Icey 11:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Better, but a few problems:

• The flow of the lead isn't that great. The second paragraph doesn't read well, I don't understand "used to meet", and is it really necessary to list 19 synonyms? I mean, maybe 3-4 to get the various shades of meaning, but "huddled masses", "masses", and "the masses"? Unnecessary.
• The first big quote: "it was invariably preceded by the". Can we mark "the" somehow, like with italics or quotes or something?
• Any examples of usage where it means "upper class"? Very short subsection.
• Can "Appearances in film, radio, and the internet" be split into a couple subsections?
• That usenet post is still in the references—why? If I write on some listserv that Hoi Polloi means "I like chicken", does my definition get included here?
• Ref 23 doesn't work (google cache).
• Any external links?
• Some overall prose problems... things like "The term has continued to be used in writing up to modern times", "This conversation associating polo with the hoi polloi is surprising", "New media and new inventions have also been described as being by or for the hoi polloi". Nothing too egregious, but not "brilliant" either.
• Organization... I'm not sure I like it. Rather than dividing this by media type (which is really rather irrelevant), why not do it by time period? Shouldn't be too many changes, but that might help readers get a better idea of how the phrase has been used through the years. And it would help take care of my third point above. Better prose connections between different usage examples would be helpful too. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - I will work on these over the coming weekend.

To answer the question about the Listserve reference, I decided to leave it in because it seemed that the poster was a frequent contributor and that he had the respect of other posters on the list. Therefore, I thought he was as knowledgable a source as any conventional journalist or the like that could be cited. If that is not a good explanation or if others disagree, we can certainly remove that reference. Johntex\^talk 14:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yiddish language

This article has lots of sources and is an important topic. Leoberacai 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object for now. The external jumps (like this [2]) need to convereted into footnotes and the sections near the end with "main" tags need to have summary paragraphs. Overall, a nice start though. Rlevse 19:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object. Too short a lead (see WP:LEAD), too few inline citations, and a lot of sections without any text. --Maitch 20:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. an all-round good article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object Very short lead, numerous sections with no content at all, and needs to be referenced. I didn't check the prose, since the basics aren't even in place. Sandy 01:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Summary Style means that you still provide a summary of articles you link to. You can't just link them and not describe them at all... Fieari 03:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object The sections at the end need summary paragraphs (per fieari and maitch). Also needs more inline sourcing (per maitch again). In the section "Status of Yiddish as a dialect of German" I do not like the words "It has often been suggested"..."the consensus among linguists" - tell me, if it is the conssnsus among lingist then who has been suggesting it (often no less), and if they are not lingist then why do I care - in other words these idea should be quoted by an individual or group of people. Jon513 05:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object for now. Expect a lot more citations for a broad and general article like this. -- Миборовский 21:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Plenty of work left before FA maturity:
  • Needs to abide at least somewhat closely to the language template.
  • Lacks sections on dialects, phonology, grammar, vocabulary, writing system and geographic distribution, all of which are essential to any language article.
  • The sections "Yiddish media", "Heradi Orthodox Jews", "Yiddish and other languages" need to be removed or merged with more appropriately named sections. See above, for example.
  • "Status of Yiddish as a dialect of German" borders the trivial. Yiddish is well-established as a separate language and I don't see a trace of references to any substantial claims of Yiddish being a German dialect.
  • The infobox is cluttered with speaker statistics that belongs in article text.
  • The sections "Books" and "Periodicals" seem to be just lists of recommended reading. Please mark them as such or remove them.
  • There are no audio samples whatsoever or even external links to any language samples.
    • I have now linked Yiddish Radio Project. - Jmabel | Talk 16:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Peter ^Isotalo 10:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkey

Support.--Absar 12:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object—{{protect}} tag, few inline citations, underdeveloped sections. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 13:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object per 2e, not stable. Sandy 13:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. -- Underneath-it-All 21:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)

Self-nomination: I have really worked this article over in the past five days and I believe it is now ready for FA status. An extremely bad and extremely important video game, it holds a special place in video gaming history. There are a lot of mistruths surrounding this game, so I made sure to cite my sources extensively and made sure they were creditable. Additionally, despite being considered the worst game of all time, I think I managed to keep a pretty neutral POV for the article. The fact that the images need fair use rationals is probably going to be brought up, but I'm tired atm so I'll get around to putting in that jibber-jabber tomorrow. Otherwise, I find it as perfect as I can make it and I hope you guys agree ;) Happy 3rd of July everyone! --SeizureDog 05:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. My god, I take a break from Wikipedia for a couple months, and the whole E.T. page transforms! A most excellent job you've done. If it gains FA status, I would be overjoyed, if only for personal reasons. It was a rather crappy article before I stopped by, if I do say so myself...one picture, no Infobox, etc etc. What you've done, though, is double my work. From shit to shining! *high fives SeizureDog* Spamguy 06:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much Spamguy :) Also, I think it's safe for you to go ahead and support the nomination. Virtually the entire article was rewritten so I don't think your vote could be discounted from being a "significate contributor" of the current version.--SeizureDog 06:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It's a good article. My major concern is the material about the user on a message board digging up all these photos. It seems a little original researchish, but it can probably be adjusted to focus more on that local newspaper. I also wonder about Production and sales being one section- they're not really related. I would give Production its own section and make Sales a subsection under the heading "Reception", which would include "Critical reaction". Perhaps a brief definition of the video game crash would also help to understand the article. Finally, with this stuff about it being one of Atari's best-selling games but also a failure, would it be fair to say Atari was aiming higher than their usual capabilities? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I agree with shifting the focus to the newspaper. I kinda had a hard time mentioning the newspaper without bringing up the backstory though. As for it being original research, it's the best there is on the subject and backs itself up well. It's better researched there than the page at snopes.com in any case (a rare event). Plus, his actions were enough to get him an article in the Alamogordo Daily News, so that kinda makes it unoriginal research right? I mean, I would call being talked about in the town in which the event occured without having the information denied as falling under being "published by a reputable source". The subsections I had nothing to base myself on, so I just tried to split them up as best I could think of. Whatever naming feels most correct is fine with me. I don't think the video game crash of 1983 needs to be explained though. For one, it's wikilinked. And for two, it kinda explains itself doesn't it? In 1983, the video game market crashed. Explaining why it crashed really isn't in this article's scope. --SeizureDog 08:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot to respond to "would it be fair to say Atari was aiming higher than their usual capabilities?" If by "capabilities" you're referring to their capabilites of getting away with putting shit in a pretty box and it selling well, then I'd say yes, yes they were. (The quote, "I could put shit in a box and it'd sell a million copies," is from the Video game crash of 1983 article. Sadly, there's no way I'm adding that to this article without a good source)--SeizureDog 08:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Just two small things ..

• Viewing at 1280x1024, the Reviews and scores table looks a bit weird .. it's cutting into a paragraph of text, actually, it's a bit hard to explain what is happening, so I took a screenshot. Maybe you can play with its positioning or something.
• Aren't references and endnotes normally kept seperate? Cheers --darkliight^[πalk] 12:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I did some tweaking with positioning and it should look fine now. And the references section is user preference. The style for references wildly various from article to article. I know that this style isn't of my own creation, but I just can't seem to be able to find the article I picked it up on. For a close example though, Bulbasaur is an featured article with both endnotes and references kept together (slightly different style though).--SeizureDog 16:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Table looks good. Regarding the references, Bulbasaur keeps its references and notes seperate too, just that they're contained within one section instead of two. The number of sections does not bother me, just that they're kept seperate in some way. Don't consider this to be an objection though, if it doesn't bother anyone else than I'm fine with it. Cheers --darkliight^[πalk] 16:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So is that a support then? --SeizureDog 18:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support; well written, and manages to find NPOV even in article about such a dreadful game. Would like to see articles for Karate (Atari 2600) and Skeet Shoot though, two red links which are of medium importance to the article. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Funny, I was just working on that. Red links are gone :) --SeizureDog 16:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment A few things need work. There are some minor grammatical issues (like commas and periods should be enclosed by quotation marks, not outside) and some language that does not entirely seem encyclopedic ("chump-change" for example). Significant issues include

• The use of quotation marks outside of periods and commas is a British style (even though I'm American, I perfer their way and it is acceptable in US use). Of course, I might have screwed it up even using the British style, quotation marks can get highly confusing. Point taken with "chump-change" though, need to replace that.

• The section on the confirmed landfill story actually has no citations. I see a number of newspaper articles listed in the references section; they should be converted to cite.php refs and applied to the correct locations in the article as needed. "chump-change" was reworded.

• I was actually just putting off adding citations for that section. I wanted someone such as yourself to speckle it with {{fact}} to avoid over-citing. All of your tags marked been sourced.

• Inline cite #1 should be made into a regular ref giving the issue date and page number of the Alamgordo newspaper where the photos came from, not to the blogger who found them.

• I agree this needs to be addressed

• Inline cites 2 and 3 are dead links for me; unless the interview has been published somewhere other than a personal website, it would not be considered a reliable source in any case.

• Works fine in Opera. It's a direct link to an MPG file so that might be the problem.

• What is the source of information in ref 23?

• Sourced.

• A more NPOV way of saying "it wasn't the programmers fault" should be found, especially since you are relying heavily on an interview with the programmer, which could certainly be seen as potentially self-serving.

• Agreed. Comment removed.

• The online reproduction of the manual should be moved from references to an external link. Other things specifically used as references (like Seanbaby's ranking as #1 worst) should only be in refs and not also in external links.

• I disagree here. I used the manual heavily as a source for the gameplay section. As an external link, it adds little that the article already has. Plus, it can be found via the AtariAge link already in the external links. As a final note, Pokemon articles such as Bulbasaur and Torchic have taken to listing the manual as a ref.--SeizureDog 20:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly a good article and well on its way. Thatcher131 19:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object

1. Inline citations are required now, and I think "Gameplay" needs them.
2. "was largely due to the unreasonably short deadline to ship on September 1 in order to coincide with the 1982 Christmas shopping season." You'll need attribution for this, I think "Howard Scott Warshaw"?

Some other suggestions:

1. "It is considered a paradigm of marketing greed: a poorly produced, rushed game that Atari thought would sell well based purely on brand loyalty to the names of Atari and E.T." - I'm not sure if the cited source here is enough for this blanket statement. Perhaps it is considered by "some"?
2. "The problem of E.T.'s poor quality" phrasing seems awkward, suggest something like "The quality issues with E.T."
3. "Thus, it was an amazing feat of programming that the game was even able to be completed at all." - a source for this might help

RN 10:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

GRAH! Stupid Wikipedia has to crash my internets after I'm done typing up replies D:< They'll be shorter this time out of frustration.

1. This is just stupid. There's nothing in the Gameplay section even remotely worth giving a cite. Also, see The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, no cites for Story or Gameplay.
2. I have no idea what you're talking about. The quote is plainly sourced to Warshaw.
3. I have not seen a single person say that Atari was not being greedy or defend their actions. Find any (even minor) source saying otherwise and I'll see about changing the wording.
4. Reworded.
5. Removed.

--SeizureDog 10:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As per (2) I mean you're taking an interview as fact - it would be better if you said something like "According to X, " in the article. As per the quality statement you're making a point-of-view judgement on it's quality by saying "E.T.'s poor quality" RN 13:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Be bold and word it how you like then. --SeizureDog 19:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Forums aren't and shouldn't be acceptable sources, even for pop culture articles. Also, I'm pretty sure the use of newspaper articles posted on the AtariAge forums doesn't count as using the newspaper article itself as your source, but using the forum. I know this is a pretty exceptional case, what with one of the articles being videotaped rather than scanned (!) but I think the policy would still apply. Perhaps the original article can still be found somewhere; we're only talking 25 years ago. Other points: The "Atari Landfill" section's organization -- divided into "the legend" and "the confirmed story", has a rather informal tone. They'd be better merged into one section, and dealing only with what's factual, unless the status of the story as an "urban legend" has been discussed significantly in other sources -- a cite would help. The "reasons for the destruction" section is also way too speculative; I'd prefer it if you just phrased the "reasons" in terms of "explanations" and refered directly in the text to which sources have offered these explanations. Overall, this is a very interesting topic, but I believe whole books have been written about the downfall of Atari -- pop culture articles are supposed to use the best sources available, and I think there's more to be discovered here, from better (off-line) sources. Sorry to be so picky :) -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 21:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The forum itself is never used as a source. I don't see what the difference is if I use newspaper articles that are scanned or view them IRL. If anything, the scanned articles are more reputable. I could have the paper right in front of me, but it would still be prudent to link to the scans so others can verify that the articles do in fact exist. Otherwise, I could just make up a bunch of BS that noone would able to fact-check because the articles require living in such a specific location to see. And perhaps we're only talking about a 25 year old article, but that's a 25 year old article from a small town paper. I don't see how taking a road trip to read them myself would help matters. As for merging, it is very important in this case to mention what is not factual as well as what is confirmed. Otherwise, we're going to be getting a lot of "helpful" edits that will comprimise the article. Its status as an urban legend is all over the place, I'm sure at least half of my references contain a section talking about it as an urban legend, so I'm not quite sure how to cite that. I'll admit to the "reasons for destruction" being a tensey bit of originial research. I know that tax write off thing is very likely though; I just can't figure out how to cite it as a law. The book you're thinking of would be Zap!. However, I have no access to the book. Perhaps in the future I can get my hands on it and use it as a source, but I'm not sure if it would help much (the reviews say it's pretty poorly written). That's the only book on the subject though; other VG history books may mention it in passing, but my experience with books on the subject of video games is that they end up being horrid for references. Too much focus on common knowledge, not enough depth. --SeizureDog 01:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I see several individual threads from the forum listed as in-line cites for the article -- that's the reason I said the forum is being used as a source. With regards to the newspaper, the issue isn't the scanning of the article persay(or retyping, or filming, or whatever). The issue is who did the scanning/retyping/filming. Naturally, the online edition of New York Times is as reliable as the paper edition, because it's still a part of the Times. But WP:CITE suggests that A common error is to copy citation information from an intermediate source without acknowledging it. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page and the web page must be mentioned. The web page itself must therefore be a reliable source.

As for books, I thought of the titled you mentioned yes, but there's also books like Supercade, The Ultimate History Of Video Games,Power-Up: How Japanese Video Games Gave the World an Extra Life, Joystick Nation, and others to explore. Granted, off the top of my head, I can only come up with one source specifically about Atari and Atari only, but my point was more that print examinations of this topic exist. Why cite a vaguely-independent-researchy article no-one can get their hands on when you could probably find an in-depth discussion of the same source in several books, which anyone can find at a local library? You might say that video game books make dreadful sources, but I still think they're inherently better than self-published online sources and reviews on forums like GameFAQs. Despite being a flop, this is probably one of the most noteble games in history. Don't get me wrong, this article has improved tremendously IMHO, but using the best available sources would really help to make it great. For a point of comparison, check out the number of offline sources that were employed in the Featured Article Donkey Kong (arcade game). -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 01:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant that the forum is never used as a source for the Atari landfill section. The forum is only used as a source to show public opinions of E.T. not being the worst game ever. The only article that may be a minor problem is the one that was retyped (I couldn't find the images for that article), but for the scanned articles I hardly see how the information could be a mistake. Typing up that an that article says something but accidently misquoting it is one thing, but implying that scans of an article are somehow incorrect is entirely different. The other books you linked to are very unlikely to be of use: Supercade is a visual history book; Power-Up focuses on Japanese video games, hardly useful for researching an American made game; the other two might be of a little use, but usually those books tend to focus on the good games, not the duds. And how could any book (which could just base itself off the legend) be more reputable than newspaper articles from the town it occured in? , In all fairness, popular games always are going to have a lot more sources to draw from. People just naturally seem to perfer writing about good games. Not to mention that the Atari 2600 is pretty skimpy in terms of writing; most books on that era of gaming focus on the arcade games. I think that finding good off-line sources for even games such as Pitfall! and Adventure would be hard.

I should also mention that I'm only able to get online with a Mac now, which I'm not used to and thus have an extremely difficult time editing articles. I suggest being bold and editing the article yourself for any changes that wish to be addressed, as I'm not likely to be able to get around to it.--SeizureDog 20:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the scanned/taped articles work. It's sort of a weird case though, in terms of the sourcing: if I found a scanned image of a newpaper page in a book, my first instinct would be to cite the book instead of the newspaper for the information, which seems to more generally follow the guideline; but I could be wrong about this one, so I won't worry about it for now.

The one article that's retyped, however, shouldn't be used as a source, per the guideline I've cited. If the website it comes from is the only source you have from article, any information that comes from that article and that article only is unsourced, which is problematic for this article being featured.

As for the books, I refer to them because I believe this article has a lot of weak sources, when the reliable sources guideline stresses that pop culture articles should always use the best sources available. The AtariAge forums, GameFAQs, Snopes, an outline of an undergraduate lecture at Tufts, Stingray's Madness (personal site) and others all strike me as weak sources. One of your references even cites "Zap! The Rise and Fall of Atari" which you reject as a source on the grounds of reviews by Amazon readers. What video game books have lead you to believe that these books ignore Atari, and ignore unpopular but historically significant titles? Two more to try: "The First Quarter: A 25-Year History of Video Games" by Steven L. Kent, and "Phoenix: the Rise and Fall of Video games" by Leonard Herman. Trust me, tons has been said about this subject -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 02:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're forgetting that the subject that "tons has been said about" is video game history in general. The most I could hope to get from those books is maybe a passing paragraph mentioning the game. Maybe if I'm really lucky, I'll get a page's worth, but I'll hardly find a "ton" of info on this game in perticular. I really don't think I'm missing out on too much by sticking to the net.--SeizureDog 04:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My point here is that WP:Reliable Sources requires pop culture articles to use the best sources available. Even if you don't find anything that's not already in the article, a published book is still a better source for the same information than a forum, personal web site, etc. Pop culture articles get cut a lot of slack, because there often aren't sources even in existence for those topics that satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. In this case however, you are indeed talking about a topic which has been discussed in better sources, including some of the ones I've mentioned. Maybe we're differing on our definition of "a ton of information", but still, the ET game is probably one of the most talked-about Atari games, as it has hugely important place in video game history. I really don't mean to be hard on this article; it's got a lot of great information. I just don't think it's really met the sourcing requirements expected of the particular subject. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 07:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, wish granted. Went to the library and checked out The Ultimate History of Video Games (only book to mention E.T. there). In total there were 3 pages that talked about it (the pages aren't very packed though, double spaced and liberal use of margins). About as much as I could hope for. Not much to add with it, can spice it up with a couple of new quotes and a few more accurate numbers though. Oh well, hard sourced now. Book supports the article on most all points. The two diviations were an error I had about who actually bought the rights (Steve Ross, not Ray Kassar) and an error on the book's part with a minor detail about the landfill (says that Atari "went back" to crush the cartridges when they were actually crushed on delivery). Happy?--SeizureDog 03:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The intro seems a bit opinionated to me. Modlin 08:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It does make me happy that you used your public library to find a source for Wikipedia -- that always makes me happy. As stated above, though, I do still object to use of forums (atariage, gamefaqs) and self-published websites (stingray's madness, snopes) as inline cites. Information that is sourced exclusively by sources that WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources don't accept (even for pop culture articles) should be left out until an acceptable source is found. Same goes with the unsourced tax write-off explanation. I recommended looking into a few different books because I thought it might be helpful in finding an acceptable source for unsourced or poorly sourced info in the article -- I'm sorry if that didn't help. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 04:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's where we differ then. The thing about video games and other such nerd culture is that the most accurate information is often actually found on the internet. The internet is specialized towards this sort of thing and print is not. It's like when Time or (ugh) MTV tries to talk about what video games are "good" and makes some wildly awful picks. They aren't specialized towards video games and don't know much about them. From what I've looked into, there are pretty much only 3 good books for video game history: The Ultimate History of Video Games, Game Over, and Pheonix: The Rise and Fall of Video Games. Since Game Over is only about Nintendo, Pheonix is the only other print source to actually draw from.

One of the sections my sources seem to bother you on is the "Critical Responce" section, which, without internet sources, will completely be killed. Hate to say but print reviews for a game this old are going to be virtually non-existant. The only two reviews I could possibly have are semi-gimicky and play up its status of "worst game ever"; I'd have nothing nothing to show for it being otherwise without the net(even though there's a pretty good section of people that don't think it's the worst ever).

The landfill section is bit of a problem though. Since the newspapers have only recently been unearthed (2005), and no good VG history books have been written since that time (Utimate History was written in 2001), the next printed source to include this information is likely to be a ways in coming. I think killing the content of information just because its not written about much offline is not a good idea. I may not be able to directly source all of it to print, but it's all good, respectable information that's not likely to be very wrong. --SeizureDog 00:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying everything needs to be sourced in print. I'm saying that not all online sources are created equal, and the ones that are explicitly referred to as unacceptable in w:v and w:rs -- like forums and personal webpages -- shouldn't be used. I'm fine with the use of your newspaper articles, just not the one that's retyped text. And in this instance, yes, I disagree with the assessment that the internet exclusively has the best information on the topic. Call me nuts, but I suspect that sources like Gamespy and 1-up are not relying on their stunningly accurate memory of 1982 when they recite the game's history or toss out statements about the game being widely panned -- I believe they're getting their information other things that have been written about it, mostly likely including Zap (referenced by snopes) and similiar books. Not that I have a problem with the use of Gamespy or 1-up, but I'm just saying -- the existance of those articles suggests there's still more to be found, which would most likely cover the gaps you'd create by leaving out forums and the like. Snopes also references The First Quarter by Stephen L. Kent. If you're dead convinced that the three books you mention are the only good books on the subject, you should not be using snopes, which obviously is dependent on books you believe are not up to standard.

As for the idea that the landfill story was an urban legend until 2005 when someone posted a newpaper article on a forum, I think you may be overestimating the importance of this. For one thing, I don't see a lot of sources actually calling it an urban legend. There was a New York Times article about it; also Game Over, which as you accurately state is a history of Nintendo and not Atari, nevertheless includes the dumping story, and retells it as fact without any reluctance. I can't say they've got much on it, but that is widely considered an exceptionally well-researched book. For sources, it generally uses academic papers and print media from the time these games were released, which is a perfectly legimate route to go; good libraries do usually have archives of major periodicals either in a digital format or on mircofilm, going back pretty far. So, if you're not interested in looking through the books that are relevant to the subject, you've got options. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 05:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Atari landfill didn't suddenly stop being an urban legend, I never said that. It still is an urban legend even with the evidence. It doesn't even have to be called an urban legend to be an urban legend. Basically, my understanding is that an urban legend is any story that the vast majority of people learn not from a reputable source, but from peers (who heard it from other peers). As I've said before, I'm open to someone editing that section to work out the forum reference, but personally I can't write about the legend without mentioning that as a backstory.

The First Quarter is what The Ultimate History of Video Games was originally published as, so that's already been covered. How do you know that Game Over talks about E.T.? Do you have it? If so, your own additions to the article would be welcome. And what the heck would be relevent for this game in academic papers? I don't think any gaming magazines existed in 1983, I don't know what I'd look for even if I had access to such an archive. Plus, the only good library I have near me is the Fayetteville, Arkansas library, which is very new (built one or two years ago), so it doesn't go back that far, especially not with this subject matter. Honestly, I'm really stuck with the references and can't go much further. If you could help there, that'd be great, but otherwise it'll be months before I have the spare cash to buy some of those other reference books. --SeizureDog 19:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reworded the landfill section so that the forums weren't mentioned, better? --SeizureDog 06:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also was able to find the scans for the article I had been using the typed text for. I think this takes care of all of the problems I can address, consider changing position to (weak) support? Or did I miss something?--SeizureDog 06:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, the "Explanations for Destruction" section is very poorly written:

• In the third paragraph it's postulated that Atari's finances were "floundering" and that they could not afford to store the cartridges. The next paragraph, though, points out that Atari was an extremely successful business at the time!
• "The second reason is that it was likely done..." Why is "likely done" placed here? Isn't this just a continuation of a theory w8hose description began in the previous paragraph?
• "...By throwing all of their excess merchandise away, they were able to avoid paying taxes on them. If they had kept them in storage, they would have had to pay taxes on millions of useless games." This seems very odd; can we cite the tax code that says that disposing of the games instead of storing them allows them to write them off? Is this reasoning that somebody formed after reviewing the relevant tax code, or just a wild explanation some guy on a forum came up with?
• "One of the most common arguments against the legend is..." Why are we even taking arguments "against the legend" into consideration, if it's been proven that the "legend" is in fact reality? What is being argued against?
• "Additional considerations such as storage costs for keeping the dead weight also must be taken into consideration." The considerations must be taken into consideration? Huh?
• were irrevocably written in non-rewriteable" Irrevocably non-rewritable. This sort of redundancy occurs throughout the article.
• "more than couple of ten-thousand dollars" Is this standard English?
• "and likely saved them even more." Again with "likely." How can we judge how "likely" this is? It seems like Atari had some difficulties with financial planning; maybe they lost money compared to their other options by doing this. We don't really know since we don't have their balance sheets.
• "But it was still not enough to save them from their inevitable collapse during the following year." I don't like this sentence at all. "Inevitable" is a very strong word, especially when the article points out that the rushed release of the game was a (presumably avoidable) mistake. And does "during" need to be there? Andrew Levine 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• And I just noticed something quite important -- The sections which are drawn from the Almogordo Daily News do not make any mention of E.T. per se. They just say that a lot of 2600 cartridges were dumped, without specifying game titles. Did the source articles mention the E.T. game specifically? (EDIT: They do not, one of the headlines notwihstanding.) Do we really even know if a single E.T. game (much less hundreds of thousands, as the lead claims) was among those trucked out to the New Mexico desert, and that the E.T.s were not disposed of elsewhere? Andrew Levine 21:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, and one more thing: All of the critical reviews seem to be recent, with not a single one drawn from the era when it was released. I know that back then, there existed magazines and newsletters reviewing new video games (as there still do today), and that while some of them were probably shills, there must have also been some independent publications able to objectively examine E.T. and praise it or pan it as appropriate. Exclusively using reviews from nostalgic "classing gaming" websites introduces a bias. What did contemporary video game critics think? Andrew Levine 21:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew raises good points; there are still some significant issues with this article. It's certainly getting better, though. Objections I still have include the use of in-line cites 8 (personal website) 16, 20 & 21 (observation of reaction on a forum), and 32(private email exchange). I bring up the issue of "urban legend" status, partially because from what I can see you've not really cited sources that indicate the story was ever widely believed to be untrue. And I still think the section about "reasons for the destruction" is a bit too speculative. Where's the source for "one of the most common arguments... is that it would be too expensive and impractical for Atari to dump the cartridges...?" Who is claiming the process would take "couple of ten-thousand dollars"?

Here's the thing: I'm actually quite interested in this topic, and would be more than willing to work on some of these things in perhaps the next week or so. I do have "Game Over", which doesn't have much on the landfill story, but I can look into the references it cites in it's bibliography. I checked with my library, and "Zap!" and a few other probably-relevant books are in my local system -- which means I could have them on an interlibrary loan in 3-5 days. If you're willing to hold off on this nom for a bit, I'd be willing to try and dig up some information, and give the "Atari Landfill" section some copyediting attention, which I still think it needs. Fair? -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 22:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Mars

Nominating this article for FA, is done quite well, and contains much important information. Previously nomination Recent Peer Review Tuvas 16:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak object: This article would seem to be a prime example on the necessity of summary style, but I question some of the choices on what is included and what isn't. For example, there is an entire section on "Astronomy on Mars", while sections on the geology and climate of Mars are not well treated (or are skewed toward the perspective of recent Mars landers). Even the daughter articles appear short and do not cover the subject well. Very little on impact cratering on Mars. The most prominent features on Mars get nothing more than a brief mention. I understand this article is long as it is, but perhaps improved selection of what to discuss, and what can be best left in the "See Also" section, could allow this article to improve its coverage to the topic while not growing substantially. --Volcanopele 20:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • For guidance on improving the article, please look to the Portugese version, which is a featured article in that language's Wikipedia. While I can only scan through the article, the apparent depth is what I would consider appropriate for a topic of this magnitude. After re-reading this article, I am changing my vote to an Oppose, based on Criteria 2b. --Volcanopele 00:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Surely almost 50 citations is enough to be getting on with. The article seems to skew toward human observation, in much the same way that every single Wiki "notable event" skews to the last 100 years (or even since 1990 for that matter). The fact that the rovers represent the newest knowledge should not change the de facto skew policy. Tdslappy
  • But this isn't about a current event. This about the entire planet Mars, and more discussion about what is going on around the rest of the planet, like results from the other spacecraft currently in orbit around Mars. And the two paragraphs actually on surface features observed on Mars doesn't do the planet justice.

--Volcanopele 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • That detail is more than effectively covered in sub-articles, which is where I'd rather it. Tdslappy

• I understand if most of the detail has to go to sub-articles (which could be VASTLY improved as well, particularly the geology sub-article). But ONE paragraph to cover the diversity of surface features on Mars on the main article is not covering the topic comprehensively. No mention of the gullies along crater walls. No mention of river-like channels. Yet, we have an entire paragraph on how the prime meridian was determined... --Volcanopele 17:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Most of the references to the recent probes/landers in the Physical characteristics section can be removed. For example, "data from the Mars Exploration Rovers indicates the suspended dust particles are roughly 1.5 micrometres across" can be simplified to "the suspended dust particles are roughly 1.5 micrometres across"; "In March 2004 the Mars Express Orbiter reported they had found methane in the Martian atmosphere, with a concentration of about 10 ppb by volume" can be simplified to "Methane exists in the Martian atmosphere at a concentration of about 10 ppb by volume"; and on and on throughout the article. Very little mention of the exploration of Mars should be in the Physical characteristics section; that's what the Exploration section is for. The citations are there for a reason; use them. In addition, I think it would be beneficial to include a section about how Mars has been perceived throughout the centuries. Take the sentence "For many years, the standard notion of the planet was a drying, cooling, dying world with ancient civilizations constructing irrigation works." It's slightly misplaced currently (it's not about Mars in fiction, only relates to it), and it would be interesting to know what the Greeks/Egyptians/Romans, the Medieval centuries, the world post-Galileo, the world pre-Mariner/Voyager, and the world today perceives/believes/understands about Mars. Not a big section - just a sentence on each one, probably. But that would but the whole thing in perspective better. zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I really like the article, but Zafiroblue's recommendations are very good ones. If I had to choose between support and object, I'd support, but I would far rather see the recommendations taken on board and then have a very easy time of suporting. Crowbait 14:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have looked over the article, and I think I've managed to remove all references of a spacecraft leading to a new bit of knowledge, with the exception of the life section. I think that whole section should be rewritten, but, I don't have time to do it right now. I will work on adding more of the perceived views of the planet, not sure where yet, when I get the chance. Tuvas 14:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object The prose is not compelling or, at times, even scientific. Martian dust devils are known to be passing over the Rovers, cleaning their solar panels, and thus extending their lifespan.[34] On August 12, 2005 the NASA Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter probe was launched toward the planet, to conduct a two-year science survey. The purpose of the mission is to do more studies and prepare the upcoming lander missions. Are known to be? To do more studies? Are all of those External Links really needed? (Reference WP:NOT and WP:EL) Sandy 03:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 FIFA World Cup

Support Article is very clear, as superb grpahics and is extremely concise as well as having a very impressive NPOV for a football related article. --Jboyle4eva 01:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Previous FAC nom here Raul654 06:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Article contains almost no prose. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object no prose, no analysis and no pictures. Its a result chart-sheet, dat's all. This Fire Burns.....Always 06:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object. Needs some critical analysis. I have been active in updating this, but it's just a scoresheet, not worthy of FA. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 13:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object per WP:SNOW. --Maitch 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object - In addition to the above, the subject of the article has just ceased to be a current news item, which may mean the article is not yet stable. In addition, there is not one picture of the entire event itself. Jeronimo 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object - per Jeronimo's point. Tdslappy
• Object per Jeronimo and rbil. It's solid data, but still, not FA-worthy. —Nightstallion (?) 08:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above, it needs more development. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 12:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• A quick glance over shows some pretty glaring tense issues about things which "will" happen during the Cup... Shimgray | talk | 01:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The tense issue has now been addressed. -- Alias Flood 17:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object too listy --Robdurbar 19:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think we should have 2006 FIFA World Cup as a featured article -- Patricknoddy 8:36am, July 15, 2006 (EDT)
• Weak Object. I think it is worthy of being an FA, but the World Cup happened less than a week ago, so I think you should give it some time to settle in. Turbokoala 17:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. I think it has not enough prose to be an FA, and I agree with the argument of the WC being too recent as well. --Madcynic 17:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Virus

I am nominating the Virus article, of which I contributed to, as a candidate for a Featured Article status. It has undergone significant changes, is stable on a day-to-day basis and has been peer reviewed. I think it provides a good starting point for both lay-men and scientists alike to get a handle on the broad topic of what a virus is, what they can do and what implications they have on philosophy and life -- Serephine ♠ talk - 11:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object - on comprehensivness. Referencing is incomplete; who developed the origins hypotheses?; Jared Diamonds hypothesis is quite irrelevant; there is a long section on etymology but no information on the discovery and initial characterisation of viruses; article does not mention how viruses cause disease; current research is a difficult section to keep encyclopedic.--Peta 11:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK took most of those to heart: wrote out the discovery of viruses, placed reference to the hypotheses, renamed/shrunk "current research". As for how viruses cause disease, I gave a VERY general overview but there are simply too many ways in which differnt viruses cause disease. It's like asking how bacteria cause disease in organisms... it seems to make more sense if the mechanisms are kept within species/virus specific articles. As for references, please point out what you think needs to be referenced. I did a huge rewrite of the article using Prescott's Microbiology - so much information in there is from that book that it is silly to footnote every third sentence with it, hence why it was just in the general references. Cheers for suggestings, -- Serephine ♠ talk - 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I maintain my objection, the encarta covers more detials at the basic level.

1. The origins section still lacks information on who developed each hypothesis and what evidence there is to support these ideas- this should be provided, one text book does not cut it - where possible the original researchs hould be referred to.

   Smells like a new article to me, Virus is over the 35kb limit as it is :p I'll work on it -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

2. How they cause disease is not that difficuit to explain, and certainly could be enhanced by providing examples. For the number of times the word immune appears in the article- there is no mention of the interaction of viruses and the immune system.

   The section never even passed my mind. I'll add it to my list of things to do for the article, where were you during the peer review, you're fantastic! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

3. I know they vary - but most viruses have similar sets of genes ie. some kind of replicase and some structural (coat proteins) - this isn't mentioned in any detail.

   To me, I didn't include this as replicase isn't a single molecule - many variations exist in viruses - and the coat proteins vary substatially. I mentioned that they encode capsid proteins, but do you think it would be better to mention in the "Genome" heading about general types of structural/functional proteins encoded? Worth mentioning that in the Replication section some more information on the types of proteins expressed are given. -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

4. No mention of how viruses undergo genetic change, and why this might be a bad thing

   Good point. I'll work on putting that in under "Genome" -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

5. No menion of viruses that need different hosts to complete their life cycle

   Hmmm, under Replication it states, As soon as the cell is destroyed the viruses will have to find new host. Not enough? -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

6. See alsos that are in the article don't need to be in a list at the end.

   Cool, easy to fix -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

7. Comelete references ie author, date, title, publication need to be provided for URL notes.

   Ok as I asked below, there seems to be a referencing system here I'm missing out on. Much appreciated for a link! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

--Peta 00:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your help, sorry about messing your numbering up~ -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Prose problems (first random sentence I encounter in a section in the middle of the article: The majority of viruses which have been studied have a capsid diameter between 10 and 300 nanometres in size.) Almost no references, and only two of them are PMID sources. Sandy 12:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, that's a sentence of mine... makes sense to me, how does it strike you as problematic? As for references, I wrote most of this from Prescott's Microbiology and hence it would be impracticle to use footnoting for so many sentences. As above, if there is anything that jumps out as particularly in need of referencing, please list it. PMID... what is that? Thanks for comments, -- Serephine ♠ talk - 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the ouch, it was unintended. FA review can be tough. Most viruses studied have a capsid diameter between 10 and 300 nanometres. Remove redundant words. Check your entire article, before Tony gets to it :-) If you are writing a medical article, you must know what PMID is: see cystic fibrosis. Sandy 17:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok no worries, I see that the size is redundant ☺ I take it that PMID is PubMed ID? Are there a list of conventions for primary referencing which I could refer to? Cheers, -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Temporary object—I chose a portion of text towards the bottom. This has all of the hallmarks of science-speak. It's written by scientists who are very knowledgeable in this field, and in many ways is a laudable piece; but a good copy-editor could make it so much nicer to read, and more accessible to our readers.

"Viral populations do not grow through cell division as they are acellular, they instead utilize the machinery and metabolism of a host cell to produce multiple copies of themselves. They may have a lytic cycle or a lysogenic cycle. Some viruses are capable of carrying out both. A virus can still cause degenerative effects within a cell without causing its death, these are collectively termed cytopathic effects. Released virions can be passed from host to host ..."

• • "Viral populations do not grow through cell division as they are acellular, they instead utilize ..." Try this: "Viral populations do not grow through cell division, because they are acellular; instead, they use ..." (Eradicate "utilise" from your vocabularly, please. "Because" is usually preferred to "since" and "as", especially for non-native readers. The semicolon makes for easier reading, and moreover, makes it grammatical.)
  • "They may have a lytic cycle or a lysogenic cycle. Some viruses are capable of carrying out both." Stubby sentences; there's a need to improve the flow from one sentence to the next, throughout the article. More semicolons might be one way of improving the smoothness. And why not "a lytic or a lysogenic cycle", achieved through piping the first link.
  • "A virus can still cause degenerative effects within a cell without causing its death, these are collectively termed cytopathic effects.: Ungrammatical. Again, more care needs to be taken in the relationship between successive clauses.

• • "Released virions can be passed from host to host"—Why not "between hosts"?

Tony 16:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou Tony, apologies for this sort of text on my behalf. The sentence was completely written by me and I have trouble telling what non-speakers of science find confusing. To me it is just natural, and for my style of writing and speaking it flows the best. I understand if this isn't the case for others and have accordingly adjusted the paragraph. Thanks again for the suggestions -- Serephine ♠ talk - 03:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak object
  • What about pandemics?
  • Detection, purification and diagnosis and Prevention and treatment sections should be much more longer
  • Should have more external links, references... NCurse _work 20:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother (TV series)

I nominate this article because in my opinion the writing is of high quality, it is informative and every aspect of an, in someways complicated show, is explained fully ellisjm 10:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support (see my reasons above) ellisjm 10:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object, Wikipedia:Verifiability - no references at all, and the list of "facts" is really just a list of unencyclopedic trivia. Thanks/wangi 14:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object does not seem to meet any of the FA criteria. No references, inadequate lead, check out this one sentence for prose problems: Originally shown in the Netherlands in September 1999, and subsequently cloned across the world, the "housemates" are confined inside a specially designed house where every single point in the house is within view of a video camera, and not permitted any contact with the outside world (although some versions, like the ones from Philippines, Australia, Thailand, Mexico, Germany or Spain have introduced in some seasons precise changes, allowing the contact with the outside in certain situations): no TV, radio, telephone, Internet or other media are available to the housemates, not even writing materials. Sandy 15:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: I should indicate my bias against this show due to its exploitation of Tourette syndrome, by including Pete Bennett as a participant. Others should decide if my analysis of the prose problems is unbiased. Sandy 15:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Sandy. Tony 16:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object per Sandy. Rlevse 23:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object Lead is far too short, no references, prose style isn't hugely encyclopaedic throughout, far too few sections, and a good half of the article consists of lists and/or tables. The lack of images, meanwhile, while not strictly an FA criteria, certainly don't help the impenetrable blocks of text. I've no doubt that the genesis of a good article is in there somewhere, but it desperately needs an overhaul - most notably, the structure needs drastically sorting. Seb Patrick 08:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• In this case, the lack of images is a point in its favor, since any images would almost certainly be so-called "fair use" images, of which featured articles should have a bare minimum. User:Angr 18:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - for the reasons stated by the nominating party.

Khan Wali Khan

Resubmitting: Self nomination Pashtun nationalist, political prisoner and leader of the opposition in Pakistan. I've redone this article with the help of Tombs and Ryan. Opinions and constructive criticism will be appreciated. --Zak 16:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC) ArchivedWikipedia:Featured article candidates/Khan Wali Khan1

• Weak object still for the same reasons; it's a lot better now, but there are still many errors:
  • His mother Mehar Qanda belonged to the nearby Razar village, who was married to Bacha Khan in 1912, she died during the flu pandemic after World War I. The comma after 1912 should be a semicolon, or an "and" should be added.
  • He joined the Khudai Khidmatgar movement in his teens and, in 1942, Khan formally stepped into the field of politics "Khan" is unneeded, since the subject is already "he".
  • separated by a thousand miles Indian territory "of" could help
  • Wali Khan, along with many other politicians at the time, were imprisoned and disqualified was
  • The new Military leader capital M?
  • Shocked upon hearing the news that the military junta would not transfer power to the majority Bengalis; Khan here the semicolon should be a comma
  • possible internment in West Pakistan.[7].
  • Zulfiqar Bhutto who wanted to lift martial law and set up a new constitution comma couldn't hurt
• Thanks, AZ _t 21:48, 10

July 2006 (UTC)

All done AZ --Zak 12:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object 2a, there are prose problems throughout, of the same nature as described in the first FAC, and above. There are missing commas, changes in tense, and general copyediting cleanup needed. (I haven't checked the references, but they appear light for a political article.) Fixing only the few examples given doesn't correct the overall difficulties with the prose throughout the article. It needs a set of fresh eyes to start over on the text. Looking at a random section in the middle of the article:
  • overall cleanup, saw this: separated by a thousand miles (1500 km)of Indian territory, no space after 1500km)
  • Despite his father's efforts against partition and his brief attempt to instead create a new nation called Pakhtunistan, on August 14, 1947 Pakistan came into being. Whose brief attempt, his or his father's?
  • By the end of the negotiations, he held a series of meetings with then Governor General Ghulam Mohammed. Hard to explain, but tortured sentence construct. Why do we need the by the end of the negotiations?
  • Khan joined the National Awami Party (Awami meaning 'people') in 1956, a new political party formed by his father along with other progressive and leftist leaders from both wings of Pakistan. Why is meaning people in parentheses, yet another description of the party follows? Combine the thoughts with consistency. I just had a very hard time with the prose.
  • The opposition parties united under the Combined Opposition Party alliance and decided to field a joint candidate against Ayub Khan in the Presidential elections. decided to field --> fielded .
  • However, despite a compromise agreement on some issues, it is alleged that the military leadership and its political allies did not want Ayub Khan to succeed. [6]Wali Khan held a separate meeting with Ayub Khan reference placed with no space before next sentence (needs a thorough cleanup copyedit), and it is alleged or it was alleged? There are tense changes throughout the article.
• Fixing the list will not address all of the prose problems in the article: I had problems with every paragraph I read.
• Not comprehensive: if the article is a bio, should it gloss over his death with, "after a long illness"? (Section also has prose problems: After a long illness, Wali Khan died on 26 January 2006. He is survived by his wife Nasim Wali Khan, three daughters and two sons. His funeral was widely attended with condolence messages from Pakistani President Pervaiz Musharraf, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.) Missing commas, at minimum. Sandy 03:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy points taken, with regard to grammar however the bit about his illness i disagree with. Firstly Khan stayed away from the media and very little came out in public about the precise nature of his health problems. Additional referencing is hard because of poor documentation. --Zak 11:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can work in some wording that explains that the cause of his death was unknown? Sandy 11:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes Sandy I've addressed the specific points you've made and put a mention about his passing. I'm going to see if I can get some copy editing help and look into the rest. --Zak 12:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that I struck my comment above. Please leave me a message if you need me to take another look later. My house was hit by lightening, and I may lose track of what I'm following. Sandy 15:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object—2a. There's good in this article, but it's unacceptable until it's been through a thorough copy-edit. Don't just fix these examples from the top.
  • "Khan was the second of three sons, he received his early education at the Azad Islamia School in Utmanzai."—Ungrammatical.
  • His father's name is provided on the second rather than the first mention.
  • "which led to him wearing his trademark glasses"—Ungrammatical ("his", not "him"). What exactly does "trademark" mean here? Is it unambiguous?
  • "Despite his pacifist upbringing as a young freedom fighter,"—This seems contradictory, and thus should be explained or reworded.
  • "He was to later explain"—Splitting infinitives is not banned, but here it would be easier not to.
  • "Khan joined the Khudai Khidmatgar movement in his teens and, in 1942, formally stepped into politics by joining the Indian National Congress and served as a provincial joint secretary of the party"—and ... and. Perhaps split this sentence for easier reading?
  • Try an en dash for the range of years: it's kewler.Tony 16:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the stuff you mentioned, the trademark glasses was how people would point him out in Pakistan. Pacifist upbringing: he was from a part of the world where revenge in retaliation to attack was quite common. The Khudai Khidmatgar movement was something of an oddity in the regions history. A non-violent army taking on the British Raj, obviously has its limits as Gandhi himself admitted. --Zak 17:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've put in some of the changes you mentioned what do you mean by en dash? --Zak 15:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• CommentShouldn't the "Notes" section be "Bibliography"? WP 06:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I'm used to Harvard referencing but if it's wrong that shouldn't be a problem to change? --Zak 17:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the "Notes" and "References" are backward, at least according to WP:GTL#Notes. AZ _t 14:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok sorted --Zak 15:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nashua, New Hampshire

Nashua is truly the best place to live, and should have a chance to show off the truth! Dmanskiman 23:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object unreferenced. I couldn't get past the lead without finding a glaring example of a citation needed. Please reference the article, and I'll be glad to have another look. Sandy 00:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Too many short sections and paragraphs. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object Not the best example of a Wiki article, per above, but also because of the page layout and some of the pictures. FE, the entrance to a middle school is not a great illustration, unless the school is particularly notable. Also, the segment on politicians is a layout nightmare. Tdslappy
• Object nomination not in the spirt of the regular FA nominations i.e., the basis of the nomination is to promote a "hometown" and not to nominate the article per already established critera.--Jersey Devil 04:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hamilton-Burr duel

A clear and detailed article that documents an important event in American history. --kralahome 03:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object 2a, prose problems. This is the lead: The Hamilton-Burr duel was a duel between two prominent United States politicians, former Treasury Secretary General[1] Alexander Hamilton and sitting Vice President Aaron Burr, in Weehawken, New Jersey on July 11, 1804, in which Burr shot and mortally wounded Hamilton, who died the next day in Manhattan. Sandy 03:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Sandy. I could imagine this could be longer too. --Oldak Quill 07:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Object The detail is nice, the writing style is bulky and unwieldy at best. If that were cleaned up, I'd support. Tdslappy
• Object. Short lead (see WP:LEAD). --Maitch 13:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Weak lead, unsourced quotes (I've noted several by inserting "citation needed" tags, but there are more), limited sources, and minimal discussion of the aftermath. The discussion of why this was such a bitter feud is OK but could be much better and more extensive. The collection of sources actually cited is interesting but narrow: essentially much is drawn from one academic article and the rest from original sources and local histories. Usually, I love to see both academic articles and original sources, but can't think of another case where I've seen them used without any broader secondary source survey. It would be good to either use more than one article or to throw in some broader material for the big picture. This isn't ready yet; I'd encourage some attention to these comments and would then consider. Sam 18:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sakoku

An interesting article not many people know much about . . . And with the current tensions in the Sea of Japan/East Sea very timely...

Rwnorman 03:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object unreferenced, short lead. Sandy 03:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Underreferenced. --Oldak Quill 07:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Needs a through copy-edit, and more references. One reference, with a place-holder still there, seems to be missing. -Fsotrain09 17:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Constitution of Indonesia

A well-written article of reasonable length, with full detail and good references, written about an unusual and not widely known topic, by an editor who lives in Indonesia.--Anthony.bradbury 23:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Anthony.bradbury 23:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose No external links, no picture (not needed but helps), no reputation as a Good article, no peer review, half of the article is a list unlike US_constitution. -ScotchMB 02:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose very thin on content when you disregard the text of the constitution - which shouldn't really be there any way.--Peta 11:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose no footnotes. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India

Self-nom: A good, comprehensive, well-referenced article, which has been through peer review thrice (1 - 2 - 3). All objections since have been satisfied.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 19:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Article looks good. But before I support, I have a couple of questions.

• 1. "However, certain practices like wearing and carrying of Kirpans in the profession of the Sikh religion, can be restricted in the interest of public order, morality and health." This is confusing because it gives the impression that the Kirpan is often a restricted item whereas the actual source makes it clearer. "Explanation I: The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion."

• 2. It'd be interesting to see how these rights relate to a Overseas Citizen of India and what if any rights are denied.

• 3. The expenditure on education graph does not make it clear if it shows the real increase in expenditure. By that I mean, does it take into account inflation? If it does not, then the figures are VERY misleading.

• 4. I would recommend the use of the cite templates (e.g. Template:cite book and Template:cite web) but I will not withold support solely on that reason. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Corrected. Sorry for the mistake.

2. You mean NRIs? That was already there, but I explicitly mentioned it. They're the same.

3. I've totally removed the image. I forgot that the images also have to be referenced, and sice this one is not... :)

4. The templates have been used in the majority of cases. In the cases where it has not been used, the text renders the same as it would have with a cite template.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 21:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Support - No, not NRIs. NRIs are citizens of India proper. This year, a new form of citizenship has been released (sort of dual nationality, but not quite there) known as Overseas Citizenship of India. If you're not certain, then leave it out - OCI is a bit tricky to define it seems ;) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I looked through the Act, and found (on page 5, 7B(2)) that only one right is not accorded to OCIs (see changes). So now that point is also taken care of.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 04:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, that's great. Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: My very limited spell checker turned up a few ? items. Maybe a better spell checker would find some words that actually need to be fixed. Thanks Hmains 20:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Done some spellchecking, using MS Word.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 21:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support needs a bit more copyediting. Excellent improvement from past position. This Fire Burns....Always 04:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - time to have FAs on substantial issues apart from Pop culture; though not sure abt the child labor photo - it is not India-related and doesn't depict begar, imho. --Gurubrahma 07:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - a laborious effort by Shreshth in writing this comprehensive article on an important subject. But, I strongly feel that it needs to be trimmed a bit more and copyedited. I'm not just concerned at the length of the article, but at the repetitions of certain things like the non-justiciability of the directive principles, for example. I also see that the article is "too-inclusive" when it comes to details. I can understand that it's hard to cut down given that the subject is vast and has a prosaic manifestation. But, in the interest of summary style and reader comfort, we definitely need to move some text to daughter articles. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I created a daughter article Directive Principles in India, but I did not feel that removing any more text would be a good idea, since it may not reduce the size very much, but take away a lot from the article.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 08:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Support now after copyediting by Rama's Arrow, Shreshth and others. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object – need a good copyedit. personal good as well as the good of the community (textbookish), considered a gross violation of the spirit and provisions of the constitution (tone down "gross") ; have to be freed. --> released from custody. 2. Use Indian English spellings (offense-->offence) 3. The titles of Rai Bahadurs and Khan Bahadurs are also abolished expand on this sentence. 5. endeavour to secure a uniform civil code for all citizens expand on this (mention Goa and mention why this has not been sucessful elsewhere) 6. Avoid overlinking. Many terms have been overlinked leading to a sea of blue. 7. lakh acres? an international equivalent is necessary here. 8. except Jammu and Kashmir and Nagaland. why? 9. Some critical commentary on the subject would make it less textbookish. (I've given some exanples on UCC). You'd need to get hold of someone why has not been involved with the article to copyedit it, since it would be difficult for you to do so based on the familiarity of the topic. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  I've done some work. I'll be looking into the other points as soon as electricity permits :) BTW, could you help copyedit.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 07:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  Let me know once you've finished. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I couldn't find the reason behind the failure of separation of judiciary from executive in JnK and Nagaland, even though that particular statement is cited from a book. Should it be removed? --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 19:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support, looks great! —Nightstallion (?) 08:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The article is sub-standard. I am not sure if the author is even aware that directive principles are those set of rights and duties that were not unanimously accepted by legislators in 1947 due to cultural differences. Hence they were moved to recommendatory status, that is directive. This is the same case as EU Directives today. It also means these principles are a matter of conflict even today unlike the consensus reached on fundamental rights and duties. The article does not seem to recognise this major point.

The structure of the article is unwieldy. It would be better if all the rights, duties, directives and amendments are listed in a tabular format first for ready reference and then explanations and illustrations can flow therefrom. Also, illustrations about enforcement of the rule of law would help reduce the legal-speak here. For instance, its an open secret that the Urban Land Ceilings Act is the most unforceable piece of legislation in the history of the quasi-democracy. The article is thoroughly misleading as regards the role of panchayats (now they share in Union tax pool). Anwar 15:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Having a tabular format would make it worthy of a list. As such, featured article candidates need to be mostly prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Anwar:

1. I knew about the Directive Principles part since I had heard of it in passing, but I could find no valid source on the net, and thus, I decided not to include it. If you would direct me to any such souce, I'd be more than pleased to add the info about it.
2. As Nichalp has stated above, the tabular format is not such a good idea.
3. I did not understand how the ULCA applies on an article regarding Fundamental Duties, unless it would be with regard to the deleted right to property?

Thanks!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 14:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object—2a, and possibly 2d (POV).
  • "The Fundamental Duties are defined as moral obligations on all citizens of India which help promote a spirit of patriotism"—"On" is wrong; word order is clumsy, juxtaposing "citizens of India which".
  • "are not enforceable by any court, but the principles laid down in it are considered fundamental in the governance of the country"—Again, wrong preposition: "to", not "in the governance". "By the courts" is idiomatic, not "by any court". "But" does not contradict the previous statement, and thus is inappropriate; the deeper problem is that the two ideas don't go together in this sentence.
  • "universally apply to all citizens"—reverse the order of the first two words.
  • "The Indian student community in England was further inspired by the workings of parliamentary democracy and British political parties." No reference, and it would be hard to verify in any case: bordering on POV. The word "inspired" and its variants occur rather a lot.
  • Don't start a sentence with "Also,...".
  • "the independent India's government"—unidiomatic.
  • "the Nehru Commission composing of representatives of"—wrong.

Almost every sentence needs fixing. Please let us know when the prose has been thoroughly audited and is "compelling, even brilliant", as required. Don't just correct these examples; the whole text needs considerable work. Try to find a good copy-editor or two who is/are unfamiliar with the text. PS The title is kind of odd; couldn't it be simplified? Tony 15:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony - we've been cleaning up some of the obvious problems, but we need your help in spotting the intrinsic ones which affect the prose. Could you please elaborate a little more specifically about the problems? This Fire Burns Always 12:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a Wonderful Life

Self Nomination. This article delves deep into the storyline, not merely outlining but describing and telling. Good pictures all around to give mental images, thusly making it more fun (and more compelling) to read. All information surrounding the film is discussed more than adequately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.31.8.97 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 6 July 2006.

• Object No sources provided, in-line or otherwise. I would try a peer review first. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 23:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object Agreed, please put this through a peer review first. Wikipedia:Peer review --P-Chan 00:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object No sources. --GoOdCoNtEnT 03:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object While I love this movie, the article has to be referenced. Try PR first. Rlevse 09:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object - As great a film as it is, no references, in-line or otherwise, plot is WAAY to long, it's supposed to be a summary, not a novel adaptation. And way to many images, is that really fair use? See Casablanca (film), simply the rockingest film article around, for ideas on how to improve this article. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 12:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object: No refs per Cite.php, and no fair use rationales for the images (even the poster has no license tag). I'd love to see ==Trivia== merged into the content, and (reminiscent of The Star Wars Holiday Special's past troubles) all but 4 or 5 pictures need to go. Let's see about that at WP:PR, and hopefully it will return on FAC in time for Christmas. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object, why is the section named "Bank run" hidden from the rest of the plot. If it could be transformed into a section of historical perspective, that would be fantastic. -- Zanimum

Collaboratory

Self nomination. This article has been through peer review with no major changes. Thus far has proved to be very stable. I have recently added images with the proper copyright notice. It is well cited (using APA style) and has inline references. Thank you for your time, consideration, and especially for your comments! C22an 03:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article doesn't look ready, and starts out on a bad note: the headings are awful and don't meet the manual of style. Harro5 03:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. Now that you read the article, could you please be more specific? Perhaps give some examples? I would appreciate your input! C22an 04:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • All of the headings violation the manual of style with captions, and most should be shortened. Harro5 23:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Headings have been fixed.
• Oppose. Sorry, but not enough sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I suspect there are further aspects of the subject that could be illustrated, but I'll support because the references are actually fine. Every statement seems to be supported by a reference. Quantity is not everything. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • But it's missing inline sources, which is a prerequisite for FA's. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Nope. Synapse. Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Synapse. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you sure? 2c... --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Quoting your reference, "complemented where appropriate by inline citations" (emphasis mine). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Image:BioSc2.jpg should not be in JPEG. WP 09:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not? What about Image:BioSc1.jpg?C22an 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Because jpeg is a lossy format; png gives better results for pictures with less colour variation, i.e. technical illustrations, screenshots. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the explanation! That indeed helps! I could go back to the article (which is in Adobe format) and get a screenshot in png format. However, is that a strong reason for opposing an article? In my opinion the content of the article is more important than the format of the picture (particularly as long as one can still see what’s in the picture). I am confident I can find many Featured Articles that have jpeg images. C22an 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It's not a reason I would use to oppose an article, unless the picture was crucial and the artefacts quite obvious; however, a simple objection without reason constitutes a valid vote. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Right you are. And it all comes down to the mood I'm in when I read an article, no matter the benefit or knowledge the article brings to the Wiki community (and others). I’ve had plenty of “teachers” just like that in school… Many thanks for all your comments. Much appreciated! C22an 15:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Here: "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed."
              • Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. Clearly, this is different from the rules for Featured Pictures and Requests for Adminship. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fishing

Fishing is one of the most interesting pasttimes people practice. The article on fishing is also well-designed, and well-cited. --GoOdCoNtEnT 03:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Insufficient lead, too many lists, contains too many one sentence paragraphs, and lacks inline citations. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object.. While the article does have inline citations, it does not have enough of them. A lot more statements within the article should be sourced. -- Underneath-it-All 15:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object As per above. Many many other problems as well. A few examples -- hunter-gather is wrong. And every sentence in the Food section is a paragraph by itself.--ppm 17:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• It is a really good article, but I suggest that you resolve the merge suggestion and either find a more direct (possibly primary) reference for the point supported by Guns, Germs and Steel, or at least add a page number. Object. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tobacco Smoking

This is an article that deals with the habit that many people in the world both enjoy and hate. The article is well cited and is balanced. --GoOdCoNtEnT 02:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Insufficient referencing, only seven footnotes? RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. That lead really isn't great. It launches into an examination of one aspect of the subject matter, rather than providing an overview of smoking culture. The rest of the article (thankfully) doesn't bear this out, but the lead gives the impression that it's going to be an article about the evils of smoking - it's skewed and dangerously close to non-NPOV, nor does it even really explain why people smoke. Not a bad article by any means, but could do with a bit of work and those citation needed tags desperately need sorting, with the reference in general in vast need of improvement. Seb Patrick 09:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Additional - in fact, looking at the article, it does seem to give too much weight to the negative health effects, oppositions, etc. Too many of the subject headers are portraying the negative, rather than the positive, side. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a smoker, but the article just doesn't seem even-handed enough to me. For me, the "history" section is the most interesting part, but it could do with a lot of fleshing out (there's a sudden and quite jarring glossing over of the 1960s to the present day), and indeed I think it should be far more the focus of the article than it is. Expand the history, cut it into some well-defined sections, and the article might have a bit more balance. Seb Patrick 09:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object I have looked more into the article and saw all the violations of non-NPOV. I now believe that it should not become a featured article until all these violations are corrected. --GoOdCoNtEnT 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ecuador

This article has wide-ranging informations, not too long with lots of links to further going articles. 亮HH 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object unreferenced entirely. Too many lists. How about an Ecuador template to minimize all that "See also". And a separate page or category for "famous" Ecuadorians. Sandy 22:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Not long enough lead, not enough sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Very messy article. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 02:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object because of the flow of the prose. Some sections drone on and on without getting very far, while others seem to jump around without strong connections. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Architecture of Norway

This is a self-nomination, though some of the best edits were made by another editor, User:Roede

There are a couple of reasons why I thought this would be a good featured candidate:

• The topic itself is interesting, since it illustrates both the societal development of a country with unique challenges and a particular relationship to the outside world;
• I think the article is well-written and well-structured - some recent contributions have strengthened it further
• Featuring it would encourage more articles on architecture - as you'll see, there are only a few overview articles for European countries, and there are obviously non-European countries with an architectural history that is at least as interesting. --Leifern 10:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. It is a very interesting article, but it doesn't have inline references. --Maitch 16:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw my objection, but it will still be nice if you would have refs placed after punctuation as described in Wikipedia:Footnotes. --Maitch 07:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Only two refs, no inline cites, short and choppy style. Rlevse 14:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good feedback, I'll be working on alll these (inline references, reference materials, and the style) over the weekend. I've also solicited feedback from three Norwegian architects. --Leifern 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object—2a. Stubby paragraphs and substandard prose. Please network with other WPians who are interested in the topic and can help to copy-edit the text. Tony 03:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Lead is way too short; article (as noted) has far too many single-sentence paragraphs. Daniel Case 03:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

All these objections have been noted, and the article is being updated. --Leifern 02:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Psychoactive drug

This article discusses a frequently debated a biased topic in modern society. The article is well organized, allowing an average reader to understand its context. The article is also mostly well cited. --GoOdCoNtEnT 18:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support because it is a well-written, concise article with good graphics and navigational tools built into the article (especially the .png venn diagram--good job!!). Gives just enough information for someone to understand the topic without knowing much before hand. Well-structured.
  • As just a few random examples, I could not find fluvoxamine, pimozide, ziprasidone, tiapride or sulpiride on the chart. Either they're not there, or they're not easy to find.Sandy 03:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object mainly for the whole bunch of {{citation needed}}s. The article's lists (mainly Ways psychoactive drugs affect the brain) should be converted to prose. Also, about the headings, see WP:MOS#Headings - if possible, avoid repeated the title of an article in a heading. Andy _t 21:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object I don't think the article meets any of the criteria, but I object mostly on poor referencing, with possible NPOV. Not only are there many citation needed tags, but there are almost no references to actual journal-published medical research, and the reference list seems to indicate bias. The article is not comprehensive or medical in tone. Sandy 22:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I just replaced the diagram/chart with a new version, and added the above mentioned substances (I didn't add tiapride as there's no wikipedia article on it). While I agree the article isn't ready for featured article status, I think that the diagram is ready for featured picture status, as it was up for nomination before, and I believe that it now meets all the requirements. On a side note, another article to keep an eye on for future featured article status is the Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants article. (Formerly known as the Hallucinogens article). --Thoric 18:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just because tiapride is not yet included in Wikipedia is not a reason to leave if off a chart if you want it be featured. When writing a medical article, you should not be using Wiki as your source. Still, there is not a single PMID reference in your article. Another problem with your image is that it does not have a global view, and is biased towards drugs available in the US, leaving out drugs like tiapride. I can't be sure of what else you left off, as that was only a random check. Your article, and graph, needs to be better referenced with medical sources. For example, I'm not sure if atomoxetine should or should not be on your list. I would need to see a medical reference. I found a group of pharmacists once somewhere on Wiki, although I can't recall where. I suggest that you dig them up and enlist their help in your article. Sandy 19:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The chart is not meant to be a complete list of psychoactive substances, only a list of common psychoactives and how they relate to each other. There are references at the bottom of the page for sources to placement of items on the chart. --Thoric 22:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Atomoxetine (Strattera) is common. Sandy 22:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Here is the group where you might be able to enlist help with improving the article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs Sandy 00:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've put in a request, but still waiting for response. I also added a bunch of references to take care of some of the missing citation tags, as well as added a few more substances and categories to the chart. Currently the chart itself specifies three pieces of reference material. I'm not sure how many references are required, or if it would please the editors for the list of article references to exceed the content of the article, but I could certainly add more as needed. --Thoric 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Leicester

As a resident of Leicester, I must profess a slight bias in my nomination of this article, but I have done little if any work to this article, none of it substantial. I believe this article is concise, well written, and provides in depth, encyclopedic information about the city without being too long or developing a multitude of 'tumour' paragraphs editted into certain sections which are irrelevant or boring. --Ivesfreak 11:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The lead is too short (see WP:LEAD), it lacks citations, and it contains too many lists. --Maitch 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object Ditto Maitch + too many lists. --Oldak Quill 12:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object - incomplete article, too many lists, no citations (just short list of outside sources);

Support - Seen worse articles make it to the main page, give me a week or so to try and make it better would love to see it on the main page. (Plus no disrespect but would't hurt some Americans to see that there are other places in England outside London)Jimmmmmmmmm 10:27 13th July 2006

• Object. This article reads more like a sales brochure for Leicester rather then a critical description. For example it says that's "The city centre is mainly Victorian with some later developments, which have usually been integrated in smoothly." Is this true? Having lived there I certainly wouldn't agree. While this might just by my POV, the last time I looked at Leicester's entry in the English Lonely Planet guide it agreed with me. The history section is also very light (is this a space restriction?). For example, nowhere does it say that King Richard III set out from Leicester to fight the Battle of Bosworth Field, no reference is made to Lady Jane Grey, who was England's shortest serving monarch. I could go on.... StormCloud 12:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Józef Piłsudski

Józef Piłsudski was one of the most important politicians of the interwar period, author of the Miracle at Vistula, national hero of Poland and one of the few 'benevolent' dictators. The article has been through PR and is ranked as a GA. 60kb long, it has lots of inline citations and I hope is comprehensive and NPOVed enough to become a FA. Your comments, as always, are much appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Support on wheels now. Conditional support. This is a great article but some quibbles remain:

• Inline references are somewhat messed up. Sometimes they're in front of the comma, sometimes after, sometimes with a space and sometimes without. IIRC the MoS says there must be no space and it must be after the period or comma, like this.^[1] And seeing ^[22][5] is not very good either, but it's really a quibble :))
  • Do we have a bot or script for this?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, we have a bot. Check it in action here. ^_^ I think I got them all, but someone else should check. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Poland is referred as "her" in the first phrase. Poland is not a girl, so it's an "it". :))
  • Done.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• His pseudonyms should be translated (if they have a meaning that is).
  • They are. The remaining one are first names or meaningless.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• The images are somewhat messed up too. There are a lot of them but they get pretty crowded. I'm sure some other reviewers will have suggestions.
  • I have attempted to fix this. Is it better now?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Per WP:MOSDATE, day/months in dates should wikilinked, say November 22.
  • Aren't there some who disagree with this? I prefer to leave this alone and let experts fix this. Again, isn't there a script/bot to fix this?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• The lead could use an improvement as per WP:LEAD. The second paragraph is kinda out of place and the other one should be expanded to summarize the article.
  • I have split the names into their own section, and expand the lead.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Piłsudski drove himself hard, working all day and, on a regimen <-- you mean a regime? I don't get it...

• Look it up 1 a : a systematic plan (as of diet, therapy, or medication) especially when designed to improve and maintain the health of a patient b : a regular course of action and especially of strenuous training --SeizureDog 18:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, my bad... The other points remain though :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That's all I can think of atm, I'll add a few things later maybe. Cheers, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Great article, but minor object on a few points:
  • The images need to be interleaved between the two margins; otherwise, image stacking will force gaps before section headers in some places.
    • Are images better now?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Much better. Kirill Lokshin 18:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Some issues with the section headings:
    • Is there really any need for a top-level "Biography" section, given that this is a biographical article? I would move the sub-sections up one level.
      • Here I'd argue that yes. The biography have subsections, which would otherwise be 'equal' not only to legacy, but to sections like qutes or references. I personally find it much more tidy if there is a biography with subsections, even if it compromises majority of an article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, fair enough. Kirill Lokshin 18:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Fall and rise to power": maybe this is just too much familiarity with Gibbons and Shirer on my part, but the wording is somewhat jarring; there's a certain gut reaction that the words are out of order.
      • Fixed Mieciu K 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "The benevolent dictator, the great leader": somewhat questionable to use such a naked assertion as a section heading, as context and citation is essential for such a statement.
      • Fixed Mieciu K 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "The death": should be just "Death".
      • Fixed Mieciu K 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In the "Quotes" section, why is Joseph Conrad's view of any relevance? He's hardly a sophisticated political commentator or recognized historian; the inclusion seems slightly hagiographic.
    • Well, it is a quote and IIRC it was in the article before I rewrote it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • My point is that it's not a very relevant quote here. The majority of the quotes is at WikiQuote, and the ones left in the article should be those of particular importance; I would argue that Conrad's isn't one of them. Kirill Lokshin 18:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I generally agree that quotes should go to Wikiquote, so I moved the entire section there, and intext replaced Condrad with Mościcki (1935) and Sejm (1995).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a funny extra space after the "Marshals of Poland" template that I can't figure out.

Overall, though, this is quite good; I'll be happy to support once the above issues are resolved. Kirill Lokshin 16:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Support now that the significant issues have been resolved. I'm still hoping somebody will figure out what the problem with the template spacing at the bottom is, though. Kirill Lokshin 23:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't see anything strange around that template... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. As Kirill Lokshin points out, there are some image-alignment issues in this article, and the ToC needs reformatting due to the top-level biogrpahy section. The footnoting, however, is among the most extensive I have ever seen, bravo. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 17:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I work under a motto that 'in a FA-class article, every single fact should be referenced' :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I altered the ToC, don't claim it is outstanding but is IMHO better than the previous one... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. Everything is now in order, and I support fully. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Could persondata be added to this article? TheGrappler 11:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe... I have never done it before. Could you do it, perhaps?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I added the template. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Tnx!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I reformatted it a little to put it into the style suggested at WP:PERSON. I generally find it's better if people who are a little knowledgable about the matter fill in fields like "name", "alternative names" and "description" since they're more likely to get a summary right. Anyway that was handy, thanks. TheGrappler 20:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. All the articles proposed here by Piotrus have become battle grounds for disgusting, incessant revert warring, because this editor's sole aim here is to propagate Polish POV. I have not seen a single NPOV article by him. Enough is enough. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, you have already been warned once by Arbcom to avoid incivility or personal attacks (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Remedies). Balcer 14:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your habitual personal attacks. Since you start revert warring even here, when this article has not been promoted, I envisage what a mess the article would become when you move your crusade to main space. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that you are honing your technique of blackening the reputation of other Wikipedians to a fine art. I simply restored my quite innocent comment in reaction to your personal attack against Piotrus, which you unceremoniously erased, and now this single edit is considered to be "revert warring" by me. Furthermore, could you provide some evidence that I make "habitual" personal attacks? You do realize that unfairly accusing others of making personal attacks is a form of personal attack. Balcer 14:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Since even my vote here provoked bouts of reverting rage, I leave this voting in disgust. My prediction is that Józef Piłsudski will spawn revert wars, just like other Piotr's opera - featured or not featured - have been. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, since Pilsudski is an entirely Polish story (minus the 1920 war), I don't see how it could be of a slightest concern. We used to have some problems with articles related to relationships of Poland with other countries, where POV might be a concern, but honestly, whether Polish editors consider him a dictator or a genius, it is all the same for me. This is Józef Piłsudski, not Warsaw Uprising or Polish September Campaign. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Your remark shows two things: first, you don't know what you are talking about, second, the article is biased and incomplete. `'mikka (t) 01:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I tried to fix some of the image alignment, as there are quite a few images (I believe one of the requirements for FA status). I also tried to delink some of the authors who I found to be not notable, and some miscellaneous other things. I am in the process of taking mere links and converting them into references. Aaрон Кинни (t) 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Tnx for the copyediting! As for authirs, I prefer to leave them ilinked, in time we have more and more articles on them. Do you have a good rule to determine their notability quickly? For example, I wrote a stub on Piotr S. Wandycz, who seems quite notable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Usually, they are notable if they have written numerous books on one subject and therefore qualify as an author/academic too. If they are a professor then that adds to their notability. But other than that, I know no ways to determine notability, and especially on foreign authors I have no knowledge. Aaрон Кинни (t) 23:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I would still add something about the effect Pilsudski's death had on the policies of the Polish government. Right now the article implies that even though he was a dictator and died in office, his departure changed nothing. In fact, the policies of the "Colonels" became much more radical after his death. Also, there was an attempt to replace Piłsudski by building up the figure of Rydz-Śmigły, who was to be in effect his successor. That should also be explained. Balcer 20:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is far from neutral. All good is exposed in detail, all bad is covered in 1-2 "neutral" sentences, portraying him so positive that it is unclear why Pilsudski is hated by Ukrainians and Belarussians. Most notable blunders of the aricle:
  • His sanacja was a precursor version of fascism
    • No it wasn't if you think it was please provide sources. Mieciu K 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • His pacification of ukrainian indepencence movement (called nicely and neutrally "terrorists" in the article) bordered on henocide.
    • Genocide is a strong word, would you have any references to that? Now fairly recently we rewrote the polonization article, which describes the plight of minorities in SPR. While it does not paint a pretty picture, it certainly is far from genocide (or bordering on one). Especialy as Piłsudski represented the political faction that wanted to make allies of minorities. On a final note, we have a good example of contemporary genocide of Ukrainians just across the border (holodomor). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I Soviet Union all repression are blamed upon Stalin, but in Poland "good" Pilsudski, as this article says, left most of the internal matters in the hands of his "colonels", which is clearly bullshit: a dictator didn't care about putting his political opponents into concentration camps ?!.
    • What concentation camps? There was one camp "with a bad reputation" for political prisoners in Bereza Kartuska, according to different sources 4 to 20 people died there during the 5 years of it's existance (the proportion of them of them died of non-natural causes is unknown). Calling Bereza Kartuska a concentration camp (in the post 1930s meaning of that word), is a serious abuse of that term. Mieciu K 10:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Polish people love Pilsudski now. But the opinion of Pilsudski about Polish people was way far from love. And IMO most of his actions in internal politics was influenced by his low esteem of his own nation, which he expressed on multiple occasions. In the article it is all mutual love.
    • "Low-self esteem of his own nation"? is it your own original reaserch or do you have any sources? Every politic is from time to time dissatissfied with the lack of understanding of his actions and goals by the general public. Mieciu K 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And there is more of these small "nicifications" of Pilsudski. Unfortunately I don't have sufficient knowledge to fix the problems. `'mikka (t) 01:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please also leave a copy of this on the talk page. I would love to discuss it there further. I have no particular knowledge of Pilsudski myself, but that didn't prevent me from improving the article. I used Britannica and Encarta and sourced my statements in the article. Surely you can do the same? That's the beauty of Wikipedia, being able to change and edit articles for the better if you believe they can be improved. And certainly you believe this one can. Please also source your belief sanacja was a fascist precursor, so as to discern it from personal opinion. Aaрон Кинни (t) 03:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a plenty of other work to do. Yes, "precursor of fascism", along with most of my text above is my opinion (based on some reading). If I had any references at hand, I'd put something into the article. (In fact, I am in error: Mussolini started it earlier; like I said, I am not good in history) I just don't care in his case: overall the aricle is not bad. It is only not yet of "featured" status being too glorifying of this Polish version of Pinochet. `'mikka (t) 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Suggesting that Piłsudski ordered the deaths of his political adversaries (this is what the above mentioned dictators did) without any sources is not only against the rules of wikipedia it is also simply rude. And I have never heared of fascisim in the pre- 2 world war polish goverment, even the elite polish cavalery units like the "12th "podolski" Ulhan regiment- had a semi official motto - "Trochę Żydów trochę panów, to 12 pułk ułanów" - some Jews, some nobility, this is the 12th ulhan regiment. Does this sound "fascist"? Mieciu K 12:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

For the volunteers: here are some references that compare Pilsudism and fascism: Wolfgang Wippermann Europaischer Faschismus im Vergleich(1922-1982), 1983, W. Wippermann. Totalitarismustheorien. Die Entwicklung der Diskussion von den Anfangen bis heute. Darmstadt, 1997. (the texts actually disagree with this opinion by drawing some distinctions and mentioning that there were "real" fascists in Poland: Bolesław Piasecki's "Oboz Narodowo-Radykalny - Falanga") `'mikka (t) 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that the article has some POV. I hope that people who think so will join us in editing the article. Thanks for the references, unfortunately they are rather hard to access. Still, as you note in their review, Sanacja was quite different from facism. I will look for particular references, but I do particulary remember I read somewhere a pretty good article on why calling sanacja 'facist' is a big mistake. And I again agree with you that Piasecki's ONR was much more facist, basically, the entire endecja (Dmowski) was much more facist then Piłsudski. Ironic that in Poland, the dictator saved the country from facism, while in Germany it was the opposite...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 07:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Mikka for now. More problems (some are oviously POV) in chronological order (added later: "I am converting my entries below into a typewriter font because editors complain that it is hard to tell what is said by me and what's not, following the interjections, I will also add a sig Irpen in the end of each statement. --Irpen)
  • The article ommitts that he was not a Pole but a Litvin, a member of Polonized but Lithuanian nobility. This has been stated by me at talk a while ago and caused no reaction. --Irpen
    • "he was not a Pole but a Litvin" that is a serious claim, got sources? And when was that family polonized? About 200 years earlier? Thinking the same way we can even add that "his family not a catholic but a pagan, a member of Polonized but Lithuanian nobility converted to catholicism." Mieciu K 10:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • We discussed that at talk. The only reference you provided there was Henryk Sienkiewicz's Trylogia... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • His childhood experience of the Russian gymnasium education forced upon the proud Polonophile (no offence, there is nothing wrong with a member of the oppressed nation to be its -phile) is ommitted along with the impact of such experience, solidifying of his hatred towards Russia, its czar, its people, its language and its culture. --Irpen
    • Actually this is discussed in the first para of his bio, feel free to expand with note on the gymnasium if you think it needs to be stressed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • His expelling from Kharkov University was formally for disorderly conduct, participation in the students disorders (riots) rather than mere membership in Narodniks. --Irpen
    • I have not seen that detail in my refs. Feel free to add it with a ref.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • His activity in Siberian excile, imposed on the false charges, is ommitted. It consisted in private teaching and 6-momhts imprisonement for inciting the mutiny (again, I am not judgemental here) --Irpen
  • The activity of PPS, he organized, largely consisted of the targeted assasinations, as well as robberies for the Revolution sake. Ommitted. --Irpen 05:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That,s what revolutionaries at the beginning of the 20th century did. So what's so significant sbout that? Mieciu K 10:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually as we discussed before at Talk:Związek Walki Czynnej Piłsudski himself was not involved in any assasinations. As for PPS or other organizations - it is possible, although it would be nice to have a source for that. Although as Mieciu notes, being a revolutionary kind of implies such behaviour anyway...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The description of his peculiar travel to Japan ommits that he offered not just intelligence cooperation but assistance to Japan in their war with Russia through terrorism the acts of subversive destruction and sabotage. --Irpen
    • That's what "freedom fighters" at the beginning of the 20th century did. So what's so significant about that? Mieciu K 10:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • We have an entire para on that, with references for Piłsudski offering to organize an uprising. Terrorism is a rather POVed term and it would be good if you'd have a citation for it. Sabotage is likely, especially as Japanese gave PPS some ammo and such, but again ref would be nice.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The authors decided to present his 1905 activities in the context of the Russian Revolution of 1905, a legit angle if you ask me. However, then it becomes relevant that he refused to cooperate with any of many Russian revolutionary movements (Bolsheviks, Menshevik, Socialist-Revolutioners and others), considering the new Russia as much an enemy of Poland as the old one. --Irpen
    • Interesting. If you have a ref, do expand the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Cooperation of his ZWC with the Austrian Imperial authorities is conveniently phrased as "permission" (I added some on that to the Związek Walki Czynnej article some time ago) --Irpen
    • Well, how else would you phrase it? I don't see where are you going here?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • His crushing of the Ukrainian independence is presented as simply "clash with Ukrainian forces". Followed by a highly controvercial statement "soon it became apparent that the real enemy of both nations was the Bolsheviks." as if Polish crashing of the Ukrainians was a friendly gesture. --Irpen
    • Polish-Ukrainian War did not crash the independence of Ukraine, only resolved a territorial dispute. Ukrainian independence was by Soviets - Piłsudski wanted to preserve the independent Ukrainian state (under Petliura); but Soviets wanted to create a Soviet Ukrainian Republic on those territories, and got them at Riga.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • His intrusion into Ukraine is presented as an "alliance" for the sake of Ukrainians themselves (much said on that in PSW and Kiev Offensive articles). --Irpen
    • The text clearly states what Piłsudski expected from Ukrainians in exchange. And yes, independent Ukraine was one of Piłsudski's goals, no matter how hard you try to ignore that fact.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The P.-sponsored intrusions into Ukraine following Riga to help the local insurrections are ommitted. --Irpen
    • I have never heard of such intrusions. Could you elaborate, with refs? I am on the other hand aware of S.-sponsored intrustions into Poland, which led to the creation of Korpus Ochrony Pogranicza.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Interment of Ukrainian "allies" as soon as they became unnecessary is ommitted. --Irpen
    • Piłsudski's criticism of Riga is mentioned, feel free to expand on why he was critical of it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The entire controversy of the camps for war prisoners, were Russians and Ukrainians died en masse, and the murder of the Red Cross mission is ommitted as if P. had nothing to do with that. --Irpen
    • Stop. There is only one reason why there are no Polish books about "[Polish] camps for war prisoners, were Russians and Ukrainians died en masse" because no proof was found that such camps ever existed. If you have any serious sources to support your thesis (that the death toll in Polish camps for prisinors of war was higher than in other camps of that era), please provide them. Mieciu K 10:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • We have a well referenced article on Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919-1924). POWs died on both sides from the rampaging post-IWW pandemics, although as article clearly shows Russian press tried to exaggerate the Russian POW casualties and create 'a balance' for Katyn. On the other hand, there were quite a few examples of mistreatment of Polish POWs, up to and including executions (prelude to Katyn...). I don't think Piłsudski was in charge of camps, and most certainly the unfortunate murder of the Red Cross team, described by Davies, was a spontaneous crime of some low-level soldiers, with no connection to any high-level officers (not to mention P.). Or do you have refs to the contrary?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That Pilsudski attempted to coerse Lithuanians into the Union by offering them Vilnius for that is nowhere in the article. --Irpen
    • Haven't seen that in my refs, certainly if you have them, that's another interesting fact to add to the article. Although wouldn't 'bribe' me more correct then 'coerce'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • When the article speaks of "Stabilization and improvement" following his coup it does not explain the extent of such "improvement". No word at all how poorly was economy doing (BTW even by 1939 Poland didn't reach the industrial output of its territory of 1913 when it was supposed to be in a miserable shape as the Russia-oppressed unfriendly province). --Irpen
    • Refs? Great Depression put a major dent on all worldwides outputs around that time, and Poland also had to rebuild territory completly devastated by IWW.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Article pays just a leap service to the political repression, which btw, didn't start in '30s, following the sejm dissolution as the article states, but immediately following the '26 coup (the conspicuous 1926 case of General Tadeusz Jordan-Rozwadowski arrested on the false corruption charges who soon dies suspiciously stands out). The Sejm dissolution itself is also ommitted as well as the rigged election. --Irpen
    • Feel free to expand on it if you have refs for it. The Polish legislative election, 1930 (on which I wrote the article) is linked in the text.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The description of the condition of minorities following the coup being called "less then satisfactory, despite Pilsudski's efforts" is "less than satisfactory" for sure. --Irpen
    • So you consider that sentance accurate, but you don't like it? Mieciu K 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Again, feel free to expand on it. We have refs for what we have, including that Piłsudski's polices were viewed favourably by most minorities, whose situation improved under his regime.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ommitted is the corruption and incompetence, hidden by the ultra-patriotic propaganda, of the narrow circle of his friends in power following the coup, see for instance the condition of the economy of which which Pilsudski didn't hesitate to admit he knew nothing about. --Irpen
    • Refs, refs, and refs. And I wonder if this article is the best place for going into details of his 'colonels' actions?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Enough for now. The article has a wealth of factual info and lots of refs. I agree with Mikka that there are lots of good in the article. I do not want to put a very well warranted (as per this list and Mikka's) POV tag all over it but I oppose its promotion as it is definetely not ready for the main page. --Irpen 05:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you give some references for that, and hopefully edit the article? I do agree that the article shows Piłsudski as a rather positive figure, but those were the sources I (and other editors) apparently had to work with.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 07:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Great article; very comprehensive.--Kober 07:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per about 80% of the concerns raised above. Needs to be more balanced and thorough. Also, stylistic issues: 1) do away with completely superfluous "Biography" heading. 2) clean up external links (no need to link to a single picture, a geocities site, etc). Image thumbnail sizes seem to be all over the place - try and make them more uniform. heqs 14:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have addressed some the stylistic issues. I discussed biography heading above. I don't see what's wrong with the geocities cite?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The 'biography' heading is unnecessary and not standard form for biography articles on wikipedia.

Further comment: I do not think that this article quite satisfies the requirement for "compelling, even brilliant" prose. It's good but not great. heqs 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As I reasoned above, 'biography' is useful and found in many articles. There is a difference between 'biography' and 'encyclopedic article'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support Piotrius, Piłsudski was a positive figure. Maybe it’s not acceptable for some Russians here but we must stick to the reliable sources. Ldingley 14:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A very well explained vote! --Irpen 05:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose initially I planned to support the proposition. The cavalier way that user:Mieciu K dismissed a more balanced approach to the portrayal of the man gives me pause to do so. A portrait of a Great Man, needs to be presented "warts and all", otherwise you get a portrait of someone like Stalin with a halo over his head, receiving flowers from smiling children. When these issues giving us a more balanced article (which includes the good, the bad, and the ugly), I will change my vote to support. Although it is not of any importance to our discussion, I personally like Pilsudski, and think he was a Great Man. Like everyone he had flaws, and "issues", and these should be examined and included. Dr. Dan 15:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's stick to judging the article about Józef Piłsudski, this is vote is not about me and my actions. I have made only one revert of an unsourced claim. Do these [3] [4]edits look like edits of a "polish nationalist who wants to hide the truth"? (they were later modified by me and sources have been added). These are the 2 most significant "bad issues" (that I have heard of) about Piłsudski's regime that are mentioned by most mainstream Polish historians. Are these issues bad enough? Of course we could adress many more issues, but do we have place to write eg. about the foreign reletions and military conflicts between Poland and Lithuania (1918-1935)in an article that is supposed to be (just) an overview od Jozef Piłsudsk's life? Many facts about the Polish second republic have to still be covered in the English Wikipedia (many of them bad for it's reputation) but do we have to mention them all in the Jozef Piłsudski article? Mieciu K 16:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Who called you that here? No straw men, please. heqs 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write that someone called me a Polish nationalist, and Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur (nobody can be punished for his thoughts) Mieciu K 18:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? As Mieciu notes, we are not judging him but the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You want specific, here's specific.

Irpen: (hard to be sure it's him because the continuity of his points were constantly challenged and interrupted)"The activity of the PPS, he organized, largely consisted of the targeted assassinations, as well as robberies for the Revolution sake." (sic)

"Ommitted".

Mieciu: "That,s (sic) what revolutionaries at the beginning of the 20th century did, So what's so significant about that?"

Irpen: "His peculiar travel to Japan ommits that he offered not just intelligence cooperation but assistence to Japan in their war with Russia through terror and sabotage."(sic)

Mieciu: "That's what "freedom fighters" at the beginning of the 20th century did. What's so significant about that?"

These responses were arrogant and cavalier. If Irpen, or whomever believes these are factual and significant questions that need to be resolved before putting the article as a "Featured Article", on the main page, let's do it. I look forward to changing my vote. In the meantime is that specific enough? Dr. Dan 00:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

With the disclaimer that I am not a native English speaker, I don't think that Mieciu's replies are "arrogant and cavalier". Brief, yes, but not IMHO uncivil.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to assume good faith? I just wanted to point out that to a person who knows the history of early XX century Europe it is alrerady known what the words "revolutionary" and "freedom fighter" mean. I do not object to the suggestions of Irpen, I just wonder do we have the space to realise his suggestions in an overview article ("what's so significant about that?"). I am not a native english speaker, my skills ar at level 3 "This user is able to contribute with an advanced level of English." so judge the content of my edits and not their context or style. And again - aren't we supposed to judge the article instead of my actions? I am not preventing anyone from improving this article. Mieciu K 09:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I was asked for specifics and therefore gave specifics.

Do I think the remark What's so significant about that?, is "uncivil"? No!

Do I think it's "arrogant and cavalier"? Yes!

Evidently Irpen thought these points were significant enough to be considered in this debate about the article, and should have been given the courtesy to get a more helpful response. Dr. Dan 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC) p.s. Let's make the article balanced and non-POV, and make it a featured article as soon as possible. There's basically only a few points that need to be tweaked, and we're there!

• Reluctantly oppose. When there are so many good paper references it's a shame to see so many purely web references, but web references of the form "this website" (just some lycos website) and the ref [37] to "some left wing papers" are unacceptable. If you are citing a website, make sure that you have a date of last access and the publisher at the very least. Making the website a genuinely "reliable source" would also be helpful. TheGrappler 20:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because a website is a lycos website does not discredit it in the least bit. Yes, reliability is something of a priority, but I'll leave that to Pyotr (because I didn't insert the link in the first place). Why are those "left-wing articles", as you dub them, unreliable? They are not papers, they are articles. Articles just then as articles are today. And generally they are very reliable. I don't see how you can discredit something if you can't read the language in which it is written (you can't speak Russian, I assume, naturally). I hope I haven't sounded testy, because I have the utmost respect, thank you. Aaрон Кинни (t) 06:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: If those articles are Russian, and I think they are, then this article isn't as POV as people make it seem. The Russians hated Pilsudski because he was a nationalist and revolutionary, linking to Russian documents just gives another point of view. Aaрон Кинни (t) 06:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I added that link, it can be described more specificly as "First-hand reports of mistreatment of prisoners in Bereza Kartuska and other related texts published in the 1930s" The site is Belarusian, but the texts are in Polish one text by a right-wing "Gazeta Polska" which writes that the camp is necessary ("Obozy koncentracyjne. Tak" Concentration camps. Yes), and articles by the left wing Robotnik (1894-1939) (it was an organ of Polish Socialist Party, Piłsudski was for a time that party's member.) Of course they may be partialy made up, but they give an overview of the situation at that time. There are many other sources related to the Bereza Kartusak camp, but this is the best internet link that I could find at a short notice. Mieciu K 09:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Update, this link actualy links to an article about the legal aspects of functioning of the camp, and contains "a selection of 1930s articles". The article is written by dr Wojciech Śleszyński who is an author of a book about Bereza Kartuska [5] (english desciption) the english translation of the title is "Isolation camp in Bereza Kartuska 1934-1939). So the only problem with this link is that it is in Polish. Mieciu K 10:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. I've not got a problem with the reliability, but the references are very sloppily cited (i.e. it's a WP:CITE problem, not a WP:RS). In what kind of scholarly work would you see a reference that said "There's a bunch of left-wing articles on this lycos website"? Incidentally, are all the articles on that site about the point that they were being cited for? If not, make the reference specific to the article(s) or section of article that's relevant. The bottom line is, what was really being cited were articles, not the website, so please actually cite the articles (details like author, date, title, publication... all that standard WP:CITE stuff), make a note that they are available online on that website, then put in a date of last access as you should for any web reference. Anything less than that is sloppy. TheGrappler 10:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think this has been now fixed. As for lycos website, putting aside the provider, it is a pretty good site. True, it's not an academic per se, but has quite a lot of useful information and seems rather reliable (for a non-academic elink ref).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Blogs and personal websites, like any self-published sources with no editorial oversight, are frowned upon/disqualifiable, except in rare cases when they are from a person who is a well respected authority in their field. Same thing should apply for articles etc. stored or copied on personal sites - again, no oversight. Then there's the issue of linking to copyrighted newspaper articles etc which happen to be on blogs and personal websites -- directly linking to copyright violations is also frowned upon. I'm sure we all stretch this one a little now and then, especially when digging up historical info. I'm not necessarily discrediting this source, just pointing it out. heqs 18:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The articles themselves seem notable enough, so I am prepared to withdraw my objections now that the referencing looks better. But I second what Heqs said. TheGrappler 03:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point now, Grap. Aaрон Кинни (t) 12:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose by now. Very good article with exemplary referencing but needs some balancing per Mikka and Irpen. A few balanced sentences in and I would change my vote to support abakharev 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please tell me what needs to be balanced, and it will be done. Mikka and Irpen have raised some points, we have addressed them here (and in the article). I especially tried to source all information that may be POVed, if there is anything which seem POVed and not sourced, please tag it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have looked through the changes in the article since July 9. It still looks like Irpen's and Mikka's concerns are not addressed, the only "balancing" statement that appeared there was that JP was not a good achiever as a secondary school student. I am sorry, but my vote has not changed yet. abakharev 22:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well then provide some sources that can be used to justify other citations. I have asked Irpen for sources (and gotten none), and gotten none. Mikka has provided two offline German language publications which I cannot obtain nor read, but if he would like to do some edits using them, he is free to do so. But untill I am given some sources supporting the POVedness claims, I cannot do much edits - but of course you and others can, assuming you have those sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Why weak? There's plenty of room for possible expansion, as suggested by Irpen and Mikka. However, I don't see any real POV in the article that should be corrected, rather their arguments refer to possible omissions of interesting, yet not really crucial facts from his life. Otherwise, the article is really nice. //Halibutt 08:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Parliament of Australia

I believe this article should become a featured article as it is nuetral, clear and concise and would fill the void of the lack of Australian featured articles. It clearly explains the roll and purpose of the Parliament of Australia.

Object. No references. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Object per above. The prose is uncompelling: e.g., how many times must the article reiterate the inferior status of territories and new states in apportionment? Also, the election results should go at the end.

• Refer to peer review--Peta 06:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• So why are undated years linked (e.g., "1984)? And on the other side, why is one of the dates not auto-formatted? Tony 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comparative method

This article does an excellent good job of explaining what could have been a hideously complex and technical subject without oversimplifying anything, has been very well written and makes excellent use of examples. Currently, there are only three or four linguistics (as opposed to language) featured articles, and this is by far one of the best of the others - better than many "introductory" textbooks on the subject. sjcollier 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object.' Insufficient lead, and lack of inline citations. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about the inline citations - it's not part of the featured article criteria, and there are many, many featured articles, particularly on those scientific topics which are unlikely to be disputed, that don't use them at all. It's hard to see what they would add to the main body of the article, though I suppose they may be useful for the examples: I'll see what I can do. I take your point about the lead in, though, and will have a go and improving it, hopefully without duplicating too much of Comparative linguistics. sjcollier 09:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Support. The article is now much better. Thank you for your patience, I was on vacation and unable to respond more quickly. All of my objections have been admirably addressed. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Although it is an interesting article and alot of work has gone into it, there are still some problems. Inline citations are necessary, and those FAs lacking them should be thoroughly reviewed. Take this sentence from the article for example: "Modern Persian in fact takes more of its words from Arabic than from its direct ancestor, Proto-Indo-Iranian." I cannot speak Persian and even if I could, I couldn't subjectively verify this. As such, I may want to find out who discovered this fact and read the paper they had produced which would detail their experimental method. The best way to enable a reader to do this is by linking the sentence to a specific reference - inline citation. A second problem concerns the prose: although it is generally good and readable, it falls down in a few places ("This is because of heavy borrowing over the years from Arabic into Persian", for example). I do hope this article gets through. Good luck, Oldak Quill 10:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That was what I meant about citations maybe being useful for the examples - inline citations for the comparative method itself would be rather spurious, as most of the books currently in the references section are basically more long-winded versions of this article. I'll see what I can do to provide citations for the Indo-European examples (though they won't be from the original papers...), but will have to appeal on the talk page for somebody else to help out with all the stuff from other language families.

By the way, the obvious example of an FA on a very similar topic that doesn't bother with inline citations is Vowel - though this has suffered a (failed) "Featured Article Removal" attempt because of it. A random sample of other FAs with no inline citations (or, indeed, no references at all), some of which admittedly seem likely to suffer similar attempts to remove their FA status in the near future: Geology of the Bryce Canyon area, Spacecraft propulsion, Telephone exchange, Regular polytope, Nuclear weapon. There are others. sjcollier 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain. No inline citations (they are a standard since few months). Lead is too short. See also is rather long. Are there no external links to link but one? Per MoS, usage of bold text should be avoided in body of the article. Just one of those articles that would benefit from PR first, as is stressed in FA guidelines.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree about the citations (by the way, there are a (very) few inline Harvard citations alread, but not enough), and will do something about the lead.

I don't think that See also is abnormally long or irrelevant, though I suppose the four linguists could be given their own explanatory subheading, or (better?) individual explanations.

Sadly, it is true that there are very few useful external web-pages on this topic (another reason why this should be a FA?) - I've added the only one that I'm aware of; the first couple of hundred Google hits only duplicate information already in this article.

MoS does not say to avoid bold text in the article body, or even advise against it: it merely advises to use it "judiciously". I can't be bothered to argue the point, though, so I've changed it to italics anyway.

I've also carried out a few minor changes to bring eveything inline with the MoS (quotes, italics, etc.) and corrected and added a few internal links. Will have a crack at the lead later. sjcollier 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, the article is much better now. I'd prefer footnotes to Harvard refs, but this is a matter of style. I'd recommend adding a few more ilinks and creating some redirects (or stubs) - just look at the 3 red links that I now created in lead (all to strange terms that should be explained). Consider asking User:AndyZ to run his PRbot through the article if you don't want to submit it there for MoS comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added stubs for the redlinks. The criticim claim used to be cited, but I moved the citation when somebody pointed out to me that Wikipedia:Lead section says "All of the various points should be expanded upon later in the article, and the appropriate references provided at that point, rather than in the lead section." The claim is referenced in the Criticism intro. I will look into taking your advice on the PR bot. Cheers, sjcollier 22:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I ran the PRbot and acted on some of its suggestions - I had completely forgotten about captions for the images. sjcollier 23:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting - but I'd still support adding referenced to the lead. For example, I can't imagine a FA like Katyn Massacre without them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. There's nothing about the origins of the method, that I can see at least. Also, this is perhaps just me, but I'm unfond of long blockquotes: perhaps you could re-write it and then turn "Assessment" into the lead paragraph for the "Weakness" section? The title "Weakness" seems a little POV, perhaps "Criticism" would be better? It might also make sense to combine the subsections of the "Neogrammarian hypothesis," rename "Problems with the Tree Model" to "Tree and wave models," removing the then-needless subheading. More broadly, some of the paragraphs are shortish, perhaps comibne them? To make the copy a little more appealing visually, try experimenting with the align attribute for your tables: {| class="wikitable" align="right".--Monocrat 23:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Update. Agent X, Red Newt and I have made a few changes to this article to try to meet the objections. The work done so far has been to:
  • add inline citations - now complete
  • reformat the tables into something that is hopefully a bit more aestheticly pleasing
  • drastically prune the See also
  • add an External link - though sadly, I can't see this section being expanded much further
  • rewrite the lead - including removal the bullet points and overly-scientific language
  • renaming of Weaknesses to Criticism
  • trimming of the blockquote, and moving the Assessment subsection so it becomes an introduction to Criticism
  • fixing and adding internal links
  • various minor fixes to bring the article in line with the MoS
  • add a new section on the origins and development of the method
  • fix, or provide stubs for, all of the redlinks

sjcollier 09:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that, although the article will probably be expanded further over the coming weeks, it is now up to FA standard - though any further feedback from those who objected would be appreciated. Therefore:

• Support. as per my original proposal. Cheers, sjcollier 17:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not there yet. It is much improved, but it's still lacking in the origins of the method.--Monocrat 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reminder. We've added a new section on the origins and development. sjcollier 21:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Better. I like the material in the "Terminology" section, but its placement and structure seem awkward. (It feels like an afterthought; perhaps break it up and place the material where appropriate elsewhere? This isn't a critical note. Just a thought.) Also, take note of your capitalization in the headings, per the WP:MOS. The copy needs some work still: we see "German" fourteen times in "Terminology" and "Origins" alone. And Verner "promulgated Verner's Law?" Promulgate has specific meanings that don't fit here, and did he really name it after himself? "Probably the earliest" is a little weasley (see WP:WTA; take care of that and look for other instances. In sum, the copy is a little awkward and a little too repetitive, even for a technical article.--Monocrat 18:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the pointers - I really appreciate all the help you're giving with getting this article up to scratch. I've addressed the individual issues that you picked out, except for the German thing - you do have a valid point, but it may take a while to work around (too many German linguists doing work on the Germanic languages). I've also read WP:WTA - for which, big thanks - and gone through the article trying to get rid of them: there were more than I expected, but I think I got them all. As for terminology, I guess it could be integrated in the article, but possibly at the expense of moving Origin and development somewhere else in the article (as that section has too many terms that would need explaining); personally, I think that Origin is good where it is (ie before Application) - but that's just personal preference. Cheers, sjcollier 22:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, I'm off on holiday for the week, but will probably be sad enough to take a printed copy of this article with me and see if I can find any more tweaks to make to it. If anybody has any suggestions, please continue to post them here or on Talk:Comparative method, and I guess if nobody deals with them while I'm away then I will once I get back. Cheers, sjcollier 14:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object, for reasons I'm leaving at Talk:Comparative method#Objection to FAC. They're too long and technical to put here. User:Angr 19:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object, for mostly the same reasons as Angr; I placed my comments at Talk:Comparative method#Objection to FAC as well.--AAikio 07:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Tom DeLay

Self-nom. I haven't written much of this article, but I've tweaked just about every sentence of it, and I think that it meets the featured article criteria. The peer review is available here. NatusRoma | Talk 05:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This article has 42KB of prose as of 24 June 2006. See Wikipedia:Summary style

• Support. Article is well-written and well-referenced. An excellent article on a controversial subject. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object – 1. needs to be summarised 2. Too many headings. Please reduce. 3. Image:TomDeLay.jpg is of a very low resolution. Please replace. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: Is it not possible to replace the low quality image ? I didn't see this addressed in the comments and responses here? Sandy 12:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• The image itself isn't as bad as the infobox template makes it look. At a more reasonable size, it's not perfect, but I think that it is adequate. See Image:tomdelay.jpg for higher-resolution but smaller picture. NatusRoma | Talk 20:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object 1)There are too many small subgroups, for instance, the section on Dan Qualye could easily be integrated into the section on early congressional career and Northern Mariana Island could be placed in the main Abromoff section. 2)The Russian Oil event took place later, not earlier in his career. 2)There are several one sentance paragraphs that could be merged together, such as about him being prolife in Domestic POlicy and the impeachment of Clinton in cong. career. 3)Why did he contact Federal agencies int he redistricting case? Did he want the FBI to track them down?

These are a few examples, but they, and the other small things like them, should be easy enough to fix. Illuminato 14:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I have integrated both the Quayle and Northern Marianas sections into their respective parent sections. The latter merge wasn't very clean, but I plan to rewrite that section soon, in accordance with Staxringold's objections.
2. The Russian Oil events took place in 1998, before DeLay's tenure as House Majority Leader, but press coverage did not come until December 2005. I have clarified the timing of the events.
3. The pro-life paragraph consists of two sentences, the first of which is very short. I plan to expand have expanded the paragraph about the Clinton impeachment.
4. DeLay contacted the agencies in order to find the locations of the missing legislators. I have edited the section to make this clearer. NatusRoma | Talk 22:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I believe that I have satisfied all of Illuminato's objections. NatusRoma | Talk 01:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object My objections are as follows:
  • The lead should be shortened to conform with WP:LEAD
  • The article should be shortened/split-off as it is currently 68 kb

For both of these first two: what do you think needs to go? NatusRoma | Talk 22:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• As for the lead, it just goes into too much detail in paragraphs 2-3. I would shorten each one down, removing smaller details, and merge into one large 2nd paragraph. As for the main article body, remove further small details from sections that already have split-offs (for example, all that information in the Terry Schiavo paragraph led by Law and Order) or add large amounts of information to the split-offs as in all that information under "Grand Jury Indictments" for the corruption indictments. The purpose of split-offs is to allow the detailed coverage you are providing here in the main article body, but keep the main article slick and readable. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A three-paragraph lead is permitted by WP:LEAD. The third paragraph does give a lot of weight to recent events, but I think that the fact that they're still current means that some recentism is justified. Also, I think you'll agree that it does a thorough job of laying out the content of the article that follows, which is beneficial in view of Wikipedia 1.0 proposals. As for the split-offs, I think that I'll change many of the {{main}} tags to {{see also}} tags, because the Tom DeLay corruption investigation page is the only true split-off from the main article. However, that page has been edited very little which means that what's in the main article may in places be more up-to-date than the information in the split-off. NatusRoma | Talk 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• • The "Accusations of misuse of federal investigative agencies" subsection is very short for it's own section, needs refs, and should try to avoid the list

The two inline citations that are presently included in the section source everything that's there. I will change it to avoid the list and expand it. NatusRoma | Talk 22:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll try to check in on the article, but leave me a note if you feel you've fixed this (or any other) problem and I haven't responded. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• • "Cuban cigar photograph" would be greatly aided by at least a properly fair use explained copy of the photo and perhaps further text on how people knew it was a Cuban from just a photo(never mind on the second part, looking at the Time ref the zoom makes it clear)

Done. NatusRoma | Talk 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• • The Abramoff scandal could use almost a complete rewrite for such a key section and the AP quote isn't all that helpful

Fixed. NatusRoma | Talk 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Early portions of "Investigation of alleged misconduct in Texas fundraising and indictments" need some refs (I see whole paragraphs of detail without a single ref) and there probably should be (this is a personal idea, not per any specific policy) at least a mention of the jokes/comments made about Delay's mugshot and how, because he was clean shaven and happy looking, opposition to Delay didn't get the effect they were hoping for out of the mugshot (I remember some decent sized hay being made out of that photo for a few days following it's release).

Fixed. NatusRoma | Talk 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Under "Reaction to indictments" the statement "DeLay and his attorney, Dick DeGeurin, have said that Earle has a history of indicting his political enemies." is completely unsourced, despite being a supposed summary of a quote.

Fixed: I couldn't find a source for DeGeurin, but I did find one for DeLay. NatusRoma | Talk 22:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• • The single See Also link can probably go.

• Thanks for that! Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• • The refs should use the "small" div code (I'll do that).
• Sorry for the long list, but I figured I'd be thorough. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support I'm now willing to vote support as the Natus has done a fantastic job addressing my objections. I would still say the lead could use a bit of trimming, but I don't know what should be trimmed so I don't feel right objecting. Ditto for the daunting article size of 77kb. My only remaining issue (which should take 2 seconds to fix and isn't worth an objection) is that the statement "DeLay is pro-life. In 2005, he voted 100% in line with the views of the National Right-to-Life Committee and 0% with the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League." from "Domestic Policy" could use a reference. Thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support-I gotta say, that regardless of anything else, the article is really informative and surprisingly balanced and fact-based when discussing Delay. A whopping 82 citations lends it a lot of credibility in my book. I don't mind the sub-headings as they are placed well in the article and are to the point and actually should help readers to better understand various aspects of his life. The entire article has a strong focus in fact and good chronological flow. Great work! Tombseye 20:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I noticed that Notes (inline citations) are referred to as References, and there is no References section. As an example, the Dubose and Reid book is cited several times in what should be called Notes, and it should be listed as a Reference, so that people can easily find it when it is cited with a page number. Notes are inline citations: References are general references. For an example, see Notes and References sections on Hugo Chávez. Sandy 13:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC) I also noticed that your External Links are not balanced, per WP:EL. I strongly object (changed to Weak Object, see below) to a controversial, current political topic as an FA, if balance of criticism has not been addressed, to assure that all sides of the story are presented. It is too easy for POV to creep into an article if balance isn't present in sources and/or External Links. Sandy 13:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I will fix the notes/references split. As for the question of a controversial topic, if Ku Klux Klan, an organization that has killed people because of their race, can be today's main page article, then I don't see why this article, about a man who merely makes a lot of people angry, can't be a featured article as well. Many other editors and I have worked very hard to ensure that this article is neutral, but if there is something that you think is unbalanced, please say so. NatusRoma | Talk 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll reevaluate my vote once the refs/notes are revised, but would still like to see balance in External Links, to be more assured that any potential POV is addressed as thoroughly as possible. One support External link versus so many critical: maybe you can check whether all the critical are needed? Sandy 15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

After looking at Wikipedia:Citing sources#"Notes" section, and given the fact that the list of references adds 16 kb to an already lengthy article, it might be advisible to avoid a duplicate references section. Do you know of any way of directing citations of multiple pages of the same work to the same note in the current citation format? NatusRoma | Talk 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Another option may be creating a subpage for the notes (e.g., Tom DeLay/References). NatusRoma | Talk 03:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I just had another look: perhaps I'm wrong, but my understanding was that it's not necessary to replicate every inline citation (Notes) in the References section. I thought References was reserved for the main References and important books or other publications upon which the work is largely based, or references that are used many times in the article. Is every inline citation being added to References now? (BTW, I really dislike the idea of a subpage: readers need to be able to see a Reference with one click.) Sandy 12:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have cut down on the number of references in the References section. NatusRoma | Talk 21:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak object (changing from strong object above). NatusRoma, your ongoing work and efforts to address all objections raised is commendable and the article is impressive. The Notes/References style is much better. The length seems fine, but I'm still wondering about the low quality picture? I think the lead is fine now in terms of size and content. The talk page and history seem to indicate stability, and I don't see POV concerns there. The TOC doesn't overwhelm me, but when I glance at it, I find one heading vague: I know very little about Tom DeLay, but I shouldn't have to click on "Settlement in civil suit" to get an idea of what this heading refers to. Perhaps it should say Settlement in perjury civil suit or something more descriptive for the TOC? I did not get as far as reading enough content in the middle of the article to convince myself whether the article was neutral, as I found some cleanup issues at the top and bottom of the article. It would be a shame for excellent writing to be diminished by some silly, easy to fix cleanup issues. Some of these objections are more "cosmetic" than substantive, but these are the kinds of things that should feature Wiki's "best work":
  • Wiki links needed: In the lead, I had to go search for Wiki content on the terms Republican caucus, lobbying, and congressional districts. Perhaps a run-through of the entire article to check for Wiki-linking is in order? We have to keep all readers in mind, including non-USA readers and teenagers trying to write term papers, who just may not know all the terms involved.
  • Some copyedit cleanup may help: for example, In 2005, a Texas grand jury indicted DeLay on criminal charges that he had conspired to violate campaign finance laws during this period. "In 2005" and "during this period" seems repetitious. In order for the article to exhibit 1) "our best work" and 2a) "brilliant prose", a runthrough by a tight copy editor might help. I raise this not because the article doesn't read well, but because many FAs are being brought to the newly-established WP:FAR if the prose isn't brilliant, so it may be best to tighten it up as much as possible now.
  • Moving to the bottom of the article, I find some other cleanup and inconsistency issues: let's try to make sure the bottom of the article also represents the best work, because references are so important.
    • Per WP:EL, try to make sure all links are described. For example, on the documentary, what does "mid-decade" mean ? There is an inconsistency in how the links are described, and how extensive the descriptions are. We should clearly know what the link is, its title, and a brief description of the link.
    • Inconsistency in External Links, Further Reading and References: some use bio style (not always correctly), some don't. The link that really threw me is the CREW one, with the use of caps, and no quotes. Some External Links are fully labeled, some aren't. Some are labeled incorrectly, more like pipes. Further Reading and References aren't alphabetical. Some dates in references are wiki-linked, others aren't (do we need to wiki link dates in references?). Some sources (CNN, Time, etc.) are wiki-linked, others aren't. Some references don't put the author's name first, others do. Some have the author's first name before the last name. In general, just try to clean up the bottom of the article so that it truly represents out best work and a thorough, consistent bio style.
    • Categories should be alphabeticized.
• Please let me know if you want me to take another look later. Sandy 14:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a more thorough look at things. See above about the lead picture; I've had trouble finding free images that suffice in terms of both size and resolution.

1. The "Settlement in civil suit" section has a sufficiently descriptive title. The media allegation of perjury was not related to either the suit or the settlement. It is natural for a reader who does not know much about the subject of an article not to be able to guess everything from the article's table of contents.
2. I have added wiki-links, though User:Tony1 has complained about the addition thereof.
3. The antecedent of "in this period" is the phrase "in the early 2000s" in the previous sentence. I have changed "this" to "that" to make the connection more clear.
4. I have added descriptions of the external links.
5. I have alphabetized the Further Reading section. News articles in the References section that do not have authors' names available are listed in alphabetical order by publisher, and then by title. Is there a more correct practice? Throughout the References and Further Reading sections, I have placed authors' last names before their first names. What, exactly, is "bio style"?
6. Throughout the sections pertaining to source and other external information, I have linked the first instance of a newspaper or media company's name, and left further instances unlinked. I have not linked the names of authors who are unlikely to have Wikipedia articles. The "accessdate" parameter of the {{cite x}} templates automatically links dates, while the "date" parameter does not.
7. The categories do not need to be in alphabetical order. In fact, it is probably more useful for them to be grouped topically. The reason that the categories are currently not quite in alphabetical order is that {{Jack Abramoff}} forces the article into the category associated with the template. This category is "read" before any of those listed at the bottom of the page.

Please let me know if you have any other concerns. NatusRoma | Talk 20:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Impressive article: well-written and well sourced. My one suggestion for improvement would be to round out the "Majority leader" section (after 3 but before 3.1). It skips too quickly from his election as majority leader to his exit. A short summary of his political actions during this period should be included. --Alex S 04:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object.

(1) Confusion of registers, e.g., "was credited in recent years with compelling House Republicans to march in lock step" [my highlighting]. I think you're using a loose, colloquial expression here to refer to forcing them to follow the party's policy, but I'm unsure.

(2) Awkward prose, e.g., "exacting political retribution on opponents".

(3) Undesirable omission of "to" in quite a few places, e.g., "he helped start".

Plus lots of other little foibles, such as an en dash used where an em dash or a comma is required. Overlinked with dictionary terms and simple, undated years.

Sounds like a lovely chap. Tony 09:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support.Some refs have been lost doto edits after the first posted news story on Tom DeLay page. Everthing first posted on Tom DeLay has refs or is removed fast. If a story is short on a ref it is becouse a some lazy Johnny-come-lately editer deleted it. Political hack 13:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article, neat, well referenced, well done. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 11:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and please keep leaving supports and objections. I have been working very slowly of late on overcoming the various objections, but my new job is taking a lot more of my time than I expected that it would. I hope to do substantial work on the article over the weekend. NatusRoma | Talk 02:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

I believe this article is ready for nomination. It has recently been Peer Reviewed, and is now ready for the somewhat better peer review of FAC. I believe that it is an excellent article about this spacecraft. Tuvas 16:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak Object: Prose needs some cleanup. Examples:

• 'The launch was postponed from the previous day after discovering in the few minutes before liftoff that the computer software monitoring the fuel systems was malfunctioning.' Simpler would be 'The launch was postponed from the previous day due to a malfunction in the computer software monitoring the fuel systems.'
• MRO is inconsistently italicized.
• 'The spacecraft entered orbit precisely as planned and on schedule. "Oh, look, it's right on the money!" shouted one NASA engineer. "Right on the money!"[6]' Not sure the quote is helping here... Second opinion?
• 'Aerobraking is currently being conducted to bring the orbiter to a lower, shorter-period orbit.' Better is 'The orbiter is currently aerobraking to achieve a lower, shorter-period orbit.'

Structure and detail of the article looks good to me, however. Themillofkeytone 18:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made the suggestions that you requested, except for the italiziting of MRO, to which I would like to question. What is the correct manner to express it? Without any kind of special font? I don't think bolding is the way to go, so it's either italicizing or leaving just MRO. Which is better? Tuvas 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the MOS, it appears that it shouldn't be italicized. Themillofkeytone 20:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:MOS-T states that "Abbreviations of the above should also be italicized." Above it is a list, that includes ships. MRO isn't a ship in that context, but I believe that the abbreviation should be italicized. Whichever way though, they should be consistent, but I'll await your thoughts on it. Tuvas 20:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Apollo 8 is featured and is italicized, so I'd say go with that. Themillofkeytone 00:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And now I've done it for ya. :-D Themillofkeytone 01:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Anything else need to be changed that you see? Tuvas 01:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Support: Alright, I've gone through it again and done some more copyediting so now I have no problems supporting it. Themillofkeytone 17:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• The format 'Mb/s' almost certainly means 'Mbit/s'. You may wish to change it. This anomalous format was identified by the monobook tool that I describe elsewhere on this page. Hope that helps. bobblewik 23:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• This problem has been cleared up. Anything else? Tuvas 16:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. This is mostly solid (and I love all those great pd-NASA images), but a copyedit is necessary. Quick examples:
  • "The HiRISE camera will be used to analyze Martian landforms, whereas CRISM and SHARAD will detect water, ice, and minerals on and below the surface...": whereas is the wrong word here.
  • "Data transfer to and from the spacecraft will occur faster than all previous interplanetary missions combined and allow it to serve as an important relay satellite for future missions.": Parallellism issues.
  • "In addition to the two Mars Exploration Rovers on the surface, the orbiter will be the sixth active Martian spacecraft - the largest number around any extraterrestrial planet in the human history of space exploration.": Somewhat of a dangling modifier.

There are a substantial number of small errors like this sprinkled through the article; someone needs to go through and clean those out before it will be ready. --Robth^Talk 17:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not an english major, quite the opposite (Engineering), so I don't see these kinds of things very well... But if you might be able to explain some of these things a bit more, I can probably fix them. Thanks! Tuvas 19:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We're working hard on this issue. I've gone through the first half of the article pretty boldly, but additional specific things to improve would be very beneficial. Thank you for your time on this!--will 09:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I like the changes that were made, and I went through and tweaked a few things myself. The one remaining issue I have is this: is it "MRO" or "the MRO"? Presumably one of these is correct (and I'm inclined to suspect that it's "the MRO", just based on what seems logical), but either way, someone should find out which it is and then go through and standardize our usage. That is, however, a minor issue, and assuming it gets dealt with, I now support. --Robth^Talk 14:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, doing a quick search of NASA's site, I saw MRO listed alot, but never THE MRO. Same with the internal HiRISE documentation. Still, I don't know if it's even worth changing, but, for the record, MRO is the correct way. Sometimes the MRO just sounds better... Still, probably is better to be consistent. Well, I'll make the change right away.Tuvas 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just an update, I went ahead and made the changes, see if I missed anything... So, thus far we have 2 supports, no opposes. Don't think I've ever seen a FAC for so long with so few votes... Tuvas 15:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also finished going through the entire article to clean up grammar and flow.--(will)Koeppen 23:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Neutral Object. First, please eliminate the overview section—that's the purpose of a lead. Expand the shorter subsections if at all possible. Remove all bold text except that which appears in the first sentence of the lead. Fundamentally I'm not sure that this should be featured, since the mission has not yet been completed. There's no discussion of what the orbiter has accomplished, only what it hopes to accomplish. As a result, I'm not sure that this can satisfy the stability requirement, at least for now. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've eliminated the overview and disseminated the info into the article. I also removed the boldface per your suggestion. However, I would disagree with your assertion that the article is unstable. This article is about the spacecraft, its electronics, power systems, and instruments, NOT about the discoveries it may or not make. Text in the article about what it hopes to accomplish are there to outline its main purpose and objectives, not to serve as a sink for new information as it comes down the pipe (though some editors may try to do this). Even if MRO fails, it's original purpose and specs will not change, just the tense of the article will.--Koeppen 22:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Boldface is being discussed.--Koeppen 23:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Boldface is resolved (and removed), sorry bout that. -Ravedave 02:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that there are spacecraft that are FA, first and formost Hubble. Hubble, by your statement, would not qualify. MRO made it to Mars, it's going to be there a while. But, nothing has really changed in it's status for the last 3 months, nor is it likely it will for the next 3 months. At least, in my mind, it is stable. I will also agree with Koeppen's statements with reguards to the Overview section, it's intent is to give information that doesn't belong in the intro, but is important to the article. Perhaps it needs a new name, but, not placing in the lead section. Tuvas 00:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... So you're saying that when this mission is completed, most of the findings of this spacecraft will be added to articles like Mars? I guess that makes sense... and even if a section was added to this after the fact, I suppose that wouldn't really be "instability". Good job, you guys are persuasive ;-). Thanks for dropping the overview section. As for other issues, is there any way to expand the subsections "CRISM", "Attitude Determination" and "Telecommunications system"? They're rather short. And could the external links be pruned somewhat? Some of them seem rather unnecessary (Slashdot?). I'm not sure that for example the CRISM link should be here, since CRISM has its own article. Switching to neutral for now; will review again. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 12:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

CRISM could have more information, but as it has it's own article, I don't know if it's really appropriate to put that much more. It's a basic overview as to what it does. I'll see if I can add a bit more. As for the Attitude Determination and Telecomuncations systems, well, I'll work on it right now. I'll also take a look at the links, to make sure that all of them are actually useful. Any that aren't, I'll remove. Tuvas 16:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks better. It's a tough balance; having the right amount of information with each subsection. These are on the short side, but they're not excessively short. The external links look better. One final thing—on most monitors, that infobox runs into the launch image, causing the text in the first heading to get pushed down, which leaves a white gap. Rearranging the images would be helpful. Switching to support. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object. The article lacks of any information prior to the launch of the spacecraft (original idea, original goals, funding, problems that occured during construction...). Plus could you create a section that describes MRO's goals, future expectations and expected discoveries separated from the "Equipment" section. CG 20:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've renamed one section to "Mission Objectives" to highlight it and created a standalone "Instruments" section. We've also started a section on the talk page to acquire information prior to launch but are still working on it. ("Unfortunately" MRO was pretty smooth sailing from being selected to being built so there's not much in the way public or exciting information, but it's a good suggestion.)--Will.i.am 22:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call on the lack of the history section. I've dug up some sources, and posted at least a brief history of the spacecraft, but, there isn't a whole lot to say. I'll work on expanding it a bit more. Tuvas 16:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object—2a. Here are examples.
  • "attained Martian orbit on 10 March 2006"—a bit grand; why not "and has been in Martian orbit since 10 March 2006"? The "aerobraking" thing looks temporary: will someone update it when it achieves a lower orbit?
  • Is "additionally" necessary?
  • Why is "MRO" italicised?
  • "Future" occurs twice with doubtful purpose: can you pave the way for something in the past? Would you search for past landing sites?
  • Transferring data faster than all previous missions combined: what exactly does this mean? Do you add up the data transfer rates of all previous missions and compare? Unclear.
  • No hyphen after an -ly word.
  • Thought I'd leave it at the lead, but then the second sentence of the next section contains a mysterious word: "survance".

This is not good enough. Tony 09:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed all of the changes you mentioned, except for the attained martion orbit, I believe that is how it should read. Sorry, I guess I can't spell... As to why MRO is italicized, see further up on the proposal. Aerobraking will last for the next 2 and a half months, and yes, it will be updated, within the same day as it's completion (I hope even faster than that). Will look for more such phrases, thanks for the extra eyes though. Tuvas 19:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

But but but ... have you networked with other like-minded WPians to find copy-editors to massage the whole text? My examples above are to demonstrate that this is necessary. (PS its versus it's is a pain in English—counterintuitive, even—but once learnt, never forgotten.) Tony 09:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have time and have read through the article, why not be bold?--Will.i.am 10:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain a few things. The lead section has been constantly reformed, to try and raise it's status, and a few errors were appearently left in. The first two paragraphs of the history section are brand new, again, to meet the requirements of a FA. During that process, some errors were left. However, most of the article has been much more stable, and doesn't have these problems. Feel free to try and find these types of problems withing the body of the article, I doubt you'll find as many. Tuvas 14:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

After having seen the recent changes from Will.i.am, I can see there was more than I thought as for typos and such in the main article. Still, they seem to be largely fixed up. Tuvas 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - the content is great, but I can't see the merit in featuring this before the probe even started science operations. The article will surely change drastically when that happens, and the post-mission version of this article will certainly be very different to this version. I think that as the article is clearly not in a finished, stable state (even though right now it might not change much from day to day), now is not the time to feature it. Style concerns, though, are that I noticed a couple of spelling errors (acheive in the intro, for example), and quite a few section headings are incorrectly capitalised - they take normal sentence case. Worldtraveller 08:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please check out the discussion above per Spangineer (if you have already and still disagree, it's fine). The article may not be in a finished state (that's why we're here with "like-minded WPians"), but it will not (or at least should not) significantly change with the science discoveries. Even finding intelligent alien grammaticians on Mars will only merit a bullet point in THIS article and will not revise the goals, purpose, or internal workings of the satellite. And if the science is so incredibly groundbreaking than it deserves its own article and shouldn't be on par with the launch information anyway. None of the Mars spacecraft articles contain extensive science information, and I don't believe this one should either.--Will.i.am 10:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the heading capitalizations and all the typos my friend Word and I could find.--Will.i.am 10:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I do disagree, still, I'm afraid - you drew an analogy to Hubble, and I see your point but I think this is like having an article about Hubble before it began science operations. Think of what became clear after that - the mirror problem, the fix, the HDF, the HUDF, all the stunning images, ground-breaking results, etc etc. Before it started imaging, very little was known about how it would perform, and its article, had it existed then, would have changed enormously.

I also disagree that the results shouldn't be included in the probe article. Hubble's article discusses the most important results from it. All probes are designed to find out something new, so what they find out, or don't find out, should certainly be reported in their article.

Given that the probe might yet crash, fail, make groundbreaking discoveries or raise significant new questions, I just don't think the article can be considered anywhere near finished yet, nive as it is in its current state. Worldtraveller 11:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, those are all good points. My last shot on this and then I'll give in.... The MER rover teams did not put out a scientific press conference until a full two months after they landed. Their first papers in Science were not published until 1.5 years later. MRO will not exit aerobraking for another 4 months and, using MER as a model, we should be seeing published science results to add to the article in about 2 years. (I'll grant you some pretty pictures off the HiRISE website in 5 or 6 months, but none will have published science attached to them). If MRO does crash or instruments fail post-November (which I think is extremely unlikely at this stage) it could add to the article, hopefully it would be done so in the spirit of a GA if not an FA.--Will.i.am 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment: NASA's website for MER had 1.7 billion hits in the first week they were on the ground. It would be great to have not just a good, but a GREAT article on a public spacecraft for people interested in knowing more about it. That's not a reason to force it to be an FA if it's not good enough, but that's why we're here — to try to get it to the necessary quality.--Will.i.am 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me just explain quite a few of these points. First of all, it's highly unlikely that the probe will simply crash as is right now, no mission to another planet has acheived orbit around a planet and then crashed, from any country. All of the instruments have been tested, except SHARAD, and all are working perfectly. I would expect the first scientific research press releases perhaps around the begining of next year, and not earlier. MRO actually will end aerobraking in about 2 and a half months, followed by a brief period of time known as the transition phase. PSP will begin in November, and until that time, there will be very little possible changes to the article, except mentioning that it has ended aerobraking. Your logic about groundbraking discoveries, raising signifigant new questions, or crashing can wholy be applied to the Hubble article just as easily as with MRO. Tuvas 14:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object Just a tad too many images I think, to be encyclopedic. Think of eliminating those that aren't really, really needed. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 11:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Abdul Wali Khan

Self nomination: Abdul Wali Khan was a senior Pakistani politician, democratic actvist, political prisoner and leader of Pakistans Parlaimentry Opposition between 1972-1975. He died this year. --Zak 15:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object While pretty good, the article could definitely use a copyedit. A respected politician, his contribution to Pakistan's first constitution was significant, however he was also considered stubborn and inflexible by many of his opponents and some of his colleagues because of his criticisms of the dominance of Punjab and Army involvement in Pakistan's politics. There are several errors with this one sentence; "his contribution" is not a politician; however should either be changed to but, or the comma can be replaced by a period or semicolon; "involvement" isn't necessary, and a "the Pakistani" wouldn't hurt before the word army. contribution to the politic of Pakistan. politic should be politics.

Born on 11 January 1917 in the town of Utmanzai of Charsadda district in the North-West Frontier Province(NWFP) to a family of local landlords. The second of three sons, his mother died during the flu pandemic after World War I. Khan received his early education at the Azad Islamia High School. In 1922, this school formed part of a chain of schools his father had formed during his social reform activities. His father, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan was a prominent Pashtun Nationalist and confidante of Gandhi. He was a non-violent freedom fighter who founded the non-violent Khudai Khidmatgar(servants of God) movement. The Khidmatgar movement challenged British authority in the North West Frontier Province through non-violent protest and posed one of the most serious challenges to British rule in it's time. The first sentence is a fragment, and there is a missing space typo before (NWFP). His mother is not the second of three sons. I'm not too sure why "early" is included before education, since High school isn't quite early education. A space is needed before the parentheses (servants of God). The phrase "non-violent" is used three times in 2 sentences; consider finding a replacement word or removing an occurence of the term. "It's" = "It is"; instead, use "its" (the possessive form of it). A dash is missing between North and West, as is done in the first occurrence. Also, as is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, the footnote should come directly after the period, without a space in between (like .[3] instead of . [3]). Thanks, Andy _t 21:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agreed to copyedit the article a long time ago, but then I had a vacation and a bunch of other stuff came up on Wikipedia, so I haven't gotten around to it. I'll do it tonight, around 04:00 tomorrow. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 22:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiya Andy, I've made the corrections you suggested. I agree on the copy-editing problems I've been having, any constructive criticisms and help would be much appreciated. --Zak 22:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have finished my copyedit, mainly of word usage, punctuation, and spelling. I didn't really make any content changes, just maintenance-type tidying. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll help out too. Between the 4 of us we should be able to get this article in top shape fast! Tombseye 08:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but I edit Wikipedia mostly by night, and I'll be out of town for the next two. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 13:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've put in some more changes, it's looking a lot better now guys. I'm trying to sort out pictures but I as is common in that part of the world more often than not there are no proper copyright rules. --Zak 17:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Museum of the Portuguese Language

Self-nomination. This is a translation of the featured article on the Portuguese Wikipedia — but it is not POV like that version (I don't think,) it is less unnecessarily specific and it is well-referenced. (Apparently referencing is actually somewhat discouraged over there.) I think it is enough for a featured article here as well, but I'm curious as to what you think, and what can be improved if it does not qualify. Grandmasterka 18:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object Several short, stubby paragraphs of only 1-2 sentences, at least one image has a deprecated tag (the first image) and the big quotes with the large quote marks are distracting and should probably go to WikiSource. Rlevse 12:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I fixed the image tag over at Commons, according to their own instructions. I'll work on expanding info on the individual museum rooms in the next few days. Do you think the quotes should be removed entirely and summarized? Should I remove the cgqote template from them and leave them be? Or remove just a couple of the quotes? I'm interested as to what others think about the quotes. Grandmasterka 06:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object I agree with Rlevse, paragraphs and subsections are wat too short, trivia section should go bye bye as well. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Leonhard Euler

Leonhard Euler was a famous mathematician that discovered many theorems that forever changed calculus, number theory, topology, and math in general. Among his discoveries was the E number, and Euler's Method. He also made major contributions to physics by pioneering applications of calculus to physics. --GoOdCoNtEnT 16:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object No inline references. --Maitch 16:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Maitch; no refs per Cite.php. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object I hope to contribute to this article one day, but as it stands it's far from FA status. If you want, feel free to run it through Peer Review for ideas on how to improve it though. As a point of interest, Euler did not discover the number e (it was discovered almost 100 years before Euler was born), but he was the first to use the notation 'e' to represent it. Cheers, --darkliight^[πalk] 17:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Aortic dissection

I feel that it is ready now. Commons has no more images in this topic, every section is full, it is well organized, meets all of the featured article criterias. NCurse _work 14:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for the moment. Main reason is WP:CITE - although the statements about diagnosis and treatment are common knowledge, I'd like to see them sourced to reliable sources (e.g. sensitivity and specificity of an arm blood pressure difference). Syphilis is not mentioned as a cause. DeBakey III has 3 subtypes. Regret not having taken the time to work more on this one. JFW | T@lk 15:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - The intro is too short and the article does not have any inline citations. -- Underneath-it-All 16:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Has three. NCurse _work 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it would be better to submit this article to peer review as it is currently the medicine collaboration of the week and we could improve the article using the comments from peer review. Subsequently this could be a featured article. --WS 16:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Do as you wish. I help if needed. NCurse _work 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose lack any stability (e.g. currect collaboration) and has barely any citation (see Cystic fibrosis or crohn's disease...) Circeus 21:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Charmander

This is a very good article, told me all about the Pokémon... before I knew that it was a dragon that had fire on it. :-D I think it is Featured Article quality. Gang staEB• ice slides) 13:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. No inline references. --Maitch 16:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support I forgot to earlier. Gang

staEB• ice slides) 22:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object, the information is good, but it needs referenced. Highway ^Batman! 22:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• No (Object), Not enough references. Also, needs to explain about Starter Pokemon and the TCG a little more.--Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 22:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Needs a little more information. Also, the intro needs more citations, like "Baby Charmander that are not yet familiar with the flame sometimes accidentally burn themselves with it." This article also goes off into more tangents than needed. Bibliomaniac15 21:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. While the article is well written and there are inline citations throughout I feel that a lot more statements can and should be sourced. -- Underneath-it-All 03:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak object per above Minun ^(talk) 17:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hickman's potentilla

Newish, but already well-formed. If not FA quality, shouldn't take much to turn around any problems. At least deserves GA status. SP-KP 17:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak object, however I'm not a botanist :P What is the better name: the current or Hickman's cinquefoil? --Brand спойт 19:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain why you object? Googletest - Potentilla 164 v Cinquefoil 159, so ... !! SP-KP 21:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Also could article be expanded a bit or there is all possible info? --Brand спойт 21:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• literature uses primarily Hickman's potentilla, especially the EPA publication in the federal register. google also returns more hits for potentilla vs cinquefoil. article has now been expanded about 70 percent since this comment above Covalent 05:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak object. Article has a good basis, but, agree, short. Bobolot 00:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• article has now been expanded about 70 percent since the above comment. Covalent 05:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• comment. Article possibly could be expanded, but information is limited upon such a rare plant with severely restricted spatial occurence. The other risk is that much of the information (which i possess) that would expand the article relates to specifics of colony location, which is not necessarily great to advertise. Covalent 20:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember the Wikipedia policy that statements need to be sourced. If the information on colony location is published already, it's already available to anyone wanting to find it, so adding it here is not such a big deal. If it's not already published, it shouldn't be included here. I therefore don't think we have too big an issue with this. SP-KP 20:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

its published, but good luck finding all of it !! Covalent 21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very nice, and re: Brandemeister, given the rarity of this plant, a lengthy article is likely impossible and not necessary. Re: Bobolot, the author can't work on a non-specific objection. Rlevse 00:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)...PS article was inconsistent in having ending sentence ref before or after the period, so I fixed them, they should be after the period. Rlevse 00:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support I didnt want to support it until i exhausted all the literature i could come by. ive now expanded it by about 60% over its content when nominated. wikipedia could use at least one featured article on a plant (other than saffron which was really a culinary masterpiece). Covalent 03:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Although the copyright info on the lead image seems a bit shaky. If at all possible I'd like to see some California Wikipedian who lives nearby the region they still live to drive out and take a nice GFDL pic just to keep things simple. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object Lead is inadequate, it should at least mention something about its conservation status. The conservation status is full of stubby/short paragraphs. Article needs a copyedit since it does not represent our best work yet. Sentences such as "Discovery of P. hickmansii was made in the year 1900 by Alice Eastwood, the Curator of Botany at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco. That year she made one of several excursions to Monterey County to collect specimens of rare plants, and she named this species after J. B. Hickman, who was her guide on that collecting trip." need some work to be considered of featured status quality. See also should go before notes or references per WP:GTL. Also is this article comprehenive on the topic? Joelito (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • very constructive comments. at this point there are no more red links, the see also section has been moved per your comment, a new image has been added and considerable copy editing has been carried out, especially a total rewrite of the section you flagged Covalent 05:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - the redlinks should be dealt with too, even if only by creating stubs/redirects. I still support FA status, however. SP-KP 17:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - copyright information on the main pic is not just shakey, it's wrong. The photographer actually allowed the image to be used non-commercially and to be be able to keep track of any usage, obviously incompatible with the "the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author, as if in the public domain" tag. Without that picture there's no photo of the actual subject of the article at all. I think it all depends on whether the photographer can be persuaded to be a bit more liberal with their rights-releasing. TheGrappler 19:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

CommentIt explicitly says usage on Wiki is okay, so a tag change should suffice here.Rlevse 00:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Objection continued - if you change it to the "wikipedia use only" tag, then it will be deleted. The whole point of that tag is to identify images for deletion. "Wikipedia use only" is completely unacceptable. The image has to be either free for anyone (including commercial providers) or claimed under fair use; "permission for use on Wikipedia only" isn't good enough. Have a look at WP:COPYREQ for what needs to happen here for this image to be suitable. TheGrappler 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object—2a. Here are examples of why the whole article needs a good copy-edit, preferably by someone who's unfamiliar with the text.
  • " United States federally listed"—ouch, that's cumbersome, right at the top.
  • "a narrowly restricted range"—are both epithets required? Is "very" required later in that sentence? "Sharply delimited" is a bit odd here. Should "and" be inserted before "secondarily"? (It's A, and B.)
  • "the spring"—I'm always looking for words to remove: "the"?
  • So a plant "receives support for its survival from the U.S. Government"? It's a funny way of putting it. Same for the notion that a classification is a principal mechanism for protecting it. Surely it's the mechanisms that arise from that classsification that protect it ...

Venturing into the first section:

• • "prostrate to decumbent, of variable length five to forty five centimeters"—I think most readers won't have a clue what the first phrase means, even though "decumbent" is linked. Insert "from" before "prostrate" and it's a little easier, but perhaps rethink? "Of" is required after "length", isn't it? Consider using numerals in this context, even though they're small numbers, with en dashes; e.g., "5–45". There are so many ranges expressed here.
  • "in width"—why not just "wide"?

Please massage the entire text; then it will be a worthy FA. Tony 09:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Encantadia

This is a hugely concise and informative article, without being too wordy. It appears to have a large team commited to expanding the numereous pages on the trilogy. Any problems are minimal. --Bearbear 12:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Object. No inline citation I could spot, no references, no fair use rationale for the images. Article is also long (54 kB), and parts are very listy. Could benefit from branching out into sub-articles (I notice several has alrady been branced off) and being rewritten in a summary style. WegianWarrior 12:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Object. Per WegianWarrior. --Howard the Duck 13:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Object. per above. Rlevse 23:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Object. also for all the reasons stated above. -- Underneath-it-All 04:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Banff National Park

Article seems to fullfill the criteria. Luka Jačov 14:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Postpone FAC. I've been working on this article, and pleased that someone thinks the article is ready for FAC. But, many of the sections are still stubs (e.g. human impact, geology, ...). The article also needs a map of the park (I'm working on one), showing where the various places mentioned are. I'm also going to add a geologic/topographic cross section diagram of the park, to supplement the "geology" section. I'd like to postpone this nomination for another few weeks, until I get a chance to address these issues. I'd then like to send this through peer review, with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas and the official peer review. Though, maybe the article currently meets, good article criteria. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  I concur with Kmf164...the article is pretty good, but needs a bit more in some areas yet, and peer review is the first step anyway.--MONGO 07:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Mudkip

Mudkip is one of the 493 species of Pokémon. Wikipedians from the PCP say that it is better than Treecko. it is very similiar to the article Torchic which was earlier promoted to featured status. If this doesn't qualify, it will be improved depending on the reason given. I think it would qualify for the following reasons.

• It contains no stub, cleanup, wikify or cite templates
• It is a clan article
• It is very useful
• It is written in a way suitable to Wikipedia Minun ^(talk) 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article is a copy of Torchic, it needs completely rewritten. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • How is it a copy? Minun ^(talk) 15:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • A lot of the paragraphs are copies of each other, look at it. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: I think he wanted specific paragraphs, so aside from some interchanged names, types, etc. the lead of all of the sections are the same. Morgan695 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Would that mean you agree or disagree to this FA? Minun ^(talk) 17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
        • And most of the endings. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• If you look at the similarities, they're very similar. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, you kept copying the text from Torchic over to mudkip, Highway. But despite that, I will still say Object, because it isfar from ready for FAC.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 18:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying that it was the wrong thing to do, it's a good way to cultivate good articles without months of writing, I am saying that we do not need pastry cut Pokémon FAs, it's ridiculous. Torchic got attacked for having half a paragraph the same as Bulbasaur, this article is three quarters Torchic. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not blaming you, just saying. But anyway, that thing about being "Too similar to bulbasaur" in the (torchic's) first FAC was absolutly wrong. The pokémon articles should look similar, but not like cut and paste copies that have 20% of the words changed.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 18:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. The Bulbasaur problem was harsh, but I think it was backlash because it was featured. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Stefan Nemanja

Stefan Nemanja was a very talented military strategist, a holy man, a cunning politician as well as a forger of a Realm. I have vastly raised it from a tiny stub into a large, sourced article, split on sections and with several images just add some flavour to the top. I think that it's sufficient for a featured article - if not, any recommendations shall I seriously take into consideration regarding its improving. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. In addition to lacking references (which are vital for any article to be considered as a FA), the article appears to be very POV in supporting Nemanja, as evidenced by the fawning lead. I'd also like to see a section placing the person in a historical context and a section providing criticism of Nemanja. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object Image problems. Every image in the article has been haphazardly tagged {{NoRightsReserved}}. Not one of them has a verifiable source. Looks like Image:Simeon.jpg might be trying to claim {{PD-art}}? Image:Stefan Nemanja.jpg might be {{Permission}} and need deleting? Image:Nemanja pecat.jpg is probably {{nsd}} (no artist information, other than that they were an amateur). Image:Stefan Nemanja povelja.JPG might be {{PD-ineligible}} if it is just the reproduction of the original text. Jkelly 20:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object, primarily per Alabamaboy. The language also needs to be cleaned up by a native speaker of English, as there are a variety of terms used (e.g. "Republic of Venetia", "Nirnberg", etc.) that are incorrect or archaic. Kirill Lokshin 20:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object per all above. Rlevse 23:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Jasper High School

It is a well-written article, and I feel the school should receive the recognition it deserves.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs)

• Object - for listiness and POV Sheep81 04:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object - not comprehensive at all; this seems to be a "newbie" nomination, by someone who is unfamiliar with the process and criteria — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object - per above. K-UNIT 22:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Per above. QuizQuick 01:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object - What Scm said. See Caulfield Grammar School, Hopkins School, Stuyvesant High School, and Plano Senior High School for FA quality school articles. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object (above). --DanielNuyu 04:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object no where near ready. per Scm83x. Rlevse 23:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah! My Goddess The Movie

I withdraw the nom, will pursue peer review. --Cat out 17:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe this article is ready to be promoted, however I need help in determining how to expand it. --Cat out 22:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You want a Peer Review. Withdraw this nomination unless you really believe it ought to be promoted. —mercuryboard^talk 22:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I will expand it with comments here. Peer review is a dead process (per experience). --Cat out 22:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

He is right you know, 120 in peer review and most just have automated bots. Judgesurreal777 22:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Machine input is... well... not all that interesting. --Cat out 23:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Dead or not, I concur that you should have gone through the motions of a Peer Review first. Excel Saga had a great review, and I've reviewed several articles. If it's a dead process, I imagine it's because reviewers get no or little feedback from other editors. "The forms must be obeyed." ;) Therefore: Object. Nothing about production or critical reception. The plot section is way too detailed for my tastes: "Belldandy's former master, Celestin, escapes his imprisonment and uses her as a tool to continue his war against the Almighty. Keiichi, Urd and Skuld must race against time to save Belldandy, themselves, and the universe." More detail can be employed, e.g. mention Morgan le Fay (oh, why did they hijack King Arthur's mother?) and the World tree, but plot per se shouldn't take more than one or two paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monocrat (talk • contribs)

I do not have another anime featured list to base this as an example, that is why I ask the direction I should modify the page.

Production and critical reception will be there shortly.

--Cat out 10:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of film Featured Articles that could serve as a template (recent ones: Tenebrae, V for Vendetta, Revenge of the Sith). A problem you're going to encounter if you attempt FA for real is the lack of Japanese sources (see Excel Saga's FAC.--Monocrat 12:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, automated semi-bots actually provide pretty useful advice ;). This article definitely could've benefited from it, interesting or not... Object for short lead, lack of footnotes and references, inclusion of a trivia section; in fact, all it is a giant plot summary, with nothing about reception. Check out some of the featured articles at WP:FA#Media. Thanks, Andy _t 00:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know whats wrong with a trivia section. I thought that was good practice. None of the featured lists are about an anime movie, that is why I want opinions from the 'featured candidacy comunity' (whatever that means). --Cat out 10:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

While Peer Review certainly needs more attention, it has been my experience that I get at least one comment there more often then not, sometimes more, and now we have a great PRbot by AndyZ who will give you some MoS advice, too. Please use PR first, then try FAC. I'd assume you will submit the article to PR after taking advice from this section, I'll sure comment later.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well. Though I do not exactly like listening to a bot. :P --Cat out 17:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Durian

Durian was one of the focused articles of WP:FAP. Thanks to the members of the project,the sources have been cited, more references were added, external links were turned into references, more images were added, and a lot was done to help the project. If you have problems with the article, it will prbably be fixed as soon as possible Minun ^(talk) 14:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object
  • The "Selection" section? The one that's "sourced" from the http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Durian_-_Selection/id/1342712 ? The one added in today amid a flood of other rushed edits? That's a mirror of a section of an older version of this same article. It's all unsourced OR, in other words, and now I'm rather worried about the quality of the rest of todays edits.
  • The {{PD-ineligible}} copyright tag on Image:Durian King.jpg and Image:Durian_Tree.jpg is, as far as I know, completely innapropriate: photographs are not generally ineligible for copyright. What is the source of these photographs? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Sources were added to the images; they were indeed simply grabbed off the web and asserted to be PD. Eek. I've removed the images from the article and tagged them as {{wrong-license}} -- I'm not conversant enough on Image copyvio and deletion practices to know what to do next about them. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The lead image is blurry.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it now, is there anything else that needs changed? Minun ^(talk) 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment OK, I've been through the rest of 1 July's edits with a fine-toothed comb and nothing else really alarming has gone on. As one of the significant recent contributors to this article (BorgQueen did most of it, though) I'm going to abstain from voting now, though I do feel that the subject deserves a much better set of photographs than the article currently has. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object There's no picture of the edible part (there used to be, but it was removed a few months ago). While I'm here, I may as well say that this kind of unseemly rush is not the way to produce good articles. Henry^Flower 21:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object,

1. I don't understand the division between the Flavour and odour and the Ripeness and selection sections since they appears to be dicsussing closely realted topics.
2. Cultivars should probably be a subsection of species, the information in species is a bit overwhelming and the descriptions vary in the standard of grammar, detailed species descriptions might be better in the list of species.
3. Durians may be attacked by insect pests which lay eggs in the fruit, and the following text are quite uninformative (and in the wrong part of the article), which insects are pests for durian? Does is also have viral pathogens? Are their any other challanges to cultivation?
4. The trade figures section skirts dangerously close to a cut and paste copyvio from the FAO material.

--Peta 06:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Obviously premature. I appreciate the good intention of the nominator, but the article has a long way to go, as pointed out by above comments. Should have been submitted for peer review first. --BorgQueen 06:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object References formatting is a trainwreck. Highway ^Batman! 21:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism in the United States

• Nominate This is an extremely informative, comprehensive (especially for the topic) article with plenty of helpful graphics. Definately Featured Article worthy. K-UNIT 22:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just did a quick scan, but there are multiple templates throughout the page. Cite all those claims, and then a careful readthrough can be done. zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was not featured. — Davidpdx 01:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Micronation

• Nominate Great article! Aint 23:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, no citations at all. —Nightstallion (?) 19:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, This article suffers from continued abuse from unidentified IP's adding nonsense. Also the article length is too long. Davidpdx 14:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Nominate, Davidpdx, if you actually understood the article, then you would not be saying that. Aint 19:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment First of all, to the person who said I don't understand it, your wrong. Second, there is quite a bit of vandalism and abuse going on, which I do know something about since I was involved in stopping some of it. Third, it seems strange that you think you can vote twice. Maybe because your 10 years old and can't follow the rules. By the way, "ain't" isn't proper English.Davidpdx 06:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Besides, this isn't even linked to from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (maybe it was at some point?). Whatever. I hereby close this nomination, as it won't succeed, either way. —Nightstallion (?) 09:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reopen While this page does suffer from a lot of Vandalism, it still has lots of great content and people should know about this phenomenon. (unsigned by Kitia)
• Comment I believe your wrong Kitia, this should have remained closed. It has been almost three weeks with very few comments. Also, the person that listed this did not properly link it to the Featured Candidate Page (as mentioned by Nightstallon). This should be closed and after waiting awhile renominated properly. Davidpdx 20:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

---

• Comment: What the hell, I've listed it at WP:FAC properly. It'll likely fail, anyway, unless the nominator is actually willing to *work* on it, but meh, might as well let her or him get a chance. —Nightstallion (?) 20:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with you, those who nominated need to look at the suggestions being made, rather then attacking those who are making them. In the end, if the issues are resolved, it will make it a better article. Davidpdx 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Lack of refs: oppose Computerjoe's talk 20:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Lack of Referances? Are You Kidding? Kitia 21:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Call that lack of in-line references. Mangojuice^talk 23:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Mild oppose. The article itself does contain lots of good info. Perhaps some grouping of the history sections would make it even better. Some more illustrations may also improve it further. And I left some straightforward recommendations for improvement towards compliance with Wikipedia standards on the talk page. When these compliance issues are taken of, I'll gladly support it. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC).
• Comment I knew someone would support my decision of reopening the debate!Kitia 22:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That's fine, but the nomination process shouldn't be a endless ordeal. My thought is now that it is listed properly it needs to be decided in a week or so no matter what the outcome is. Davidpdx 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - no inline referencing, and tone is slightly odd in places. Otherwise looking good. -- Alfakim --  talk  16:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What About the Erwin Strauss book? Kitia 17:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Nightstallion. Citations are needed for a subject like this to easily ensure the material is accurate. Cedars 01:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hong Kong International Airport

I believe that this article is neutral, concise and to the point and not of excessive length. It's informative and easy to read. It has illustrative photos that portray what the airport appears to be. OOODDD 20:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. People are inevitably going to complain about all the lists, which take up the lower half of the article. Skinnyweed 01:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Largely unreferenced. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object Very listy, and not much prose. And I left quite some improvement recommendations on the talk page, that should have come out in a good peer review. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC).

Entomopathogenic nematode

This article is amazingly well written and interesting. Its easy to understand and the pictures used in the article are all of high standard, it meets the criteria perfectly.

• Nom and Support --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm a bit concerned about copyvios with this though, as Image:Epn_life_cycle.gif comes from http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/biocontrol/pathogens/nematodes.html, for example, but that image there appears to be copyrighted... besides that it seems like a "gem" to me :) RN 22:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't mind Harvard referencing, but can you convert the references and inline citations to {{Harvard reference}} and {{Harvard citation}}, respectively? That way, readers can click on the inline citation and it brings the reader down to the "References" section. Andy _t 20:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The first sentence is horribly confusing. Reading Entomopathogenic nematodes are soil-inhabiting, lethal insect parasites that belong to the phylum Nematoda, commonly called roundworms, if I personally didn't know better, I would think that ENs are lethal parastic insects from the phylum nematoda. Try phrasing it Entomopathogenic nematodes are sopecies in the phylum Nematoda that specialise in parastising insects, so that who is parastising what is clear. Wikilink some more in the intro for the benefit of those without a background in biology. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Infobox is necessary. Inline referencing should be fixed as made into hyperlinks. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The references are fully in line with what policy dictates. Raul654 15:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. First, page numbers in inline citations are necessary. Second, (though less importantly), using the Harvard reference templates would be much appreciated and make the references much more useable for readers. --Robth^Talk 22:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Baden-Powell House

The article of the Baden-Powell House is a concise and complete presentation of the subject. With due accuracy and arguments, a nice overview as well as illustrative details are given, including supportive pictures. A complete peer review, including teamwork of the WikiProject Scouting, supported the good state of the article, so that I'm pleased to propose it here for FA. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object: The whole page is too cluttered and too short. The text seems to race at an enormous pace, perhaps there is not much more to say, but is does seem very disjointed and over brief. It's an interesting enough page, but no where near a featured article. Needs to be copy-edited, and expanded, and tidied. Giano | talk 22:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support: one of the sharpest, most attractive articles I've seen on the 'pedia. Chris 20:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I did a copyedit on the entire article today to try and polish up the English. Walkerma 23:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is a fine article and deserves FA status. The recent copy-edit is great. I see no need to expand it. It covers the topic well. --Bduke 23:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I think Walkerma's copyedit does the trick, putting into FA status; fine job btw, Walkerma. I think the length is appropriate to the subject matter and I do not feel the photos make it cluttered, I think the photos make it interesting. Rlevse 00:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Bduke. --evrik 13:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support ibid evrik South Philly 02:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. On my browser, at least, the bottom of the page looks like a mess, with an inch or so of glaring white space on the left, followed by a claustrophobic knot of pictures, text, and a light-blue quote box. I understand that this issue may seem minor to some, but featured articles should look professional to all viewers. Also, I don't think the article is very well-rounded in its coverage. It discusses the building's history very nicely, but has only two sentences which describe how the building is used today ("With 180 rooms..." and "Baden-Powell House regularly hosts..."). As such I don't think this article can be considered comprehensive. --Alex S 05:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The page is regularly edited with both MSIE and FF, at various window sizes, and the whitespace and cluttering is not obvious then. Of course the requirement of 'looking good' for FA status is reasonable. Would you care to indicate which browser at which settings you use? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 08:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC).
• Oppose - aesthetically, it's a nightmare. There are too many images and boxes, many of which are superfluous, such as a painting of Baden-Powell himself, a logo which is more or less just the name of the place, and the text on a plinth which could just be included in the normal text, if it's notable enough to be worth quoting verbatim. Also, giving such prominence to a lengthy quote from the Queen seems not terribly neutral to me - looks like endorsing what she is saying. A couple of content points - I don't think the postcode is the kind of detail an encyclopaedia needs; ...including (in 1976) an exhibition of scouting stamps - why was this one exhibition worth particularly mentioning? ...so that it now fulfills Baden-Powell's dream... - according to who? Section headings are not all capitalised correctly (see WP:MOS). Finally, the 'see also' section is redundant - the links are already present in the rest of the article. Worldtraveller 13:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yay, edit conflict! Nice to see somebody else thought the stamp thing was a bit odd. I was gonna include the section headings at about point 10 but forgot; consider that point 17 (or whatever it was) of my oppose... TheGrappler 13:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC) (Although I was going to say the same thing about that painting being irrelevant, I noticed that the text seemed to describe it as something exhibited in the building, so the caption really needs fixing to make the relevance clear. My big problem with its inclusion is that it seems to be a rather blatant case of copyvio! TheGrappler 13:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

• Oppose for several reasons:

1. Overlinking. Once something's been wikilinked, don't keep linking it again.
2. Can all the pictures not be captioned? Some of them look like they're there to make the page look pretty rather than for informational value. In fact the page looks too busy and overdecorated with all those images arranged as they are. Ask yourself about every picture: is it informative and relevant in the context of this page? What do I want the reader to take away from it? Is it positioned in a sensible way? What should the caption tell the reader? (For instance, the caption for the painting should surely say where it is displayed.)
3. Weird "see also" links. Something wikilinked in the article needn't be in the "see also" section. The "see also" section is really useful for linking articles about subjects which are similar in some way to the subject of this article, but not so important to the subject at hand that they are mentioned in the article.
4. Seriously dodgy "GFDL" claim on Image:Baden-powell1.jpg. For what reason would a 1929 painting be licensed under the GFDL?! The only plausible explanation is that a subsequent copyright holder has given express written permission. No such express written permission has been evidenced. There is a claim that permission was granted by the webmaster of a Swiss website (correct me if I'm misinterpreting the explanation given in German) but the Swiss website is hardly likely to be the copyright holder. (There is surprisingly common fallacy that if website X displays a picture and its webmaster authorizes its use on Wikipedia it becomes GFDL-licensed... you must always find the copyright holder and get a release into GFDL, not limited to Wikipedia - see WP:COPYREQ).
5. Lack of information about the building. It's an article about the building, so I think there should be basic information on, for instance, who the architects were. Were there any planning permissions issues? What style was it built in? What's its visual profile like? How tall is it? I have no clear sense of the internal arrangement - is it mainly small rooms, dormitaries, is the accommodation large or small compared to the conference center capabilities? [Some more has been added but this remains a core problem. TheGrappler 22:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)]
6. Lack of visual information: of the 6 photos on this page, only two really show what the subject of the article looks like. Given that it's a building, that's not great. Given that the top photo isn't actually all that good, it's even worse. Particularly lacking is "contextual" visual information.
7. "GBP" looks ugly and isn't particularly enlightening, especially for British readers. What would be wrong with using "£" (on first usage) and just "£" thereafter? At any rate, the first usage of the currency should be wikilinked so that readers can find out what is being referred to.
8. References are cited in a poor quality way... (please look at WP:CITE, {{cite web}} - dates of last access are a necessity, try finding ISBNs for printed sources etc.)
9. ... and not everything is referenced anyway (in fact quite a lot isn't, e.g. the list of scout activity centers, the stamp exhibition, the statue...)
10. All the references come from the scouting movement. This needs some diversification
11. Randofactitis, or Random Selection and Ordering of Information Syndrome: this is something that the article seems to be suffering from quite badly. When I read it, I feel a major lack of coherency, like I am being fed a bunch of random pieces of information. In 1976 there was an exhibition of stamps. So what? And why is this piece of information hanging about at the bottom on its own? If this is the information the article is telling me, what information isn't it telling me? [Some things feel better organized but I still feel the individual facts selected feel random.TheGrappler 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)]
12. Lack of financial information. Since this is being run (at least partly) as a commercial venture, it is near-essential to know details on turnover and profit/loss. Whether this thing has been a millstone around the Scouting Association's neck, or whether it's been a handy little earner for them, is a vitally important feature of the place, surely?
13. Lack of geographical context. I think that this building's exceptional location is central to its identity. I've passed through London a few times in my travels so I can probably infer more from "South Kensington" and "opposite the Natural History Museum" than most readers can. But I get the feeling that the House could be teleported to Hackney or Slough or Newham and only a couple of words would have to be changed (you could probably even keep all the photos!) while in reality the House would assume a quite different identity. The article should at least give some hint about the context of the area. A particularly relevant fact to include would be whether the area is a hotbed or not of the hospitality industry (it's been a long time since I've been anywhere near it, and I honestly can't remember, but it's definitely relevant), or (given the scouting link) the educational provision in the area. A map would be great, even if it's just a locator map (rather vague map of London with a dot in... have a look round Commons:Category:Maps of London).
14. To me, judging from what I can see of it, this building looks ugly but maybe some people are fierce proponents of it. Has nobody ever commented on its appearance? Hopefully somebody outside the scouting movement - that would at least bring in a greater diversity of sources. I can't believe that no architecture critic has had anything to say about it. Given the illustrious area it is in, shouldn't this building look quite incongruous? Maybe it doesn't, but this relates back to the lack of context given in the pictures.
15. On a related theme, shouldn't some mention of local transport provision be made for an article about a hostel? I would have thought that was a key feature as well.
16. After reading this through several times, I'm still not completely sure what this building actually does. Is it mainly a center for scouts that does a minor sideline in commercial work? Or is it basically a commercial hostel that does a special sideline in scouts and makes a bit of money for the Scouting Association? Is it more a hostel or a hotel? What is the quality of the accommodation? Given that this is an article about a hospitality center, this is an important point! I get the impression it's not "four star" but kind of place is it? As a hostel, is it affiliated with or reviewed by any organizations other than the scouting movement? It's briefly mentioned that it is involved in the conference industry but it isn't made clear whether it does so on a commercial footing or whether it's a major or minor part of its business. And what does "big or small events" mean - what end of the market is it operating in? Could it hold, say, the Conservative and Unionist Party conference? A FTSE100 company's shareholders' meeting? What kind of clients does it have? Mainly scouting ones? Please say! [The scale of the place is now a lot clearer. But "large and small events" is weird. It doesn't sound like it can hold particularly large events. And overall the actual usage of the building remains unclear. TheGrappler 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)]

Having said all that, I am perfectly satisfied with the length of the article (it's information and coherence it needs, the compactness is a good feature) and I think that it is definitely quite a good one. It's not currently better than most other articles on the good article list - at the moment in quality terms it's quite a nice GA but it'll need quite a bit of work to polish it up to FA. TheGrappler 13:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

1. For a British-themed article, it's probably better to use British English. The article seems to be written at least partly in American English.
2. Headings are weird. Check that headings correspond with their contents. Also, don't be afraid to use italics in section headings where appropriate.
3. Assumption of scouting knowledge e.g. what are those souvenir badges? Is there some kind of special link between the badges and scouting? (Are they "official scouting badges"? What might you have to do to earn one?) What's the difference between the Scout Movement and the Scout Association?TheGrappler

• Oppose per Giano and Worldtraveller. The article needs work. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• What is the source linked to in the first footnote (the Edward Wood source)? The "April 1971" makes me think it's a magazine, but if so, what magazine? I can't for the life of me figure out what M.I.P.R. means. That needs to be clarified. --Robth^Talk 17:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It a booklet named The story of B.-P.'s House, written by Edward Wood, who is a Member of the Institute of Public Relations. The booklet was published in April 1971 by The Scout Association. I have copy-edited the ref. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 18:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment/answers (if only this had been discussed during the long but uneventful Peer review of this article. Oh, well....

• GBP is the WP:MOS standard. Wikilinks reduced to once
• Citation enhanced to use standard cite templates, as pointed out
• Uncluttered the lower part of the page, moving picture, and deleting one
• Enlarged text on the current working of Baden-Powell House.
• Enhanced picture captions
• Removed overlinking
• Changed See also references
• Added information about the top location in London
• Added additional reference
• Cleared up the 'randofactitis' that I noticed

Note: I did not significantly enlarge the article. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

Okay, that's an improvement. But I think you're wrong about GBP. In a country-specific article, the MOS says to use the standard symbol of the currency in that country. I get the feeling that if you talked to the average Brit about prices in GBPs they'd be utterly lost. TheGrappler 21:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Additionally, some of the references should include author details. Check those website out again. TheGrappler 21:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• The GBP is explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Currency under Good style. I'm quite happy to use the pound sign, if you have an more explicit Good Style example for it. And I added one more author to a ref (a bit farfetched, perhaps, to make the Chairman be the author of the Annual Report. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

• Please read the text above carefully again - the good style list isn't exhaustive, it's just pointing out that certain arrangements like "100$" are not considered correct, and that things like "$100" and by analogy "£100" would be bad in non-country specific articles. Context is important here (again, read the text above, and the note by "$100"). GBP would be great for a currency conversion or for use in a non-country specific article. That's not what this is, there's no need to disambiguate in what may strike British readers as a peculiar way ("GBP" will look utterly absurd to most British schoolchildren, and some other British readers may struggle unnecessarily with it; "pound sterling" is the usual UK usage to disambiguate the British pound from others). Since the MOS explicitly says you can use "$" for Australian dollars in what are clearly Australian articles (which is frankly a lot more ambiguous) I'm pretty sure that "£" is perfectly fine for UK pounds in a UK article. Again, read through those examples. TheGrappler 22:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• As you're adamant, I have changed it. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC). And I checked all copyrights on the illustrations used. Only the one of the Jagger painting is odd, but can't be changed to the correct {{art}} tag as that is apparently unknown on wikimedia commons. I put it there nonetheless, though, to have at least the correct info there, even if the template currently doesn't workd. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

• Thanks - although can you cut the spaces between currency and number, as per the MOS? The reason you can't use "art" on Commons is that that's a fair use claim, while Commons only allows genuinely free images. (If you import it onto Wikipedia to make a fair use claim, remember to include a full fair use rationale for each use, not just a standard template.)TheGrappler 22:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics

Nominating: this article seems to me to be featured article material, it provides comprehensive and accurate coverage of a much misunderstood subject, and cites both primary and secondary sources from the expert literature. -- The Anome 22:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• As there are no official Wikipedia guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how an article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support. Please see the discussions [[6]] and [[7]] at the featured article talk page for my reasoning.

What still needs to be done?

• Clean up notes and references. There seems to be a few different styles in use.

-Worked on, perhaps done.

• Does the section on braking belong? It is certainly a part of bike physics, but it is not mentioned in the intro, and I can't think of a good way to add it.

-Now mentioned in lead section

• Is the section on misconceptions appropriate?
• A picture showing the relevant forces (gravitational, inertial if in a turn, aerodynamic, and ground reaction) would be nice.

-Added in turning section

• Turning and braking could also use an illustration, but I can't think of what they would be, yet.
• Should 'Turning' and 'Braking' come before 'Wobble and Shimmy' and 'Stability with full suspension'? They seem to be more basic.

-Well, wobble, shimmy, and stability all relate to balance, so leave them there.

AndrewDressel 01:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Name change?

• After reading the FA requirements, especially for lead section, I'm thinking of changing the title to "Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics". Dynamics is a much better fit than physics. Otherwise, in order to be complete, the article would need to be expanded to include performance, efficiency, etc. Given the very different power plants and speed ranges of bicycle and motorcycles, I believe this would be impractical. Comments? AndrewDressel 14:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

-Done. AndrewDressel 14:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

1. This article is awfully light on non-science explanations - it would be nice if instead of "Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics is the science of the motions and forces of bicycles and motorcycles. It includes how they balance, steer, and brake." and so on that it was a bit simplified for the casual reader. For example, something like "Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics is the science of the steering, balancing, and breaking of bicycles and motorcycles." or something (I imagine that is incorrect but hopefully helps someone).

-Thanks for the suggestion on the lead paragraph. I tried to model it after other science articles, and it was a mess. AndrewDressel 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

2. "Examples of misconception" scares me - if it were me I'd nuke it - it seems pointless and something the reader should decide. Ditto for the mention of "incorrect" online examples (which, BTW, in these articles one really needs to be more specific then just "online").

-The problem is that with the prevalence of these misconceptions, it could seem that the article is incomplete without at least addressing them. AndrewDressel 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

3. "careful" in the lead is really redundant and speculative without attribution - "in fact", again, makes me think that the article is trying to prove some sort of point.

-Again, there are sites that refer to holding a spinning bicycle wheel to see how the gyroscopic effect keeps a bike upright. However, this is not correct. AndrewDressel 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

4. The lead should really have less stubby "paragraphs" 5. Referencing is a bit odd, I'd recommend some sort of script to convert those links to some other more accessable reference style.

-Isn't this "Embedded HTML links" as desicribed in Wikipedia:Citing sources?AndrewDressel 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

6. "The design charactersics of a bike can affect the stability in the following ways"

a. "caractersics" is misspelled :) -Ouch AndrewDressel 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

b. This list should really be turned into prose

7. "A bike is a nonholonomic system because its outcome is path-dependent" and now the writer has lost me :(. This makes it difficult to evaluate the article... RN 08:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Good job on improving the article!! I'm still uncomfortable with the misconception section, but even that is quite a bit better. Hopefully you'll get some comments from someone else! RN 06:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Jewellery

I spent over 2 weeks planning out how I was going to make major improvements to the article. I feel I have efficiently improved the article to a FA standard. I've provided citations, insights into the way different cultures view & use jewellery, good info & I've used entirely free use pics, no fair use ones in sight. This is a core topic & I feel it is good enough to make it to the main page... Thanks, Spawn Man 02:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I recognise that the article needs a LOT of work before it can become an FA. So, because of this, I withdraw my nomination. My ithdrawl is also partly to my soon to be on-off-absense on Wikipedia, so I will not have the time to fix requests... I'm sorry if this has inconvienienced anyone. Thanks, Spawn Man 00:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Argh! The balance of topics is all wrong:
  • Very little attention is given to a description of jewelry in general (e.g. types, materials, manufacture); much of this material is only briefly mentioned in the lead.
  • Strict splitting by continents is fairly counterproductive. A better approach would be to discuss Ancient Mediterranean jewelry in consecutive sections.
  • The choice of countries seems arbitrary (and, frankly, somewhat incomprehensible). Why France and England? And why do they get so much more treatment than the jewelry of the Ancient Near East (Sumeria, Assyria, Israel), which seems a rather more significant topic. The Padaung get more space than major civilizations. No mention of Russian jewelry (e.g. Faberge) at all. And so forth.
  • Tiffany & Co. gets a section longer than some countries?!
  • Nothing on the economics of modern jewelry?
  • No mention, as far as I can tell, of much of the seminal archaeology in the field, such as Schliemann's finds in Mycenae, Pu-abi's tomb at Ur, etc.
• Plus, lots of uncited and rather questionable statements (e.g. "By the 5th century BC, the Celts had become the finest jewellers in Europe" or "At the present time, jewellery has never been so varied"). This really needs a lot more work before it's up to FA standards. Kirill Lokshin 03:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this an oppose? The "Jewellery by country/continent" theme was one which was discussed not by myself, but other editors & they thought it would be a good idea. I'm in no way suggesting we send the article to the main page in its present form, but instead by getting suggestions from on here, to improve it so it can meet criteria. I did the research to show a varied variety of different cultures. The page is already at 47 kbs long, & if we brought in russia, incas, inuit, island, thai, japanese, infact most other county's designs, the page could be extremely long. I tried to provide a selection of different times, major civilisations (hence England/China/France etc...), & different uses, (The padaung tribe use their jewellery for body modification, rather than pure decoration). I feel the content about materials etc is allowable. I've created a list of different types of jewellery on a separate page, which was approved by other members. I'll work on the lead, but there's not too much more to say other than what is there (eg, jewellery is anything used to adorn one'sself & is made out of any & ever material on earth.) If we split the article up into time periods, we'd still have to go into what each country's jewellery was like due to the fact that each country's pieces are different. The countries seclected are all in sections of time (eg, Egyptian jewellery goes from 5,000 years ago until recently when Islam rose). I will try & add a Russian section. I actually couldn't find much info on Middle Eastern designs at all would you believe!! The tiffany reference is being disscussed & will most likely be deleted or merged into a section on important jewellers in america. I only included it as the americas didn't turn up much info & I thought you americans would be insulted if I didn't inlcude lots of american stuff or one of their most important jewellers. The "celts were the finest jewellers" quote is referenced ya know. And the "jewellery has never been more varied" quote is probably true, as we now know designs from most time periods & have access to many more techniques & materials than ancient civilisations. I've made sure 90% of the article is sourced. For the rest of your comments, such as economy or special findings, I don't have the resources to write about them. For the findings, I thought you didn't want the article to be focussed on a single subject or place? To document those singular finds on here while neglecting others would be biased, & to write all of them out could take a life time... Thanks & I'll try & fix your concerns... Spawn Man 05:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of the size concerns come from the insistence on a split by countries in the first place. I would go with broader regions/periods, as follows:

• Ancient Europe & Middle East
  • Egypt (most of the interesting material here is from Pharaonic times; after that, Egypt tended to follow along with whoever had conquered it at the moment too much)
  • Mesopotamia (this really needs to be expanded; even Britannica has more on this, including the somewhat interesting point that "Sumerian jewelry forms, much more numerous than those of modern jewelry, represent almost every kind developed during the course of history")
  • Greece
  • Rome
  • Byzantium (or move it down to "Europe" below)
• Asia
  • China
  • India
  • Islamic jewelry
  • Other Asian stuff (early Russia would go here, if there's anything meaningful to say)
• Pre-Columbian Americas (keep this one fairly short)
• Europe
  • Non-Roman European tribes
  • Middle Ages
• Modern (no need to explicitly break down by country here; that level of detail is more appropriate to Jewelry of France than the main article)
  • Post-rennaissance Europe (including Romanov Russia)
  • American jewelry

That would be a significant rearrangement, but would, in my opinion allow you to save a lot of space by making use of the similarities in jewelry of various periods/regions. Kirill Lokshin 05:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I wont be able to do it soon, but later I'll give it a shot.... BTW wrote a brief-medium length piece on Russian jewellery from sources & a bit I missed in my own one... Thnaks,, Spawn Man 06:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Spawn Man 22:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I took care of it. Bobblewik: you might consider writing a separate page with those monobook instructions and linking to it in these FACs; it's a bit confusing. Mangojuice^talk 00:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• In my opinion the structure of this article needs a rethink - the third section (history) is like 90% of the article and there appears to be little substantive info compared to that. Also, saying it "probably" has been around the dawn of man without attribution in the lead, plus the lead itself strike me as inadiquite for the article. RN 06:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. In its current state, this is not representative of Wikipedia's best work. It spends so much space on history and culture surrounding jewelery that it doesn't really cover anything else readers might be interested in very well: for example, what role jewelery plays in modern society, who are some of the well-known jewelery makers, famous pieces of jewelery, jewelery in fiction, et cetera. I echo the concerns that there is too much (in an absolute sense) in the sections that go country by country. I think this would be very hard to do, but I think a good encyclopedia article on jewelery would tie together all cultures, mentioning various ones as it needed to to make its points about the history of jewelery. Each individual section is informative, but what's important in the history of jewelry are the big picture things: what it was made from, what it was used for, and how that changed over time. There are surely many parellels between the various cultures; if these were discussed first, the differences could be brought up and would stand out. What you're written is great stuff, though, it should just be forked out to some other articles. Another way of doing it might be to divide it up by material and/or form; this would flow more organically. Also, I'm not that big a fan of the pictures in the article. Specifically, I don't like the "woman with orange jewelery" picture; it's out of focus and doesn't illustrate something particularly interesting. I also don't like the hope diamond picture; for a 2.8 meg picture, it's awfully grainy and doesn't seem to have the right color balance. I am asking for a lot here, I know; probably too much to do during this FAC, but I wanted to offer useful suggestions for next time. Let me know if you want more specific feedback on a future draft. Mangojuice^talk 00:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Buffer Overflow

I think this page has stabalised and provides a clear and concise introduction to the subject aswell as a good overview of associated issues which have their own daughter pages. If it is not up to the standard, I think any problems can be fixed. -- Tompsci 15:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Object, some sections way too short. Merge some info back from the main articles. See WP:SUMMARY. —mercuryboard^talk 15:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Which sections, I added some material to two of the shortest sections. -- Tompsci 16:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see Heap overflow, Executable space protection, and Deep packet inspection merged into the main article, with expansions in the other areas of Protection against buffer overflow coming from the main articles. No section should have fewer than a full paragraph, and in most cases should probably be a couple small paragraphs as a summary (depending on the main article size). History could use some expansion. Additional example source code in a higher level language might be clearer to the novice reader. Consider your audience. WP:LEAD is going to need to be expanded and definitely written for understanding by a more general audience. I understand the article, but I'm also a CS major. You also need to cite references, see WP:CITE. I know somebody's going to bring that up soon. I've just finished a monstrous overhaul for my own FAC, so I know it's a daunting task, but definitely possible. —mercuryboard^talk 16:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Good points, but a few objections. A higher level language is probably immune to buffer overflows, since they have bounds checking (i.e. Java). Also, I don't think the article should cater for a more general audience as is it of no use to them. Maybe the wording could be tweaked to make it more accessible though. About references, where are they needed? Cheers -- Tompsci 18:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure your External links could be converted to References and give you a start as to making sure this article is properly cited. —mercuryboard^talk 18:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to read WP:FOOT and WP:CITE. —mercuryboard^talk 20:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

More references added. Still more to come. -- Tompsci 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be best to use the {{cite}} templates as described in the above links. —mercuryboard^talk 23:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Could do with more images to break up the text, particularly the long last section, and more references (would also be better to use the reference template/footnote stuff to replace inline links). NicM 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

• It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object For one, the "history" section starts out at 1988 - surely they were known before then, or perhaps it needs to be restructured accordingly with a different section name (i.e. moved to exploits or something). Referencing is inadiquite - a general reference such as a good C book should probably be used. Also, as a nitpick I'd like it to be a bit more descriptive and the lead a bit longer - i.e. often "crashes" are the result of memory protection. RN 07:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Title now more specific, more references and altered lead. -- Tompsci 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

WOW! Well done :). I'm sort of lukewarm about the examples (even though they are nice :)) though as they seem kind of unencyclopedic, but consider this my Tentative Support pending the below issue addressed! RN 06:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, "Use of safe libraries" could use an inline citation or two, ditto for "Choice of programming language."RN 07:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object as per above--ppm 22:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment The link under Deep Packet Inspection to Heuristics points to a very general page on Heuristics. I believe it needs link to Heuristic_(computer_science)--FrostFiend 12:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Tompsci 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Article meets FA criteria; content is stable in terms of value, not in terms of vandalism (i.e., GA-related edit-wars, etc.) Peer reviewed and Passed GA with vast consensus. —Rob (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Poor lead, and too many one sentence paragraphs abound in the article. Generally does not flow like a FA should. --Wisden17 15:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not impressed with the writing (which strikes me as merely decent) but a bigger issue is the continual edit warring over the article. I don't think this article meets the "stability" requirement for an FA. As evidence of this, I should note that editors are arguing on the article's talk page about whether the article even deserves to be listed as a "good article" (with some editors listing it as such and others removing the listing).--Alabamaboy 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object The article does not satisfy the FA criteria 2(b), since it neglects major factors which contributed to this controversy. (See: [8]). And btw. the article did not pass GA. Raphael1 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It passed several times and was vetoed several times to be exact. Homestarmy 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object Article is poorly-constructed, heavily biased and full of basic errors of sense, spelling mistakes, incorrectly identified references etc. (see the outstanding problems listed on its talk page). It has been delisted from GA twice, and yet the critiques of those delisting it have not been addressed in anything but the most cursory and dismissive manner. (Incidentally, the FA nomination above is quite misleading: vandalism has played no part in the GA-related "edit wars", the article has not been peer reviewed, and it did not "[pass] GA with a vast consensus" but rather it was promoted to GA by a single user, HighwayCello, twice — perhaps what Rob means is that its advocates achieved a supermajority in a GA Disputes page discussion.) &#0151; JEREMY 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps "non-content-related editing" would have been a better term. Nonetheless, if a supermajority (or, as I read it, consensus) works for featured articles, I fail to see, even granting that WP:GA doesn't have very many set standards, how consensus doesn't apply to GA. As for the article itself, I would help with the flow but I'm a poor copyeditor. —Rob (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I take back the "no vandalism" comment, given I have in fact accused those promoting the article to GA against its rules of vandalism. I'd ask that you change your "peer review" claim and clarify the "passed GA with vast consensus" wording, above. &#0151; JEREMY 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Could we please keep the GA war out of this nomination? Let's try keeping this nomination relevant and only comment on the content of the article. --Maitch 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The article has real a problem with the flow.
  • Merge the overview section with the timeline. The lead should be the only overview section.
  • The "Danish Imams tour the Middle East" section needs to be shortened. It already has a sub article, so we will not waste any information.
  • The timeline should include the massive demonstrations around the world, which right now are mysteriously omitted.
  • There are three really short sections, which only purpose seems to be to lead the reader towards a sub article. Something needs to be done with those. These are "Descriptions of the drawings", "International reactions" and "Economic and human costs".
  • Rewrite the section "Comparable references" into prose. --Maitch 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. In addition to all the above, the article has too much 'back-and-forth' in the line of "this side says X, that side says Y". Although a degree of that is necessary in an article of this nature, in this case it overwhelms the content and disrupts the flow of the text. The intro in particular needs to be rewritten to focus more on the basic facts and less on vague opinions by "supporters" and "critics". --Aquillion 20:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The article is slightly biased. The recent edit warring as well as the issues mentioned to the above don't make it a quealified Featured Article (yet! - be bold and keep improving it! - there's always hope!). --HolyRomanEmperor 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object; prose still seems as choppy as a current event article ("In Muslim societies, for a Muslim to insult the prophet Muhammad is one of the most serious crimes anyone could commit." reads like a school project on Islam), article is not consistant on Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohammed etc. and masses of white space is occuring in some bits of the article, such as "Reprinting in other newspapers". Plus, listing an article for FA because it failed GA seems too "Pointy". smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A big part of the problem is at this point, I have no idea if it passed GA or not. I do know that in my opinion it's not a huge leap to FA status from where it's at right now; refinement just needs to occur, and maybe at some point in the near-term or far-term, it might be stable. Just because an issue is unusually controversial doesn't mean it can't be FA, though. —Rob (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cartoon etc. discussions

• Oppose, simply because I believe the image should be hidden behind a link and not appear immediately and involuntarily to the reader. I feel pretty strongly about that and I doubt I could ever feel comfortable supporting this article unless the presentation of that image is done in a less provocative way. Everyking 11:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This ridiculous objection can be safely ignored. Raul654 04:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I suppose you are the one best in a position to ignore it, Raul, but I don't like having my objection called ridiculous. There is a serious controversy about the presentation of this image, and a good many Wikipedians feel it is quite inappropriate to present the image to the reader without giving him or her a choice about viewing it. I will concede that it would not be possible to implement my suggestion, due to the apparent majority in favor of having the image as it is, but I maintain that the controversy is simply too deep, serious and ongoing for this article to be featured now. Everyking 08:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Your objection can be ignored because it goes flatly against policy - eg, that Wikipedia is not censored. Moreover, it's not as if the image is gratitious - if we want to inform readers about the controversy surrounding the cartoons, it would be extremely remiss of us not to actually show the cartoons. Raul654 00:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
        • You're simplifying an issue that is much more complex. Wikipedia is full of censorship in a loose sense: tactful, considered choice and placement of images. That's not the same thing as deleting the image outright, which would be censorship. I would not in a million years want for us to not present the image—my concern is about how it is presented, with an eye towards cultural sensitivity without eliminating the information. Everyking 03:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm essentially in accord with this, although I feel a slightly better solution would be to spin-off a "cartoon" article with the images and descriptions, then replace the image of the cartoon in the main article with an image showing an aspect of the controversy itself (ie. the actual subject of the article) such as a burning embassy or a mob of protesters. Failing that, the image should be moved down the article to a place more appropriate to its relevance to the article subject. (Of course, if you attempt to convince the article's champions of either your or my solution, they will refer triumphantly to their straw polls, which reject anything less than placing the cartoon images at the head of the article as prominently as possible to demonstrate their solidarity with the Free Speech position adopted by Jyllands-Posten.) &#0151; JEREMY 12:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Totally ridiculous idea to move the cartoons to another article, the cartoons are at the heart of what the article is about. As far as the motivations for why the cartoons are as prominently displayed as they are why not conduct a survey of the 200+ individuals who expressed their view about where the cartoons should be shown rather than make an attempt at blanket referring to the sum of their motivations as being in accord with a desire to, "demonstrate their solidarity with the Free Speech position adopted by Jyllands-Posten". Such conjecture really strikes me as mean spirited. Netscott 13:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the images are a problem where they are. It is important to remember that context is important; when they were originally published, most of the Islamic world saw them as a deliberate insult to Muhammad and Islam. On the other hand, simply reporting on them is not a deliberate insult; many papers in the Islamic world (such as El Fagr in Egypt) reprinted them while reporting on them without attracting anyone's ire. Likewise, republications intended to 'take a stand for free speech' (and therefore, implictly, against an Islamic anti-free speech movement) were seen as an insult to Islam, while republications commenting more neutrally on the controversy generally weren't. As long as the article is NPOV, in other words, any images used within its context will be, too. --Aquillion 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The way the events were unfolding regarding this controversy does not support your thesis, that republications weren't perceived as insult. In fact there have been more violent protests as the cartoons were republished in various newspapers. Raphael1 20:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - While I personally support free speech and the right of newspapers to print whatever cartoons they like, I am a bit concerned that by placing the image right there on the page with no warning, it actually pushes one POV. We would appear to clearly support the free speech camp. On the other hand, not showing the cartoon at all would put us firmly on the side of the protesters. Therefore I feel that putting the image on a separate page is an effective NPOV compromise (although perhaps not perfect). By not compromising, I worry that Wikipedia might become part of the controversy rather than just reporting on it. The reaction of different segments of the Muslim public to reprinting the cartoon in other media is irrelevant either way. We shouldn't care what people think. It's impossible to please everyone. I will support any decision as long as it sticks to what in my mind is the #1 goal of Wikipedia: neutrality. A newspaper is not obliged to stay neutral on its editorial page. We are.Sheep81 21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, this is truly like déjà vu. My only recommendation to those who don't agree with the display characteristics is to do like was repetitively done previously and conduct a straw poll. User:Aquillion's comments above couldn't be more eloquent in explaining that it is about context. The most strident agitator for censorship of the cartoons User:Raphael1 himself said that he'd be fine to see the cartoons displayed on the islamophobia article... his reason? I'll paraphrase here, "Because Wikipedia would be making a statement against the cartoons by doing so." Wikipedia is not in the making statements business (not a soap box). Regardless, corresponding to his view they'd be fine there for informational purposes, well excuse me but why are they on this very article? Netscott 22:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Aquillion's comments could in fact be more eloquent... for instance, if they were factually accurate. Sheep81 08:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Comment withdrawn, inappropriate tone... must get more sleep. Sheep81 08:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that there's people in earnest suggesting to move the cartoons to another page than the one that they're on, beliving that it will make the article more NPOV - That's like suggesting that a mathematical formula should be listed on another page than the page describing the formula, because some oddball religion thinks mathematical formulas is an affront to all that is holy and therefore the formula should be placed on another page for greater "NPOV". It's simply ridiculus; Without the cartoons, no controversy. Finally, anybody searching for "Muhammed cartoons controversy" or clicking a link saying that should expect to see the Muhammed cartoons that created the controversy. Now, this article might have some problems with it's flow, may need to have some sections shortened and others (like the timeline) elaborated; These are valid problems with the article. But please, the cartoons are right where they need to be and any and all criticism of the cartoons are therefore invalid and only serves to distract the editors from the real improvements the article needs. The.valiant.paladin 14:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy is off the mark. But you are right, there are other problems with the article that need attention and the placement of the image is clearly a done deal anyway.Sheep81 08:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a "done deal" so long as the short-term one-cause wikipedians defending it so vehemently continue to hang around here. Once they've gotten bored and left, sanity and good sense can and will be restored. I give it a year or so. &#0151; JEREMY 08:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, you've done well to make a foolish statement that is excellent in a capacity to mischaracterize Wikipedians but lacking otherwise. You've falied to mention one key aspect here and that is that the display characteristics of the cartoons are not going to change until general consensus about them changes. As well you've called those who've endeavored to maintain respect of the current consensus "fanatics" which is a personal attack against such individuals and is very poor form to say the least. We mustn't forget Jeremy that it is policy to not personally attack other editors on Wikipedia. Netscott 10:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't really a personal attack in my view... (maybe WP:CIVIL). Ian¹³/t 14:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Seeking Consensus Rob, as the only person supporting the article's FA nomination in the discussions above, are you prepared to withdraw your nomination at this point? Is there anyone else who'd like to add a support vote, lest this be recorded as a unanimous rejection? &#0151; JEREMY 07:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't believe I can have a vote as the nominator (at least, in my head, that's how it should work)... plus I think an administrator usually does that sort of process-related thing. It'll take care of itself. —Rob (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Rob, good idea.. to let the process complete itself. Jeremy's the only one asking for you to withdraw your nomination. One wonders if he might be looking for a little satisfaction from an early close. Cheers. Netscott 19:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

NPA personality theory

From my own perusal and judgment this article meets the criteria necessary for FA status; it has already attained the honour of being a "good article" and has also met the broad criticisms required of the peer review process. Were it to become a Featured article then it would be one of very few psychology-related articles to attain said status; this article is of an in-depth, special nature and puts forth many interesting concepts. -- D-Katana 17:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object - A lot of work has gone into this article, but I see not a single inline citation or reference from a recognized, well-known peer-reviewed, medical or psychological journal. There are very few inline citations, and most of the inline citations are to the author of the concept, so the reader gets little idea whether this "theory" is well received in the broader community of its peers. I also see no criticism section. The TOC is also overwhelming. The article almost seems like a vanity entry for the Horney author. All of Horney's books are published by Norton: what kind of editorial review process did they have, or is it akin to self-publishing? What is the applicability of this theory? There is a discussion of predictive aspects, but what do medical peers say about the predictive aspects? What studies on the predictive aspects have been done? Were they controlled, and on large samples? What broad acceptance or practical application does the theory have from peers? If some of these questions are answered, and if citations and references to reputable peer-reviewed journals are added, I'll reconsider support. Sandy 23:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no theories of personality yet accepted by peers. Also; I suggest you read Karen Horney's article - she is to this day a well regarded psychiatrist, and her work forms much of the structure of this particular theory of personality. There is also a reference to one Dr. Hobgood - a woman researching this theory with over 1,000 patients; and perhaps you would be interested by Livesley's study which concluded that narcissism was a resoundingly inherited trait of personality? Do you believe that with illustrious companions such as the "Japanese Blood Type Theory of Personality", "Spin-mediated Consciousness Theory", or the "Triangular Theory of Love" accompanying it in the psychological theories section that the NPA theory is somehow inferior? Perhaps we ought to make clearer, in the form of articles regards this field (such as one for the highly respected Livesley), that genetics as a personality trait is a serious and ongoing field? Once that is done would you change your vote? Or are all personality theory articles excluded until utterly proven? As to the self-promotion accusations, I believe these to be uncalled for. I nominated this article, as I personally was hugely impressed by its content and merit. Also, as a closing point; the Verification section could be changed to "Criticisms" in order to illustrate your points. -- D-Katana 14:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that the NPA personality theory is on par with the Japanese blood type theory of personality and has virtually no acceptance amongst psychologists then the article should clearly reflect that in its lead. Quoting from the lead of the "Japanese blood type theory of personality" article, "this theory is dismissed by many scientists as superstition or pseudoscience". Cedars 05:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object - For the same reasons as Sandy, there is no sense of how widely accepted this theory is and where it is being applied. There is insufficient criticism of the theory. It now also appears that the pseudoscientific nature of the subject is not properly represented. Cedars 05:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter

I nominated this because it was one of the best I've seen, and is better than some featured articles I've seen in the past. andrew... 13:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I read this article a week ago while trying to find out information on the next book (perhaps due out next year) and found the article to be poorly organized and extremely frustrating to read. For example, there is no listing and summary of the six published books in the series (along the lines of what the article gives for the main characters). In addition, the overview of the series devotes a ton of space to the first book and then one short paragraph to summarizing the next five books. Finally, I never did find the link to Harry Potter book seven and had to search elsewhere to find it. Overall, this article is not an example of Wikipedia's best.--Alabamaboy 14:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• I need to read the article more thoroughly in order to make a full comment/vote, but will just add that I read the article yesterday, and exactly the same concern struck me - no neatly laid-out overview of the books whatsoever, and no discernible link to the seventh book (which is what I went to the article looking for in the first place). Seb Patrick 15:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to Objections *First off, this nomination surprised the hell out of me. A series overview can easily be written if this is what is needed, but I'm personally of the opinion that the status quo will do. If you go through each novel's respective article you'll find them teeming with information, it's practically a chapter by chapter cliff note. I don't imagine that they were always that way, but people just kept adding crap on top of crap. A neat chapter by chapter guide resembling the character guide in this article would probably lead to the same. In my opinion, cut the crap early and maintain more control over the article by declining to send an invitation to a stream of eager annonymous editors who are sure to bring a ton of spoilers that will piss someone off; less is more. It's not that it's impossible to write (if it's absolutely essential I'll suck it up), but it wasn't really out of carelessness that it wasn't added. I also don't think its absence makes the article "poorly organized," as far as I can see and what's been said so far, the rest of the article is quite good. (A link to every published book, video game, movie, and future installment can be found in the link in the series template box at the bottom of the page, by the way, though every book save the seventh was linked to throughout the article and it has since been linked to in the future section) TonyJoe 03:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to differ, but in this case "less is not more." Myself and another editor independently went to the article and were 1) Unable to find info we wanted to find and 2) Believed the article should have a listing of each book. Just because that info is in related articles doesn't mean it shouldn't be summarized in the main article. However, there are other issues with the article that also need to be addressed. For example, in the first paragraph of the "Themes & motifs" section, the article states that "One of the most enduring themes throughout the series is that of love..." The reference for this is Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (U.S. Hardback), pages 844 and 511. As an editor who works on numerous literary articles here, this is the first case I've seen where critical analysis such as this is only supported by referencing the original work. This strikes me as original research. What should be referenced are critical reviews, essays, or critiques of the books which state what the themes and motiffs are, not passages from the books themselves. The entire "Themes & motifs" section suffers from this and, as a result, is probably original research and not allowed. Please don't take me wrong on all of this--I love the Harry Potter books. The problem is that this article needs a lot of work before it can become a FA. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand the desire here to add book details, this is most likely true. In addition your opinion on themes and motifs seems valid. However information on the seventh book can be found is almost any Potter article, they are at the bottum in the nice template. SorryGuy 00:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The article has greatly improved of late, but this FA is far premature. The prose is weak: for example, "Criticism" could be slimmed down a bit (does it really need six or seven setences on what Steven King thought when three or four would do?). Half of the paragraph discussing Taylor from Salon.com is one huge sentence! "Origins and publishing history" needs a lot of work (both blockquotes could be rewritten as regular text); some of its later material seems like it could go under "Commercial success" or "Pottermania" or elsewhere. "Themes and motiffs" is still under-cited as it is, and really should still be slimmed, since you're summarizing a separate article (see WP:SS). I'm personally unfond of character lists, since they enable cruftiness (in myself not least!). I would prefer that each character receive two or three sentences at most and that be it, and to have them all is flowing paragraphs. There really also should be a discrete subheading for the plot synopsis. In my opinion, there's still not enough on the films for a FA. I understand the books drive the franchise, but the movies are important. (Side note: if you were to follow the example of Revenge of the Sith or Attack of the Clones, you could probably get the HP movies featured.) I'm unsure what value the photo of the boxes of books adds. --Monocrat 15:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. (This version: [9]). I have many concerns. Ones marked with "m" are minor points. (1m) There are two spoiler warnings. Is the one before "origins" really needed? (2) Generally speaking, there are some long, awkward sentences, and the text doesn't always flow. Two examples: in the lead, the full stop after "criticized, both literarily and otherwise." was very annoying, and left me wanting to read at least a brief summary of the criticism, and the flow to the next sentence is very bad. In the origins section, the transition after "He sent the manuscript to Bloomsbury..." is bad. First of all, the use of an ellipsis is probably a bad idea most of the time in encyclopedia articles, but here particularly, there's a stop after Bloomsbury, and in the next sentence there's a link for Bloomsbury, and you then explain what it is. (3) I think the statement that "J. K. Rowling" was used instead of "Joanne Rowling" to appeal to males needs specific sourcing. (4m) I don't like the use of superlatives and comparatives in this article. "very popular." "very high profile". Drop the word very. Putting it another way, show, don't tell. Generally speaking, I felt like the prose was gushing about the books and their popularity in some places. (5m) Nice use of bildungsroman, but could you maybe hide the actual term? It's very distracting. Perhaps [[bildungsroman|novels of education]]? (If not, at least pluaralize). (6) I strongly object to referencing the Voldemort article in this article. See WP:ASR. Also, WP is not a reliable source. Cite a linguistic source of some kind for the claim. In fact, I'm quite suspicious of the sourcing of the Themes & Motifs subsection in general: surely there is an analysis of Harry Potter that can be cited? Citing the books directly in a section that analyzes them is a kind of original research. (7) The criticism section needs work. You discuss what A. S. Byatt says, but the importance of that particular piece of criticism is not at all clear. It would help if you mentioned the venue that criticism appeared in, and the fact that it prompted reactions from many other authors. Also, the context into which A. S. Byatt's remarks fits is not given. That was a review in 2003, LONG after the series was published. What was the general reaction from critics before that? In summary, I see issues of undue weight in this section, and I also have concern about the neutrality: in essence, the text lets Stephen King and Charles Taylor have the final word, while critics who agreed with Byatt get only two lines of mention. Is that the actual landscape of the reaction? Frankly, it may not matter: I think probably this whole Byatt business isn't really that important, and should be reduced to at most a couple of paragraphs. (8) In the Controversy section: shouldn't the Christian witchcraft denouncement thing come first? You're presenting a history here; you should probably give some dates, and put things in chronological order. (9) I find the article insufficiently illustrated. I would think someone could find a reasonable image of J.K. Rowling (actually, the one in the JK Rowling article has a fair use claim for this article, but it seems a little out of date there), and perhaps a screenshot or poster for one of the movies? (10) The cultural impact section needs work, or could even be removed. It's no surprise that Harry Potter has been parodied, and a link to the Harry Potter parodies article is reasonable, but this section seems like a "Trivia" section (not something I want in a featured article), and a thin one at that. Surely the few facts in this section could be incorporated elsewhere, except for the emergency medical assistance bit, which should probably be removed. (11m) As a general point, I agree that some brief mention should be made of each of the books, so that it's clear which books are in the series and which is which. (12) There are ten books in the Further reading section written by people other than J.K. Rowling about the Harry Potter world or the Harry Potter books. However, none of the references in the article currently refer to the books. I think most of the specific references are reasonable, but it would be nice if this article used those books are sources more and used the Harry Potter books less. We should, after all, avoid primary sources when we can. Okay, that's it. Huge chunk, I know. I'm not sure if any editors of Harry Potter are actually fighting for this FAC; in case they aren't, I put a permalink up top so if someone wants to know later which version I was looking at, there it is. Mangojuice^talk 19:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Another small objection: I think it might be premature to feature this article before the last book comes out. Not that every FA of this type needs to have its subject itself "complete" - but in this case, the last book, one that could upset nearly everything about Harry Potter (or could not) is probably about a year away. Can we wait a little bit on this one?

And if not, well, there are still many other problems with the article. It's just not very well-written. The second sentence is already about criticism, and uses the word "literarily"? Immediately following we have the empty, unmodified "this", an awkward phrase (in addition to its original medium) splittling a verb and its objects, and it doesn't get much better from there. A high school English teacher would tear this apart. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for curiosity's sake, what's wrong with the usage of the word "literarily?"TonyJoe 01:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one, it's just an awkward word in and of itself. But the real reason is that it's used incorrectly in the sentence. Saying "the books have been criticised... literarily" means that the books have been criticized in regards to literature, which is meaningless and gibberish. What is meant, of course, that the books have been criticized in regards to literary merit, but that's not what the sentence says. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I considered objecting b/c of the 7th book not being out yet. But it doesn't really make sense to me. That material can become incorporated later. And it's not like any subject is totally static; new developments can occur for just about any article. Besides, feature status isn't irrevocable. If the article becomes bad later it can be delisted. Mangojuice^talk 21:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Reading through several of the sections in this article I must agree with many of the above objections. In addition the prose does not seem FA in multiple locations. I will do my best to fix these myself and hopefully change to support soon. SorryGuy 01:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object and suggest Peer Review: A Good article, but I think that this Article needs a Peer Review, where it will hopefully highly critical comments. False Prophet 17:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry (MGM)

I have nominated this article because Tom and Jerry are deep rooted in cultrue around the globe, the article is well written and neutral, provides documentation, and is fun to read. Maclover134 13:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: try and split the LEAD into parapgraphs, make it look a bit more organised :) --Skully Collins 10:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object There strikes me as being too much detail in the history section, but nothing about how critics have viewed the franchise over time. The part about Ted Turner is unnecessary or could be placed elsewhere. The writing (e.g., the part about Turner) is drab. "Plot" and "Characters" could be reorganized: you spend most of "Characters/Tom and Jerry" discussing plot resolutions. There are only two references and absolutely no inline citations. You should probably send this through Peer Review.--Monocrat 17:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Starts witha list, no inlince citations... why so many people ignore the recommendation 'use peer review first'?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. No refs. Geet a peer review. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 03:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Linfield F.C.

This article is concise, interesting and NPOV, it is enlightening and novel.Starsweep 11:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object - it's a bit brief, and lacks any citations whatsoever. The prose needs cleaning up in a few places, the squad list looks strange with all those question marks in (how hard would it be to find out the missing player numbers?), and there's a lot of ambiguity in the "Biggest club in Ireland" section (does it mean the entirety of Ireland, or just Northern Ireland?), a section that also desperately needs citations and verification of the claim it makes. Even if some of these problems were addressed, however, I'm not sure it's FA material due to its brevity - however, if the citations and prose (and amount of redlinks) were sorted, I'd say it might have a decent shout at being a GA instead. Seb Patrick 12:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Its brevity is a plus point, the reason being that so many FA's are arduously long, it is my view that one of reasonable brevity should make the grade and for this the Linfield F.C. article fits the bill. It's a very intersting article and should be seriously considered and not just brushed aside because in one person's view it lacks the odd citation. Starsweep 12:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't just lack "the odd" citation, though - it doesn't have any, nor are there any references. That's not my "view", it's a simple fact. And unfortunately, these are now prerequisites for a featured article - please see the criteria for more information. Seb Patrick 13:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object This article is definitely not of featured quality. It lacks any photos (a simple photo of the stadium should be relatively easy to find or take), and has no references whatsoever. A large number of statements definitely need support from sources. And while brevity in itself is not a concern, incomprehensiveness is. The article has a "notable players" section, but none of them are mentioned in the article itself. The "History" section leaves enormous gaps (while there is extesive attention for the most recent season), as does the "European record" section. Other parts could use some elaboration and a part about past managers (either a section or integrated) is missing. The section "Biggest club in Ireland" is wrongly titled (except for the first paragraph). The links section has mostly links about Irish football in general, and the See also section features articles already linked from the article itself. Jeronimo 15:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object, main reasons are (a) no citations or references at all, (b) large gaps in history section, (c) too much current history in relation to the other info, (d) some sections are too short, (e) strange squad section, (f) a lot more... A suggestion is to take a look at the currently featured football club articles in Wikipedia; Arsenal F.C., Manchester City F.C. and IFK Göteborg, to get some ideas what it takes to get to the FA status. – Elisson • Talk 21:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Some reasons include:
  • Has not been submitted to peer review.
    • this is not a requirement for becoming a FA, AFAIK Jeronimo 10:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • True, so I've combined it with the objection below. Qwghlm 22:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Lots of copyedits needed for writing style & formatting. The prose needs improvement and could do with a peer review first.
  • Club history is nowhere near comprehensive, too present-oriented.
  • Famous ex-players mostly redlinks; no criteria given for inclusion.
  • "See also" section not at all necessary.
  • Needs to cite sources and provide references. Qwghlm 00:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and the article also lacks images (aside from the club logo). Qwghlm 00:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Martha Stewart

This article was a former featured article removed because of a couple problems with neutrality and applying too much focus to the ImClone scandal. The section on ImClone has been moved to it's own article, and the neutrality issue is no longer a problem, so I think it's time to resubmit it. --Alex 05:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object I believe Wikipedia:Inline Citations (as per WP:CITE) are now required in WP:FACs. It can be a nasty twist if you are not used to such a thing, however. Also, trivia sections almost always attract great opposition at FAC. RN 05:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: Alex, have you read this before? Honestly, I think the Martha Stewart article needs to be a lot of work before this can even be nominated. I'm not trying to be nasty or anything, but I think there would simply be too much work for you to do in order to get this up and running in the near future. (If you really want an elaboration, just ask). Also, has this article been nominated for an FA in the past? If so, where is the archive of the old FA?--P-Chan 06:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It was featured as part of the brilliant prose batches - see [10] RN 06:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Unduely strong? Yeah maybe you've right, but it's suprising that a person with so much coverage, fame, controversy, history and money surrounding her would have an article so small and incomplete. (But yes, the prose is nice I agree with you there).  :) --P-Chan 06:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Heh - I never commented on the prose myself :). Anyway, often what happens here with former FAs (and it seems to be happening more now) is a clash of sorts between FARC and FAC standards. That is, often the standards to "keep a article featured" are much lower then what it is to go to featured normally, so sometimes people think that can get close to the former only to find themselves coming up against the newer, much higher, standards such as the requirement of inline citations. RN 06:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I did not realize that the standrards have improved very much. I still believe that it is a strong article, much of it was expanded by myself and a few other users over the last 2-3 months. I've read it back when it was a FA, and it is much nicer that it was when it still had that designation. --Alex 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
          • To RN and Alex: it's nice to know that standards have improved over time. I'm a little suprised as to how much of a improvement there has been. For example, I dug this up from the Martha Stewart Archive and.... wow. [11]. (Yeah I agree with you Alex, you did add a lot to the article.) :)--P-Chan 06:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, it can be discouraging at times. I wouldn't think too much of it though - if you want to try for something less involving there is good articles now that is basically the same requirements as what featured articles used to be, so you can nominate yours there once you think it meets the good article criteria. (Good articles is, unlike WP:FAC, not a formal process, but the status is still basically close to a featured article). I'd also recommend taking a look at the article assessment table. RN 06:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Alex, you may also want to get it peer reviewed along with the GAnomination. It should hopefully help you scope out what content to focus on. The biggest thing you have to do right now is expand on the content. I can see every section in the article doubling in size, and act as headings for subheadings. (Make sure the pictures are properly sourced and have encyclopedic value, as you don't want to have 10 pictures of her smiling.) Best to you! --P-Chan 07:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've expanded it a bit, andhow to I submit it for a good article?--Alex 03:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, there's like hardly any difference from last time. I think you might be rushing things too much here. Building up a quality article takes a lot of care and is not something that can be done overnight. If you put it up for a GAnomination, I'm certain it's going to lose, but at least you might get some feedback from the one user. I suggest, instead that you go through a peer review first. And during that peer review say that you are trying to shape this article into FA status. Also, try to invite people who are knowledgable about the topic to peer review your article. The feedback that you will be getting, hopefully will move the article forward. If you have any questions feel free to ask.--P-Chan 03:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm not a dude my friend! second, I was just stating that I had tried to expand it a little, I didn't mean that I though it was already in featured article shape. thanks for you imput anyways! --Alex 04:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! (Oh man I'm such a dork.) Err anyways.. maam, here is the info that you're looking for.

• Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations
• If you're looking to do a peer review, you can find instructions here: Wikipedia:Peer review

If you need any help, just ask!--P-Chan 04:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Infiniti G20

It is a well rounded article that seemingly is referred to in my circles. The article is stable and does not have any editing wars. The references are adequate for a car with the popularity level it possesses coupled with that most of the information is homebrew in nature (stemming from a tight knit owner community). Also some sections of the article only appear on the wikipedia for other sources have been lost to time (i.e. paint code and sales per calendar year). I look forward to comments and if possible marginal edits. Thank you Zoli Elo 21:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object Not enough references, among other problems. "Homebrew" information isn't acceptable for a featured article. Also, too many short sections, and rethink section order - should a one paragraph "Marketing" section really be the first after the lead? Pagrashtak 22:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestion on the "Marketing" section order. Maybe a move to after the "First Generation 1991-1996 (P10") and "Second Generation 1999-2002 (P11)?" Or moving "Marketing" and "Engine" into a subsection of a new section? Do you have any overall section reordering, exact thoughts? Thanks. Zoli Elo 23:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also for the "Homebrew" information that included is quasi folkloric in nature, how would one go about properly referencing such information? I would hate to cut such information on the base that it is "poorly" referenced.... Zoli Elo 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice you've got a recent peer review for this article that's still open. Typically, peer reviews are closed when an article is nominated at FAC. However, I would suggest withdrawing this FAC for now and let the peer review run first. This article will need work before it has a shot at being featured. Pagrashtak 02:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest

(Self nomination) I recently conducted a complete review of this article in order to bring it up to standard. I now believe that this article meets all the criteria as specified in Wikipedia guidelines to be a featured article. It has recently successfully been listed as a Good Article, and this is the next step. The Eurovision Song Contest is an internationally recognised institution, and deserves to have a top-quality article: I have tried my best. Now if there are any criticisms which I have overlooked, I would welcome other experienced editors' comments in order that I may address them. If there are no criticisms.. please support :) Thank you. EuroSong ^talk 14:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Referencing is insufficient (although several of the web sources are scholarly papers, a search for offline sources would probably be in order here) and inline citations need to be used more thoroughly. Also needs some copyediting, from what I saw. --Robth^Talk 17:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. Could you please tell me exactly which statements you think need more citations - and from offline sources? If you be precise then I can address them. Also about copy-editing... which section(s) do you think are not so good? I need to know specific criticism, in order to be able to address the points. Thanks. EuroSong ^talk 20:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

In order, here. First, for more inline citations. In general, it's good to have a citation after every major statement of fact, so that a reader can quickly determine what the source for each statement is. So, for example, in the History section, I would like to see a citation for Eurovision being based on the San Remo festival, and another for the statement that the broadcast was originally carried over cables. They won't always need to come that frequently, but whenevver you make a statement that a reader might want to see the source for, put it in to make it easy for them.

What constitutes a "major" statement of fact? One could argue that every single statement needs a citation. This would clearly be ridiculous though. Surely the only things which need citations are statements which a reader may possibly dispute: surprising statements, or statements involving the quotation of statistics. Should it be a barrier to featuring an article, that generalised, non-controversial statements are not cited? EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Second: Offline sources. It isn't that I want to see particular statements sourced to offline sources, but rather that I think that fully researching this topic would have to include finding out what the major offline sources would be, reading those, and incorporating anything new into the article. Especially for a topic that predates the internet by decades, a web search is not sufficient research.

Okay... well I will have to see about this. There is relatively little written about the Eurovision Song Contest in hard-copy, published form. There are a few books, but I don't have them to hand. Looks like I'll have to buy them, eh? Just in order to check that some facts are actually mentioned in them, in order to cite them. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally, a copyedit. Picking a section at random, the political voting section has a number of problems:

• "The Contest has long been perceived as a political institution, where countries allocate points according to their political alignment rather than how they like the songs.": 'Where' is the wrong word here, "countries" are not acting--judges are acting on behalf of countries, and "according to their political alignment rather than how they like the songs" is awkward phrasing, the end in particular. Something like "based on their nation's political relationship to the performer's country rather than on their opinion of the performance" would be preferable.

I think that the phrasing is okay, although I do accept that your example reads better. Okay, I changed that. The word "where" in this context is perfectly correct English. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• "certain other countries, with which": unncecessary comma.

Agree. Dealt with by previous text revision. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• "and are therefore more likely to favour their own": "and are therefore more likely to appreciate each other's music", perhaps?

Agree. Changed. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• "for example the much-remarked-upon exchanging of 12 points between Greece and Cyprus is because...": "the exchanging is because" is a grammatically incorrect construction.

Disagree: this is perfect English. "much-remarked-upon exchanging of 12 points between Greece and Cyprus" is the subject of the sentence (as per subject, verb, object), as a compound phrasal subject. However I can understand that perhaps to non-native speakers it may be slightly confusing, so I have now changed it to: "the reason why Greece and Cyprus frequently exchange 12 points is because..." EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Similar fixes need to be made throughout the article; someone needs to go through it quite thoroughly.

I think that my English is excellent: however, I will indeed go through the article again and see if there are any sentences or phrases which might be simplified or clarified. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The gist of my comments, I suppose, is that this isn't yet to the point of picking out specific errors; substantial research and work needs to be done on the whole article before it will be time-effective to go through and pick out the remaining problems. --Robth^Talk 21:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your criticism, Robth. I shall address your points in due course. EuroSong ^talk 01:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object - I am very sorry to do so, as I would love to see this article become an FA. Nevertheless, there is still quite a lot to improve:

1. First of all, references. Eight of them, and only for some more minor bits of information, is too little IMHO. I am very surprised by the lack of official ESC and EBU sites on the list. Independent sites such as esctoday could also be good references, provided they are used with caution and consideration.
   More particularly, the "Museum of Broadcast Communications" gives the 600 million number perhaps implying the POTENTIAL number of TV viewers in transmitting countries - the highest estimates I have seen so far were around 350 millions, besides I believe EBU gives some more precise data on that.
   Besides, the Criticism of musical style and presentation does not look too complete with only one reference - such sections should present an array of opinions from sources important to the matter of the article.
   1. There are only two official sites: the EBU site (ebu.ch) and the official Eurovision site (eurovision.tv). All other sites are amateur/fan websites, and I am reluctant to cite these as sources. Also, as I replied to Robth above: what citations are really needed? I believe that I have cited sources for any major or controversial statements. Surely it is not necessary to quote a source for every single little bit of information? Is it, for example, not acceptable that I mention that shuttle bus services are laid on in Eurovision Week to ferry the performers to and fron the venue - because there is no source cited for this? I am sure that the Encyclopædia Britannica does not cite sources for every statement made. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
2. The structuring of the article is not that good.
   1. The "History" section is in fact devoted to the origins of the Contest, the rest of ESC's history is discussed in other sections (btw, I believe the History of the Eurovision Song Contest is actually redundant in its present form and could easily be merged into the main article to the benefit of it).
      1. Good point: I have indeed focussed on the origins in the History section. I shall address this. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC) - Addressed: changed section title to "Origins". Not appropriate to merge whole "History" content into main article though; it includes a large table. Shall take relevant sections from History article and include elsewhere in this main article. EuroSong ^talk 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
   2. Rules and Format sections are not very well written and do not contain everything they should. Moreover, some rules are also in the "Expansion of the Contest" section, which is not well written either. I would say the article should adopt either a historic or thematic main structuring theme, and IMHO the latter would be both more functional and easier to switch to from the present arrangement. Then, each section could present a historic view on the development of a given feature, like the rules used to determine the winner.
      1. The reason some rules are dealt with in the "expansion" section is because there is a degree of overlap, and I did not want to repeat myself: and I see it as more important to mention particular rules in context of their relevant section than just list all the rules lumped together in their own section. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC) - Addressed Rules section, presenting historic points of rules as suggested. EuroSong ^talk 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Some remarks as to particular sections as they are now:
   1. Rules - neither well written, nor complete, unfortunately. This should be absolutely exhaustive, or at least mention the most important rules, which ought to then be discussed in detail in the "Rules" article.
      1. I shall address this as below. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC) - Addressed EuroSong ^talk 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
   2. Rules - the language rule needs to be discussed in more detail. I would say the current "languages" section of the "Rules" article would belong there. I would actually consider merging the whole article into the main article as well. - Addressed language rule details as above. No need to merge whole Rules sub-article into section though: the sub-article is in need of a re-write anyway. EuroSong ^talk 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
   3. Rules - the "right of first refusal" is not too obvious an expression for a non-native English speaker like myself. It is used consistently throughout the article, without being explained as "the right to host the next contest, with the option to refuse to do so". Besides, is it formally stated that a broadcaster might refuse to host the ESC, or was it that just a matter of fact?
      1. This is en.wikipedia.org, not simple.wikipedia.org. Is there any rule for FA candidates that they must not use phrases or expressions which may be obscure to non-native speakers? It's not as if I'm using a very technical/specialist term which even most native speakers would not use. Please tell me where in WP guidelines it says that common English expression are not allowed, if foreigners might not understand them. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC) - No further comment needed I hope - unless you can show me where in the WP guidelines it says as above :) EuroSong ^talk 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
   4. Format - a more detailed description of the usual course of the event and historic changes would be welcome. Perhaps the Spin-Offs section belongs here as sub-section. Interval acts and presenters could also be covered in more detail. The Semi is also not mentioned at all - I would move the Semi section as a subsection there.
      1. I agree that more detail could be included, and I will address this as below. However I disagree that the Semi-final section should be included here. The "Format" section refers to aspects of the Contest which are more or less set in stone, and have been since the very beginning. That's why it only deals with the basics. I want the Format section to be an "evergreen" section, which is not subject to change. The semi-final only stated in 2004, and arose because of some very specific circumstances: that's why I included it, logically, after explaining about the expansion of the Contest and the problems which were created by having too many countries. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
   5. Voting - I guess this could be expanded with some info from the "Voting" article, and the "block voting" controversy would belong there. This section should be reviewed very carefully to avoid weasel words and some amibgious and implying phrases, like "it is still, however, not possible to vote for your own country" - will it ever be and does anything point towards a change in this rule?
      1. Agree that is can be expanded, as per below. However, I do want to keep all the "Criticisms" (or controvery) to their own section, and not splatter them all over the article. The article is supposed to be about how things do work - not about what people are complaining about. That belongs in its own section. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
   6. Hosting - the economics of the contest, including funding, returns and such, could be discussed in more detail, even if not in this particular section.
      1. Agree. Will be addressed as below. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
   7. Hosting - has UK hosted the ESC when not winning the previous year because they came second then or for some other reason? Is there a formal rule, or is it done by some gentleman's agreement?
      1. Good point. I will explain this more clearly. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
   8. Eurovision week - I haven't read this section thoroughly enough to give a full verdict, but its sole inclusion and the topics covered deserve praise for whoever authored it!
      1. Thank you, I'm glad you like it. I wrote it all myself :) EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
   9. Winners - some winners, although not launched to international superstardom like ABBA, still became very popular in their own countries, like Carola or Edyta Górniak (correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess these were the beginnings of their big careers)
      1. I am a bit confused. We're talking about the "Winners" section. Carola was a winner: Edyta Górniak was not. What are you proposing here? I'm not dealing with non-winners in this section. Unless you're proposing another section, which deals with non-winning artists' success. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
   10. Expansion of the contest - split and merge with "Participation" and "Rules"
       1. Why? This is a major topic in its own right. The Contest continued much the same for 38 years until 1993/1994, after which it went through some rapid and revolutionary changes. These were the direct result of the expansion, as more countries wished to enter. It's major series of events in the Contest's history. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
   11. Criticism - when you move the discussion of block voting to "Voting", what is left is the "Musical style and presentation". I believe it could be expanded into a section of its own, discussing the historic development of those, not only criticism.
       1. I disagree about moving the voting controversy into the voting section, as per the reasons mentioned above. Surely these are just ideas which you have, which you would have implemented had you written the article: they're not barriers to the article gaining Featured status, because the article does not follow WP guidelines. However I do agree that there could be a separate "Musical styles" section. I'll think about it. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
   12. Trivia - trivia do not really belong in an encyclopedic article, a good way of salvaging them is not putting them in a section called "Trivia" :D Lebanon belongs in "Participation", Sanomi in a section on languages, and we can perhaps live without the Portugal reference, there are many other similarly remote connections to Eurovision not mentioned.
       1. Hmm okay... point taken, possibly :) Is it really considered unenclyclopædic to have a trivia section? I thought it was just a point of interest... as the idea of any article is to inform and entertain the reader. I can remove it though. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC) - Addressed: Trivia section deleted; point about Lebanon mentioned in Broadcasting Rules section. EuroSong ^talk 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, I believe this article DOES have FA potential and deserves to become one. I hope this won't discourage all the editors that have contributed from further improving the article, but rather help accelerate its development. I keep my fingers crossed :D Bravada, talk - 22:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive criticism, Bravada. I shall address individual points in due course, but before I do I need to ask one thing: a major theme of your criticism is that several sections do not include enough detail, and you suggest merging information into the article, which is currently contained in sub-articles (such as the ones about history & voting). In fact, this information used to be included in the main article, but then it was just getting far too long (over 50k). These sections were split out into sub-articles in order to make the main article more concise; and when I re-wrote the main article, I kept it concise because I thought that there is no chance of it becoming featured if it goes into so much detail as to make it a LONG way over 30k. That's what would happen if all the detail which you suggest were included. So I am therefore confused. According to Featured Article criteria, what should I be aiming for? An article with great detail but which is huge in length? As I say.. I will address all the points individually in due course, but I need to clarify this before doing anything else. Thanks. EuroSong ^talk 01:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My main point is that the sections that refer to the individual articles are not really exhaustive in that they do not give an overview of what can be found in those articles and do not provide the reader of the main article with sufficient information. On the other hand, the "descendant" articles are far from perfect too, and if you remove some stuff that clearly does not belong in an encyclopedia and what is doubled with other sections of the main article, they would be relatively small and could easily be included as sections.

Besides, the FA criteria say that the article should be comprehensive meaning "exhaustive" and of appropriate length, not specifying any "ideal length", but rather pointing towards including all necessary and no unnecessary material. Good old Celine Dion (which is probably the oldest somewhat Eurovision-related article) is 45k itself and could hardly be subdivided. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is 54k. So, large size is not a major obstacle in obtaining FA status.

What I would focus on is bringing the article into a really pristine state and perhaps only then considering splitting it, should relevant objections be raised by FA reviewers then, spinning off some sections into separate articles with appropriate summaries in the main article. As I say, let's forget about the size of the article for a while and focus on quality, this can (and would better) be dealt with later on.

I would also advise you to use citation templates, especially {{cite web}}, as it requires you to give the date on which you accessed the page, which in turn makes it easier for other users to check the referenced site even if it has changed or is down, by means of the Wayback Machine.

Regards, Bravada, talk - 07:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's my reply to all the "as below" references which I made above. Thank you for your explanation that an article which is long does not get barred from attaining Featured status because of its length. As I was re-writing the Eurovision article, one major consideration was the length. That's the reason I did not go into huge detail in several sections. With your statement that long articles don't matter, however, I shall therefore expand everything to include pretty much all the detail I can think of. Much of this will be taken from the various sub-articles (rewritten). Thanks. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As there are no official Wikipedia guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how a article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support. Please see the discussions [[12]] and [[13]] at the featured article talk page for my reasoning. --Jayzel 12:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jayzel, thank you for your support. I am a bit confused, however - since you seem to be referring to these discussions regarding the FA director, in relation to your decision to support this nomination. I don't understand what Wikipedia politics have to do with the Eurovision article's quality and eligibility to become a FA. If you genuinely think that this article is of Featured quality, then that's great, thank you. But I still don't get your reasoning in relation to the FA director issue. EuroSong ^talk 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• lead does not seem to meet WP:LEAD - i.e. it should probably beefier and have a more comprehensive overview of the article... RN 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years and solitary days. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. There are no links to "solitary years". I know many people make the mistake of linking, for example, 2006 when it is not needed - but if you examine the article more closely you will see that the year links do not simply go to those years: they are piped links to the individual Eurovision year articles! I think this is actually quite cool, not to mention relevant :)

With regards to linking dates (I think 24th May is the only one linked?) I do this so that logged-in users' date preferences can be used, as per WP functionality. So, apart from this date comment, do you support or oppose the article for Featured status? Thanks. EuroSong ^talk 20:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

FA Premier League

This Article is well writtern and very informative, it describes perfectly the most popular soccer league in the world and would be perfect to be the featured article when the new season starts in mid august--Dillan 11:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• support as per my own nomination
• Object. Too short a lead, please read WP:LEAD. Too many lists, please move them to subarticles or prosify them. --Maitch 14:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Too list-heavy, too many one sentence paragraphs, several unsourced statements. Suggest a nomination at the Football AID. In fact I think I'll nominate it myself. Oldelpaso 21:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Oldelpaso: +1... Good article, but not featured level (I think beacuse of the topic, not the article). You can't write FA premier league article without lists, but like that it's list-heavy. NCurse _work 08:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As there are no official Wikipedia guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how an article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support. Please see the discussions [[14]] and [[15]] at the featured article talk page for my reasoning.

• Object: LEAD is WAY too small...the LEAD should have a broad overview of the article's topic. By the look of the article's lengh, the LEAD should be about 3-4 paragraphs long... --Skully Collins 08:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Blackhawks

I think the article explains this franchise very well, probably one of the best team pages on the NHL on here

As one of the longtime active ice hockey WikiProject members, I have to disagree; the Blackhawks' page is one of the poorer NHL team pages and certainly well short of featured article status. Stylistically, the entire eighty years of team history is in one long unbroken section, and could stand some subheadings. More importantly, the tone of the article is surprisingly negative considering the franchise's achievements over the years, which include three Stanley Cup championships, coming within a year of tying the longest stretch of making the playoffs in North American professional sports history, and fielding the first all-American lineup in NHL history. The team's genuine accomplishments are glossed over in favor of lavish (and not really justified) descriptions of failure that reads as if a partisan hand was responsible. Finally, a number of NPOV violations have cropped in, and while I'm going to edit those out, a FAC shouldn't have them in the first place. There are a number of fine hockey articles that deserve feature status; this is not yet one of them. RGTraynor 17:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Mandy Moore

Self-nomination - meets all the criteria - properly sourced, detailed, covers all angles on the subject matter, properly styled and written. Mad Jack 06:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have doubts about passing Image:Moremoore.jpg off as fair use with the photoshopped logo on top of it. Suggest a new image for the article intro :). RN 06:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The article where I took the image seems to have gone from the net. If I e-mail [16], which has a scan of this cover, and ask for permission to use it, would that be fair use? I like the picture and the Cosmopolitan cover is explicitly commented on both in the caption and in the article following, which I believe qualifies it for fair use. Mad Jack 06:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Surely a better image of Mandy Moore is available for the introduction than the front cover of a magazine? Cheers --darkliight^[πalk] 12:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object image problems as mentioned above. Please see Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission and look for fansites or mailing lists to get images that people would be willing to license under a free, reusable license. Some pictures of her at Flickr might be a good place to start, although some of them seem to be uploaded by people who are not the photographer. Jkelly 19:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you mean all the images or just the header? The screenshot and album cover uses are exactly the same as in FA Lindsay Lohan, so I presume those are acceptable. As for the header, I know Lohan's page uses a Vanity Fair scan, though not in the header. However, the caption on the Moore image specifically discusses the cover, and the cover is later discussed in the article. Would that qualify as fair use, or are magazine cover headers strictly forbidden? Mad Jack 19:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really arguing that anything is "forbidden" (see WP:FUC for some rules, if that's what you're looking for). In an evaluation of what Wikipedia's best work is, however, I can't support an article that has a spuriously watermarked, noisy magazine cover as the showcased image. Who are we advertising here? I'd vastly prefer a freely-licensed fan image, but even a screenshot would be better than that cover. Jkelly 19:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did just get e-mailed permission from one of her fan sites to use this scan and any other (in exchange for an external link to their site at the bottom... :) ) So I can almost certainly find a good image to use. Two things - would you mind withdrawing the object until I can find a good image (shouldn't take too long) and, can I use this image elsewhere in the article? (probably around the section where the cover is discussed in the article) Mad Jack 20:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a pain, but it isn't clear to me why the objection shouldn't stand as long as the image is still showcased in the article. Also, the person who scanned the image has no ability to alter the magazine cover's licensing; only the copyright holder can relicense an image. No new copyright opportunity is created when someone scans something. If you are going to use the magazine cover to illustrate a point made in the article, don't use an image with a weird watermark on it. Jkelly 20:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll look for a new image now Mad Jack 20:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Objection struck. Jkelly 01:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've just downloaded and inserted a picture from the site that appears to be fine in terms of allowed usage (it has been properly credited to the site and no other owner of it was credited elsewhere). Mad Jack 21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC) :Or not, still working on it. Mad Jack 21:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• OK, pic should be good now. Mad Jack 22:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And I've gotten a good scan of the Cosmopolitan cover - straight from the Cosmopolitan website. Should be good for usage later down in the article, to illustrate the related text. Mad Jack 22:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Any chance the new intro pic (which looks much better by the way) can be cropped a bit? Almost half of it is black. I'm not sure if this is allowed given that the image is copyrighted though. Cheers, --darkliight^[πalk] 22:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course I can crop it - but I am not sure if I'm allowed to. The whole gallery of images from this music video is here - I wasn't sure if any of them were better - http://www.mooreofmandy.com/photos/thumbnails.php?album=9 - you have to log in to use it - you can use my logname/password "mikell222" and "gorbest". Mad Jack 22:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There's also this pic[17] - but I think it may be too much of a close up. Mad Jack 22:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object - We already see celebrities on TV 24/7. Let's feature an article about something not so well-known. --GoOdCoNtEnT 16:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Any article should be eligible for featured status, regardless of topic. This is hardly an actionable objection! TheGrappler 16:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. This is not a valid, actionable objection. Featured article status is given to any article that fits the criteria. It doesn't mean this article is going to be on the front page - it's not "competing" with any other article. The more FAs Wikipedia has - the merrier. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halloween III: Season of the Witch, where this is addressed. Mad Jack 16:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• So... does anyone have any legitimate "Support" or "Object" votes to give here? (I.e. not by people who think we have too many entertainment FAs, obviously) Mad Jack 19:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object images should not be given hardcoded sizes (eg 315px). 7 fair use images is far too many. what is stacy's surname? no citation for this: "attended Park Maitland School (for elementary school) in Maitland, Florida, Bishop Moore Catholic High School and Lake Brantley High School in Altamonte Springs". poor writing eg "She was signed with the record company" should be either "She was signed to the record company" or ""She signed with the record company". please have entire text copyedited by an outside source. there is even spelling errors: "interpration" ? no citation for this: "The album will be released in late 2006 or early 2007.", even then it can be considered crystal ball stuff, "will be" released is a bit strong. she had her own tv show yet it barely gets a passing half-sentence mention? there should be paragraphs devoted to it, otherwise article fails on comprehensiveness. what about critical appraisal of her performance in "how to deal" and "chasing liberty". place commas correctly: e.g. "Moore has also appeared on the television series, Entourage, " is wrong. again, no critical appraisal of her performance in "american dreamz". citation for this please: "The couple were together for sixteen months, hardly spending time together due to Moore's film schedule; Roddick ended the relationship in March of 2004. ". albums box remains unclear whether the blanks mean those albums were released in the UK or the info is just not known. selected filmography is chronologically back-to-front. are the Interviews used as references? in which case they should be listed in a "References" section. if not, the most useful/interesting ones should be listed as External links (without making the list of links too long). "Two of her latest films were considered by some critics to be a change of pace into darker roles." yet this is never further expanded on in the main body nor cited. which critics? please provide quotes. similarly provide quotes backing up and giving evidence for the many statements that "some critics" or "many critics" think this or that littered throughout the article. they help add some "spice" to the rather flat writing as well, which is far from brilliant prose. Zzzzz 12:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I needed some actual concise criticism beyond the image copyright stuff. Anyway, I believe I've fulfilled all the requests. I lowered the image size into 275px and removed two of the images - leaving 5 (Lindsay Lohan has 6). I don't know Stacy's maiden name - but would like to find out. I sourced the school stuff. Copy-editing - done. You're right, will be released is a bit presumptive - removed. There is very, very, little info available on the internet about the Mandy Moore show. Basically what is in the article is what's online. It appears to have been little seen/noticed and little commented upon anywhere. Overall - it appears to be of little notability to Moore in general. But I added a bit of info I could find on it. Added critical reviews of Moore's performances in early films. Fixed commas. Added critical commentary of American Dreamz and her performance. Fixed up Roddick stuff. Fixed filmography and interviews. I "—"-d the figures on the albums, which are unknown as far as I can find. Added various critical commentary, as said above. I hope that does it? Mad Jack 18:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

dont like the grammer of "She is to have an album out in 2007" - change to "she plans to have an album out...". and if the dashes in the albums box means "unknown" would be better to use question marks instead. would like to see some deeper research into the tv show, stacy's surname etc, but apart from that its improved. cheers. Zzzzz 22:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not add that sentence and I'm changing it. Some other editor just did and I would have changed it anyway - it is not encyclopedic at all. Are you asking for Stacy's maiden name? Of course, she goes by "Stacy Moore" now and I switched it around to say "Stacy and Don Moore" (as opposed to "Don Moore and Stacy"). I've seen almost every profile on Mandy Moore and her mother's maiden name has never been mentioned, so I just don't know. And I've added a little note about the music charts. Mad Jack 23:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• This leans pretty heavily on scans of articles at the "Moore of Mandy" fansite as sources; could alternative sources be found for those? (Results of a citation spot check are here). --Robth^Talk 17:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the sources cited are the magazine articles themselves. "Moore of Mandy" is just one place where these magazines can be viewed free of charge. I suppose it's not necessary to even link to a site where they could be viewed (i.e. offline citations are obviously allowed), I just thought "why not"? Mad Jack 17:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Gotcha. I was slightly confused when a link that I assumed was taking me to an online article dropped me off on a photo album page, but I agree that it's good where possible to give people the best available online option for an offline source. --Robth^Talk 20:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment On first pass, the article appears well referenced, but on closer examination, some of the sources appear to be personal websites, and not all statements are referenced. The first reference says Seventeen Magazine, but links to a personal website. Where do I find a reference for this: Moore was born in Nashua, New Hampshire to Stacy (a former newspaper reporter) and Don Moore (a pilot for American Airlines). Moore has Irish and Cherokee heritage on her father's side. Sandy 14:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to explain - Seventeen Magazine is where the reference itself is to. The personal website just has a scan of the magazine. This is the same thing with all the links to the personal website - it has scans all of the magazine articles that the article references to. I didn't think I needed to source her birth place, but I can do that. There, I've added a note about the magazine references and why the links are there, since it seems to confuse so many. Mad Jack 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Someone may correct me, but I believe that is a copyright violation of Seventeen Magazine's material, meaning that source shouldn't be used. Sandy 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Not sure. The site says "Welcome to the Moore Of Mandy Photo Gallery. All photos are copywritten by their respected owners. Some photos have been watermarked with the Moore Of Mandy website name. Photos that are watermarked with the website name, in white or black, are owned by the webmaster or have been watermarked by permission. Tagged images are copywritten material by their respected owners and tags should not be removed out of respect of the copyright holders. Tagged images are not owned by the webmaster, unless otherwise noted, and are to be kept tagged for protection. Some scanned images may be tagged. Which means, the webmaster has scanned the images, but are still copywritten and remain protected with tags. Although many tagged images are not legally owned by mooreofmandy.com, they are hosted here and tags should not be removed. No copyright infringement is intended. If there are photos that belong to anyone on here and they were not credited or want them removed contact me via email and I will remove your photos immediately. If you have the desire to want to use any photos and or graphics from this gallery, please ask for my permission by emailing me at webmaster@mooreofmandy.com and by giving credit to www.mooreofmandy.com." Mad Jack 19:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Norfolk Island

(self nom, although I've not added anything of substance in more than 12 months) I may be biased, having worked on the article in its very early days, but I think it covers all the bases for being Featured. At the risk of churlishness, it's also an Australian topic, which is an area which I believe has been underrepresented in recent FAs. At the very least, if it's not up to the high standards, the ideas for improvement will help it look even better as an article than it currently does. BigHaz 07:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Nomination cheerfully withdrawn. Now let's see if I can find the templates to add to the article's Talk page... BigHaz 23:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Needs expansion of the lead section, more complete inline citations, and removal/merging of the one-sentence paragraphs and sections. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 08:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  I'll have a go at the paragraphs and sections tomorrow (my time), as well as trying my hand at the citations. BigHaz 12:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Refer to Wikipedia:Peer review --cj | talk 12:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  At the risk of seeming a total n00b, what specifically about it? Everything I can see there is that it's a useful but non-mandatory step in the article-to-featured-article process, rather than something which absolutely must be done. If there's a policy I'm missing out on, I'll be happy to be put to rights. BigHaz 13:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  I apologise for being vague. No, it is not at all a "required" step, but it is strongly recommended. I suggested this nomination be rescinded and the article sent to WP:PR for two reasons: 1, it is nowhere near FA-standard (see the criteria and compare with like articles); and 2, your opening statement made it seem as though you were seeking advice on how to improve the article (which should already be as close to finished as possible upon presentation to WP:FAC).--cj | talk 14:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right. I'll have another look at the criteria and may well rescind based on those comments. BigHaz 22:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Cividade de Terroso

• self-nom This article discusses what we know about a significant settlement of an essential civilization/Culture of Northern Portugal and North-western Spain, which we still know very little despite there are so many vestiges in both countries. This article can be seen as a summary of the book José Manuel Flores Gomes & Deolinda Carneiro Subtus Montis Terroso - Património Arqueológico no Concelho da Póvoa de Varzim Câmara Municipal da Póvoa de Varzim, 2005 as it is the only book purposely written about it. So I don’t think we need to put inline citations, any doubt one should buy that book, unfortunately there is not much information on the Internet.--Pedro 09:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. "So I don’t think we need to put inline citations, any doubt one should buy that book,". No. Even if I buy the book, I need page numbers indicating where to find specific referenced passages. FAs must be referenced. Sandy 12:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • it is referenced, see the references section. But if that's the main problem, I can get the book again, and make inline citations. --Pedro 13:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll do inline citations, quite soon, i'm doing it for the main article, Póvoa de Varzim, next, I'll do this one. Following the <references /> scheme-Pedro 13:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. in-line citations are the standard for FAs now. Rlevse 14:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. for now. Rlevse 14:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There are now inline citations. I'm still putting more while I'm search for info on the books. --Pedro 16:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)*Finish.--Pedro 18:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Needs a copy-edit; worth putting effort into it, because there's a lot of good in this article.
  • Why are the years blue? Perhaps links might be focused enough for the ancient years, but certainly not "1961" or "20th century", etc.
  • Can you fix the spelling of "meter", which is something you put coins into. (I presume that this is in BrEng.) This is clumsy: "152 metres height (about 500 feet)". Relocate "height and remove "about".
  • Second para in lead is a stubby single sentence. There are other stubby paragraphs in the main text.
  • I see a ref citation with an extraneous space after it. And perhaps remove the spaces between multiple citations?
  • "After the death of Rocha Peixoto, in 1909, some rocks of the Cividade had been used"—No, "were".
  • "The visit of UNESCO's inspectors is foreseen for 2007." Better: "A visit from UNESCO's inspectors is foreseen for 2007." Is there a reference for this assertion?
  • "Archelogical".
  • The interior "possessed" floors?
  • "In some points of the city, vestiges of sewers or narrow channels had been discovered; these would serve to direct rain water." Would serve? No, just "served". Check tenses and moods throughout.
  • Mainly twice in one sentence. Tony 03:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not a native speaker, that's the problem. I've requested peer review.--Pedro 17:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review won't be prompt enough, since you've already nominated it here. You need to actively recruit interested copy-editors. Research similar topics via their history pages to identify the right people. Tony 04:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

no problem, the aim is to create a good article, not to get a star on it. This article really needs more work, I'll work on the Portuguese version first as it needs more info on religion and currency. --Pedro 10:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)