Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive/Removed/Archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arts[edit]

Medieval art[edit]

Medieval art (July 2)[edit]

Nominated June 18 2005; needs 6 votes by July 2 2005
Reason
needs expansionFenice 12:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support
  1. Fenice 12:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. CristianChirita 12:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Milena 11:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Comments
  • I am working on this article to be a gateway article, containing very (very) high level summary information, mainly serving as a navigation aide to the corpus of Wikipedia articles that cover this vast subject. I've started work on it and plan on working on it over the next few weeks, laying out the article structures based on known fields of study. I would not recomend this article be a COTW at this time. Stbalbach 04:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think the article should be turned into a list. Medieval art would make a good overview article. --Fenice 06:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a "list" it's an outline of what makes up Medieval art. This is a highly specialized field with special terms and areas, its not common knoweldge, there is a reason this article has sat idle for 4 years. If your saying these links could be worked in to a narrative, I would not disagree. Stbalbach 02:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • According to the latest updates in the article:
In Western Europe there were seven major periods, or movements, of art in the Middle Ages. In approximate chronological order (with overlap) they are Celtic art, Early Christian art, Migration Period art, Pre-Romanesque art, Romanesque art, Gothic art and Trecento art.

You will notice almost none of these major articles has been developed, or even started. I would suggest we do a COTW on one of the major art movements and get those started. Otherwise, the high level summary will not be in line with whatever gets written later in detail. According to the style guidelines, summaries are usually written last, summarizing the detail. I would suggest Celtic art as a good place to start. Once it is done, a summary of the article can be worked into the Medieval art article, and so on. Stbalbach 02:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will support a nomination of Celtic art on the COTW, good starting point.--Fenice 09:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Architecture[edit]

Renaissance architecture (July 14)[edit]

Nominated July 7 2005; needs at least 3 votes by July 14 2005
Support:
  1. Fenice 7 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)
  2. Phoenix2 July 8, 2005 01:09 (UTC)
Comments:
  • This important art topic needs expansion. The article is only two screens long.--Fenice 7 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

Pop art (26 votes, stays until March 8)[edit]

Nominated January 4, 2006; needs at least 27 votes by March 8, 2006
Support
  1. Levi allemany 16:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 17:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wackymacs 07:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul James Cowie 14:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Slow Motion, Quick Thinking 21:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gflores Talk 07:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sparkit 19:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. User:Havardj 21:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WesleyPinkham 08:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hahnchen 10:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. bodnotbod 11:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Daanschr 19:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Osbus 23:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. tdempsey 07:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Ghelae 20:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Caponer 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Jhohenzollern 03:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. TwilaStar 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Andrew Levine 21:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Shadow Puppet 06:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. BorgQueen 15:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Ham 20:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Toonmon2005 00:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Kaldari 16:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Carabinieri 11:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. It's a stub Needing a lot of work!!!!! JoshuaArgent 05:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed votes
  1. SpandX 16:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Very influential period in modernist art. Requires further expansion and explanation. There's plenty to write about. Levi allemany 16:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stub. Move to Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week. -Silence 07:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. It has not been marked as a stub by any other user. Considering the classification of stub is subjective, we should take this as our guide. 86.132.181.41 20:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, we shouldn't. Would you argue that David Nielsen or Psychedelia or Nicky Bryne or American West Indies are not stubs just because they haven't yet been labeled as such? Which articles are marked as "stubs" is arbitrary, inconsistent, and depends entirely on the whims of random users; many users who create and work on "stubs" don't even bother to ever use stub tags, as they're really not that helpful, are very complicated to organize in many cases, and create the false assumption (which you have succumbed to) that anything not clearly labeled as a stub isn't a stub, or, even worse, that anything not clearly labeled a stub doesn't need a heck of a lot of expansion to meet Wikipedia standards. Nothing in the AID requirements says that articles marked with a "stub" tag aren't allowed to be submitted, it says that articles that actually are stubs aren't allowed to be submitted. Please read Wikipedia:Stub: an article that consists entirely of two very short paragraphs followed by three lists is most certainly a stub.
  • Since you (wrongly) feel this is so important, I will add a stub tag to it (even though numerous articles currently submitted at "CotW" are not labeled such), and then you can move this to CotW, where it can receive the attention it needs. Common sense ("the article's incredibly short and lacking in any but the barest information, so it's a stub") takes precedence over bureaucracy ("but it isn't clearly labeled 'stub' on the page!"), I'm afraid. -Silence 23:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also that thousands of articles that are indeed labeled as stubs are much more complete, in-depth and lengthy than this article. Even just sticking to art-related stubs, I can find many equally complete, and even vastly more complete, stubs-labeled-as-stubs in mere minutes: body art, anamorphism, A Girl Asleep (Vermeer), contrapposto, fiber art, death mask, French art of the 19th century, paint marker, national personification, oil pastel, postmodern art, pyrography, posterization, Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, etc. -Silence 23:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, this is a stub. Usually stubs drop out after being listed one week. This one seems to be very popular though, and will probably develop beyond a stub while it is listed here. --Fenice 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of art article that are marked as stubs are no longer stubs, and many art articles that are stubs are not marked as stubs. IMO some of the articles listed above could have their stub tag removed. Sparkit 19:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll need to make sure you make the difference between Pop art and Op art very clear. - Samsara contrib talk 23:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of people who have voted for this despite how blatantly obvious it is that pop art is a stub and thus belongs on CotW not AID makes me seriously doubt the future survival capacity of humans. We'll be outsmarted by those dolphins for sure. -Silence 01:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I nominated Pop art on Cotw in mind-January and it got only two concurring votes. Evidently the vast majority of Wikipdians don't agree with you about where the nomination belongs. Andrew Levine 22:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A fairly ignorant statement (no offense intended); the true reason this has gotten enough votes to stick around on AID (like a blood-gorged tick, too deeply-burrowed to pick off until it gets more swollen with votes) and few votes on CotW is because CotW itself has gotten less than a twentieth as much attention as AID has. Almost noone regularly visits and contributes to CotW, vs. dozens of regular AID voters, and the average vote count on CotW is less than a fifth as much as here. Pop art only failed there because it's under the radar, and it only has stuck around here so long because so few voters have bothered to read this discussion; they merely see a worthy topic, "pop art", being nominated, and fail to remotely coprehend the fact that it's been nominated in the wrong place. That sort of bureaucratic fiddling isn't something they should have to deal with, but it's been forced on them by you with your stubborn refusal to help make this a candidate for the correct article-improvement page. Your arrogance in thinking that the nomination's misguided votes overrides the very meaning of the difference between AID and CotW is amusing, but doesn't truly change a thing. The article's the only thing that will be hurt in the long run by this stalling; I have no doubt that pop art would already have been a very successful CotW by now if the erroneous double-nomination on AID hadn't drawn away too much attention and confused voters. Pretty good demonstration of why Wikipedia isn't a democracy, overall: most people aren't discerning enough to understand what a vote is about in many cases, like this one. :) The reason I oppose this nomination on AID is the same reason you nominated it: because we both want the article to receive as much improvement as possible. The only difference is that you, unlike myself, fail to understand that the best way to do that is to remove this nom from AID and put it on CotW, where it belongs; as soon as you realize this, you can join in with helping get this delisted so it can receive the attention it needs from the people specialized in giving it. Until then, pop art will continue to reside in limbo, wasting everyone's time and patience for no real reason. If that's the course you prefer, feel free to have it. -Silence 10:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The only difference is that you, unlike myself, fail to understand that the best way to do that is to remove this nom from AID and put it on CotW" Huh? It was I who nominated it on CotW. I did not initiate the nomination here so I do not know why you are implying that I did. I completely agree with what you are saying so I'm not even sure why you're attacking me. I do not have the ability to simply remove the nomination and move all the votes to CotW because that would be changing people's votes. Believe me, I would if I could because I agree that the split nomination hurts the article. Andrew Levine 18:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • In my defense, I would like to point out that I am enormously stupid. -Silence 15:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema[edit]

Scream (film) (2 votes, stays until November 27, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 20, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by November 27, 2005
Support:
  1. TrafficBenBoy 01:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 08:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This article deserves a hell of a lot more. After all, it began a new era of the horror genre, took in a gigantic group of new horror fans, and is one of the most important movie of the 90s, of any kind

Pulp Fiction (20 votes, stays until August 25)[edit]

Nominated July 7 2005; needs at least 21 votes by August 25 2005
Support:
  1. Litefantastic 7 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
  2. Jacoplane 8 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)
  3. coolmallu 2005 July 8 20:21 (UTC)
  4. DiamondDave 20:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Jmabel | Talk 18:25, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Tarnas 04:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Behun 21:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Fieari 04:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Fableheroesguild 05:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Barrettmagic 14:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. furiouscommie 1:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  13. shuri 08:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Bancroftian 9:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  15. *drew 14:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Trevor macinnis 23:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Richy 14:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Phantom784 22:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 96T 23:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Syrae Faileas 20:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Already experiencing some kind of independent overhaul, I think this isn't that far from FA. -Litefantastic 7 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
  • It is one of the most populat movies of all time. The article is in need of better language. -coolmallu 2005 July 8 20:21 (UTC)
  • Case in point, the "themes" section: so much redundancy (there's already a plot summary above), so much opinion (only one "divine" intervention scripted in movie).
  • Layout is superb; text and analysis needs work. - Barrettmagic 14:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bancroftian 15:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Horror film (10 votes, stays until August 21)[edit]

Nominated July 24 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 21 2005
Support:
  1. Niz 13:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Michael Wells 15:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ZeWrestler Talk 16:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Pedro 15:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. shuri 08:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fenice 07:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jahsonic 12:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Singing Badger 20:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. *drew 13:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --DrBat 23:19, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
No Support
  1. Robert Hash 02:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Could easily become a featured article but needs more input and validation from other users: an important subject as its a high-level overview of one of the major film genres, and as such a major "entry point" to wikipedia, providing a host of links to more detailed subgenre pages, director pages, movie studio pages, film and actor pages etc. Niz 13:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto what Niz says above; plus, as a general comment, cultural and arts and entertainment articles need so much more input and work. Science and tech on Wikipedia are naturally strong, politics and history are decent, too, because they at least get a lot of participants and discussion, but culture and arts are neglected, with countless articles dependent on too few people with lots of opinions and little solid info. This article is poised to break away from that pack and become a model, but needs more input! Michael Wells 15:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article, and attendant categories, will always suffer from the cumbersome and illogical inclusion of assorted crime films involving killings, torturings, stalkings and terrorizations by human agents, which are distinguished from other crime films only by the amount of gore, the relatively bizarre nature of the crimes, and/or the psychiatric condition of the all-too-human perps. Attempts to bring about reasonable change have resulted in reactionary reversions and foot-stomping stubborn denials of any intellectual basis for distinguishing these crime films from true, evil-supernatural HORROR films by a small but active coterie of Wikipedia cliquers reared on the "scholarship" of Fangoria and similar fan magazines in genre studies. It would be laughable for this website to promote the results as of "encyclopedic quality" no matter how much tinkering is done with the article, category and subcategories, and innumerable movie stubs (most of which are post-1960 titles, and include several science-fiction films as well). Robert Hash 02:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It gets my vote. -Pedro 15:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Das Boot (6 votes, stays until February 19)[edit]

Nominated January 29, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 19, 2006
Support
  1. Julien 22:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Carolaman 05:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aerobird 02:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Johan the Ghost seance 18:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ZeWrestler Talk 00:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. *drew 23:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • References are needed; more information on how the filmmaker wanted to be as realistic as possible could be added. More information could also be added to explain why there are 3 versions (120, 216 and 293 minutes long). With a little effort, this article can be nominated for Today's featured article.

Gone With The Wind (film) (7 votes, stays until May 10)[edit]

Nominated April 26, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 10, 2006
Support
  1. .... 05:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --JorgeBeach 19:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casey14 23:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul James Cowie 09:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Caponer 21:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cvene64 00:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Possibly the greatest American film ever, certainly the most popular, yet this article is sadly lacking .... 05:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. With a huge haul of Academy Awards and massive, long-lived influence within film-making, this article is a great candidate! Paul James Cowie 09:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoping that the good people of Wikipedia will give a damn..... 22:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne (2 votes, stays until May 16)[edit]

Nominated May 9, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 16, 2006
Support
  1. Stevage 11:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scottwiki 23:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • His fame and impact on Hollywood history is virtually unstated, lacks real lead, lacks photos, structure, references. Stevage 11:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard III (1955 film) (1 vote, stays until June 1)[edit]

Nominated May 25, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by June 1, 2006
Support
  1. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 10:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Article that I have raised from I stub, but I need a lot of help to get it to featured article.

Sculpture[edit]

Wood carving (3 votes, stays until October 5, 2005)[edit]

Nominated September 21 2005; needs at least 6 votes by October 5, 2005
Support:
  1. Reflex Reaction 14:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Phidauex 14:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Scope_Creep 22:22 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
  • Wood carving is one of humanity's longest-standing artistic, decorative and functional arts and its article needs help. The article is lengthy and detailed, but is horribly outdated and needs some loving care. Reflex Reaction 14:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of sculpture (July 2)[edit]

Nominated June 18 2005; needs 6 votes by July 2 2005
Reason
stops at the renaissance, middle ages missing
Support
  1. --Fenice 09:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Vladdraculdragon 09:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. --PET 00:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comments
Sometimes it works the other way around: the sections in the overview article grow larger and larger, and at some point a new article is created as a spin-off, and a summary plus a link to the main article is left at the overview article. In this case, a section on medieval sculpture would be written in Medieval art or History of sculpture and then an article Medieval sculpture would be created.--Fenice 05:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • we need pictures and more info

Music[edit]

American rock (4 votes, stays until January 17)[edit]

Nominated January 3, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 17, 2006
Support
  1. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Havardj 6:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. RJH 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fenice 19:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A very important type of music in the United States. It deserves a better article than what it has now. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone (1 vote, stays until December 11, 2005)[edit]

Nominated December 4, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 11, 2005
Support:
  1. Gflores Talk 04:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RJH 16:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • A very influential music magazine with very little information. It could be greatly expanded. Gflores Talk 04:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heart (band) (3 votes, stays until December 9, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 25, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by December 9, 2005
Support:
  1. Carolaman 10:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 01:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Iotha 04:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Heart was a important hard rock band of the late '70s, and should have a better article. The current one is only about three paragraphs, and gives an extremely short summary of their early career. Carolaman 10:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article really could do with more description and biography rather than just lists of singles and albums. Iotha 04:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stairway to Heaven (7 votes, stays until November 22, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 1, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by November 22, 2005
Support:
  1. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 23:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Brendanconway 05:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Spawn Man 01:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Waltwe 11:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jacqui ? 18:06, 6
  6. Dan M 02:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ike9898 21:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Removed:
  1. 205.250.109.113 19:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Non-registered user.[reply]
  2. NightmareMoogle 18:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC) This is this user's first edit... Spawn Man 03:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • The greatest song of all time should have an article on it that has the potential to be featured on the front page, or if you don't feel that this song is the greatest, it should still have a correct info box. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 23:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree that I would love to see this become a featured article. I think that there is much more information that could be included.

Acoustic guitar (2 votes, stays until October 15, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 8, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 15, 2005
Support:
  1. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 02:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Whitejay251 16:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • How can one of the greatest instruments of all time, and one of the most influential have an article of this size. I would expect it to be Featured. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 02:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm and blues (4 votes, stays until August 26)[edit]

Nominated August 12 2005; needs at least 8 votes by August 26 2005

Reason Needs significant improvement, correction, and formatting, among the weakest of the music genre articles. I've tried a few edits, but I haven't really gotten anywhere. --FuriousFreddy 21:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support:
  1. --FuriousFreddy 21:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)(sign with four tildes)[reply]
  2. Fenice 06:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Osu8907 17:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Laisak 19:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Horn (instrument) (3 votes, stays until July 23)[edit]

Nominated July 9 2005; needs at least 6 votes by July 23 2005
Support:
  1. Horndude77 22:18, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DiamondDave 19:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fenice 06:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • The article is about the instrument better known as the french horn. It has improved much in the last year. I believe for it to get up to the feature article level it just needs some polish that other people can provide. Horndude77 22:18, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Denver (8 votes, stays until February 11, 2006)[edit]

Nominated January 21, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 11, 2006
Support
  1. Carolaman 19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Havardj 19:14, 22 January, 2006 (UTC)
  3. Frecklefoot 19:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Youngamerican 17:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mike H. That's hot 08:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Joyous | Talk 05:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. RomeoVoid 06:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Lbbzman 20:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed votes:

  1. 199.111.225.136 12:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anonymous votes considered invalid, see above. —Wikiacc • 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I know music isn't a priority to most Wikipedia editors, but I think one of the few good songwriters deserves a decent article. Carolaman 19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John McLaughlin (musician) (1 vote, stays until March 6)[edit]

Nominated February 27, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by March 6, 2006
Support
  1. Mkaycomputer 23:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • John McLaughlin, major and influential guitarist, incredibly influential to jazz fusion, key player in the birth of jazz fusion. This article has a lot of unorganized data, no pictures, and can be much better, considering his stature. I don't have the tools nor the time to edit this into a featured article, so I am calling upon you to consider this as an important option. Mkaycomputer 23:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creedence Clearwater Revival (5 votes, stays until May 6)[edit]

Nominated April 22, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 6, 2006
Support
  1. RENTAFOR LET? 18:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 14:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hestemand 19:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RomeoVoid 00:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --RockyMM 21:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • An important band that has produced many great songs. This band I belive had the most top ten hits without a #1, which sort of was a gyp, like the article. We should have it be AID. It needs it. RENTAFOR LET? 18:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Doherty (3 votes, stays until April 2)[edit]

Nominated March 26, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 2, 2006
Support
  1. Super Ted 15:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. OneVeryBadMan 00:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. youcantstandme 23:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Article is on a popular British musician. Doherty gets frequent media coverage which means a lot is known about him. However, its difficult to sort the wheat from the chaf and create an encyclopaedic article. I've been doing my best over the past few weeks, increasing amount of information in certain sections, implementing referencing etc. However, i'm finding the job is too large to tackle single handedly. I feel that this could be a very interesting featured article if sufficient time is dedicated to its development. Super Ted 15:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need more music related FA's on Wikipedia... Osbus 20:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Bandstand (3 votes, stays until March 10)[edit]

Nominated February 24, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 10, 2006
Support
  1. RomeoVoid 03:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. youngamerican (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 05:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Horrible article for such a important show. American Bandstand was the first show to have lip synched performances by popular musicians, preceding Top of the Pops, Beat Club, Ed Sullivan Show, etc., and was huge in the 50, and 60s. It's a big part of American culture, and needs to be improved, considering that a number of less important shows have better articles (MacGyver, Moonlighting, The A-Team). RomeoVoid 23:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rush (3 votes, stays until March 28)[edit]

Nominated March 21, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 28, 2006
Support
  1. Dan M 03:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RJH 15:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. RomeoVoid 01:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is an great band that I believe just needs that extra push to become a featured article.
  • Oppose. Sorry to start off on a negative, but this article should be very low priority relative to others.--James 22:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A more interesting nom. than many in here. Thanks. — RJH 15:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it shouldn't have low priority. Rush is an important band that deserved a featured article. RomeoVoid 01:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Seasons (Vivaldi) (4 votes, stays until June 4)[edit]

Nominated May 21, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by June 4, 2006
Support
  1. -- Drini 03:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Twenex 17:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. RexNL 21:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sophy's Duckling 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is one of the major works of Baroque music, probably the most recorded concerto. Yet the entry is almost a quote of poems (which should be at wikisource), links to media files and many subjective prose: "The Four Seasons are superb tone opems".

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (19 votes, stays until June 4)[edit]

Nominated April 30, 2006; needs at least 20 votes by June 4, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 17:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. estavisti 05:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. helix 16:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Funper 20:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Noetica 07:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. nkayesmith 23:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. M A Mason 14:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ♠ SG →Talk 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. CrnaGora 21:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shawnc 10:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Melaen 16:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Espresso Addict 02:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Lakinekaki 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Lukobe 19:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Stevage 15:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Henk65 17:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 08:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 18:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed votes
  1. ColtsMelloBR 04:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 16:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC) (no other contributions)[reply]
Comments
  • Surely, in the 250th anniversary of the great man's birth, the article for Mozart should be elevated to Featured status. Paul James Cowie 17:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently this article was once a Featured Article, but fell by the wayside..... Let's get it back to where it belongs! Paul James Cowie 17:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 250 years, and widely regarded was one of the best composers of all time. It has my vote. ♠ SG →Talk 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is now in pretty good shape, being regularly maintained and polished by several competent editors. It is quite comprehensive, and well furnished with appropriate links and references; its comparative level of accuracy is certainly quite high, now. Noetica 07:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "fell by the wayside....." What do you mean? How can a Featured article degrade? Doesn't Wikipedia ensure that articles don't deteriorate instead of improve? Mandel 20:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the article hasn't degraded, but it was promoted to a featured article long ago, under a previous set of less stringent criteria, and it was felt that it no longer quite matched up to the featured article current criteria. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lordi (3 votes, stays until May 28)[edit]

Nominated May 21, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 28, 2006
Support
  1. Manwe 22:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Twenex 17:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vashti 09:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I think that users from Finland will be able to contribute to this greatly! Lordi simply deserves it--Manwe 22:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be frank, I think there are more important things to concern ourselves with. --Tothebarricades 06:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why bother making an improvment drive on this article? As the person above said, there are more important things to spend our time cleaning up. --Skaterblo 06:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Literature[edit]

Greek literature (16 votes, stays until September 6)[edit]

Nominated July 26 2005; needs at least 18 votes by September 6 2005
Support:
  1. Eric Forste (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. the wub "?/!" 10:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Maurreen (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vladdraculdragon 16:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Osu8907 04:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fenice 08:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sesel 06:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Singing Badger 21:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. shuri 07:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Renata3 05:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Encephalon | ζ | Σ 18:20:42, 2005-08-12 (UTC)
  12. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Syrae Faileas 21:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --geraki 15:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --TWaye 08:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Whitejay251 17:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This is just a list of links to articles on individual pieces of Greek literature. We can do better than this, can't we? --Eric Forste (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Amaterasu (3 votes, stays until April 16)[edit]

Nominated April 9, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 16, 2006
Support
  1. elvenscout742 10:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BorgQueen 14:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sarge Baldy 09:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article is neither long nor detailed. Given that she is one of the only non-Christian, non-Classical, non-Hindu to be known by a majority of non-specialised Westerners (everyone knows that the Japanese Emperor claimed descent from the Sun Goddess up until WWII), I think she deserves better. elvenscout742 10:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgamesh (2 votes, stays until April 11)[edit]

Nominated April 4, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 11, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 21:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sicilianmandolin 21:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Currently a focus of interest on the ANE-2 discussion list. Gilgamesh, as one of the great hero-kings of Mesopotamian history, as one of the first great characters in recorded human literature, and as a focus of early mythology, is certainly a figure worthy of a Featured Article. Paul James Cowie 21:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe this nomination should be merged with the nomination for Epic of Gilgamesh above? ClarkBHM 22:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea (1 vote, stays until June 12)[edit]

Nominated June 5, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by June 12, 2006
Support
  1. Felixboy 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • One of the most popular pieces of literature by a most popular author. This article does not have a good critical response section, it needs more pictures and a better plot synopsis as well as its effect in popular media and, how it affected many views on science at the time it was written.

Night (book) (1 vote, stays until June 3)[edit]

Nominated May 27, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by June 3, 2006
Support
  1. Mkaycomputer 03:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The Holocaust was one of the worst events in human history. As more and more survivors die, and powerful figures like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rise to deny it, I still can't find any Holocaust-related featured articles. Night, one of the most powerful memoirs and recollections of the Holocaust, written by an extremely important survivor, is already a well written article, with good analysis, picture choice, referencing, etc. Even on a site like Wikipedia, it wouldn't change the world if we featured a holocaust related article. But the little things matter, and we need to think about what really is important. I know I could contribute greatly to this article, but time constraints disallow me to do as I please. I beseech you all to give what is possible to this article by voting and contributing, and also to Wikipedia's Holocaust related articles, for in this day in age, it may be more important to learn about to a full, featured extent, rather than a Beatles song, or a classic video game. Mkaycomputer 03:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a non-notable book. Skinnyweed 21:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction (5 votes, stays until March 28)[edit]

Nominated March 14, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 28, 2006
Support
  1. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 @ 20:01 (UTC)
  2. CaveatLector | Talk 02:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vir 17:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moriane 18:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Scottwiki 02:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • It is absolutely appalling how bare-bones this article is. Fiction is an extremely important concept that needs immediate attention; the article provides some basic description but has nothing about the impact of fiction on anything. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 @ 20:01 (UTC)


Hyperspace (science fiction) (5 votes, stays until March 3)[edit]

Nominated February 16, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 3, 2006
Support
  1. Davidpk212 19:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aerobird 02:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DanielCD 05:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Steven 23:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --SpacemanAfrica 19:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • NEEDS cleaning up. I have been attempting to do so for several months without success. Davidpk212 19:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Starting with articles nominated in August, at least four votes will be needed each week to stay active on the list of nominations.

Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner (4 votes, stays until November 7, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 24, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 7, 2005
Support
  1. Litefantastic 00:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 01:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Waltwe 13:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carabinieri 17:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Fan fiction (3 votes, stays until March 4)[edit]

Nominated February 25, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 11, 2006
Support
  1. Litefantastic 00:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aerobird 15:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hurdygurdyman1234 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

A significant topic, which was a previous AID article a long way back. It's a massive, poorly-organized article currently on cleanup. Think of it as a diamond in the rough. -Litefantastic 00:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Importance of topic is marginal at best. Barely any more important than Homer Simpson, another trivial topic that already receives too much attention and would be a waste of a week to focus Wikipedia's valuable and skilled editors' attention on. Too many other articles on major, thousands-of-years-old and culturally vital literary forms and movements are in much worse shape than this article, and those are much, much less likely to receive (much-needed) heavy attention than this article is, since there are many more people interested in fanfiction on Wikipedia than who are interested in, for example, poetry (which, as a former featured article on a massively important topic that's in truly terrible shape, would make a fantastic! AID candidate). The purpose of AID isn't just to nominate articles on topics that are in mediocre shape and popular (if they're that popular, they probably don't need AID, just more skilled editors on the job!), but to nominate articles that are truly vital for any encyclopedia to have in-depth coverage of, but aren't receiving the amount of attention they desperately need. Significance and name-recognition are not the same thing. I'm not saying that this is a terrible candidate for AID, just that there are too many thousands of more important (and much worse-off) articles to worry about right now for this one to waste our time. -Silence 06:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't tell me what the rules of AID are, Silence. I helped write them. -Litefantastic 23:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did I even once mention the rules of AID? I never said that this wasn't a valid nomination, I said it was a bad idea because there are hundreds of worthier candidates in worse shape. It's similar to Homer Simpson and John Seigenthaler Sr. in that way: it may get a lot of votes because it's a hot-topic among Wikipedians, but it's not encyclopedically significant enough, or in terrible enough condition, to justify spending a whole week on it when articles like Poetry, Human, Asia, Rome, and Life are in as bad or even worse shape, and are much less likely to receive the attention they need without an organized and deliberate effort. If you want an example of an article I opposed because of not adhering to AID's rules, see pop art; this one and that one could hardly be more different. Also, I find your "I helped write them." to be a rather bizarre (not to mention arrogant, regardless of your excellent contributions to AID) declaration as well. This is a discussion of the article topic's AID merits and the article content's quality, not of the nominator's experience or reputation. When Raul564, who moderates Featured Article Candidates, nominated one of his own for Featuring (and later renominated it), he didn't freak out and start trying to use his status to push the article through, and didn't try to change the discussion from being about the article to being about the person nominating the article when his nominations hit snags (and eventually failed), as you have attempted to do with your above comment. I recommend following his example. -Silence 06:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I recommend that you vote 'yes' on Vote #2 on the talk page; it proposes to increase throughput on the AID. -Litefantastic 00:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English drama (2 votes, stays until March 4)[edit]

Nominated February 26, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by March 4, 2006
Support
  1. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caponer 05:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Humanities topics like this are what we need to improve. A quick random glance at this article makes it look all right - relatively long, nice images, and so on. But a closer look shows that it's a jumble of unorganized information, mostly name-dropping/"play-dropping", and by and large very poorly written. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this article is specifically about drama in the United Kingdom/Britain, not about all drama in the English language, I recommend nominating this for the fortnightly United Kingdom Collaboration of the Week. It's not quite noteworthy or in-big-trouble enough to necessitate a general AID, in my view (Instead, why doesn't someone nominate play for AID or CotW? It's a stub, for god's sake! Drama would be great too!), but a UKCotW could give it the attention it needs, and would have a much better chance of being successful. -Silence 06:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Name of the Rose (2 votes, stays until March 15)[edit]

Nominated March 8, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 15, 2006
Support
  1. BorgQueen 23:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • An encyclopedic work of Umberto Eco. Given its complexity and scope certainly more stuff can be added. In my native country this book was a huge bestseller and is still selling, and I've seen plenty of articles written about the book. The film adaptation - starring Sean Connery - wasn't very well liked if I remember correctly, nevertheless the book remains a true classic of all time. --BorgQueen 23:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Cubitus (1 vote, stays until April 1)[edit]

Nominated March 25, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 1, 2006
Support
  1. Jonas Liljeström 20:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I strongly suspect that most of the text in this article has probably been translated from French with Babelfish or some similar device, as it is jumbled to the point of being unintelligible. Judging by the looks of it, it is also quite possible that it has sustained downright vandalism at some point. It needs some heavy editing in my opinion. There are many other ways in which its quality could be enhanced, for example by adding illustrations. It should at least be upgraded to "good article" status IMO. I would do it myself but I haven't got time due to my work, so perhaps someone else would be willing and able to give it a shot? Jonas Liljeström 20:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese mythology (15 votes, stays until April 3)[edit]

Nominated February 27, 2006; needs at least 18 votes by April 3, 2006
Support
  1. jacoplane 23:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lux 02:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hong Qi Gong 16:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moonstone 01:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Revolución hablar ver 03:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jdcooper 19:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ugur Basak 00:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BlueShirts 10:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Steven 22:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Jazriel 18:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. pm_shef 01:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Phileas 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Johnleemk | Talk 21:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 04:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Silence 17:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The article is mainly a list. There is an aweful lot of work that can be done here. jacoplane 23:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian literature (7 votes, stays until April 8)[edit]

Nominated March 25, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 8, 2006
Support
  1. Carabinieri 13:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sicilianmandolin 21:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 04:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Un sogno modesto 07:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Caponer 02:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Rikimaru 12:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Very long article, which could easily be turned into an FA, with inline citations,redoing a few section, and adding images.--Carabinieri 13:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tragic hero (2 votes, stays until April 8)[edit]

Nominated April 1, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 8, 2006
Support
  1. CaveatLectorTalk 19:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Osbus 00:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • By and large, this article bases itself on a misconcieved premise of Aristotle's "tragic flaw." Aristotle's Greek does not suggest a character flaw, but rather a misguided action (hamartia, literally "missing the mark") that the tragic hero takes. In light of that, the entire article should be worked on to reflect the history of the developement of the tragic hero. CaveatLectorTalk 19:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biography[edit]

John III of Portugal (10 votes, stays until August 10)[edit]

Nominated July 13 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 10 2005
Reason
The article is in serious need of attention, notably wording and images. The objective is to make it a featured article, and to stop the "English monopoly" of featured articles regarding kings. The material is there but it was translated from Portuguese, it just needs some grammar cleanup. I believe that giving this article more publicity can drastically improve it from the current state it is in.--Gameiro 00:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support:
  1. Gameiro 00:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 06:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DiamondDave 18:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  4. -Pedro 21:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. LordAmeth 23:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Eric Forste 01:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Gito 11:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Carioca 01:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  10. siafu 21:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • There is no monopoly - anyone can list any article on FAC.--Fenice 06:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. I was just trying to motivate. Glad you're helping. Thanks.--Gameiro 12:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is already FAC worthy. It needs a better Portuguese flag of that time. take this as a example: [1]. it is from the Ministry of Defense, I don't know if it is public domain.-Pedro 21:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Johann Gutenberg (11 votes, stays until August 23)[edit]

Nominated July 26 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 23 2005
Support:
  1. Rich Farmbrough 15:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jacoplane 23:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Eric Forste (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Bensaccount 16:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fenice 08:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. siafu 21:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Renata3 05:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. DiamondDave 09:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Ben T/C
  11. JoanneB 14:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Very important character in the development of printing. Article is a mish-mash. Needs and is worth some work. Rich Farmbrough 15:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is a very important figure in World History. By inventing the bookprint he changed a lot. Life magazine considers this event as the most important of the second millenium. In the book The 100 he is considered being the eights most influential person in history after Muhammed, Isaac Newton, Jesus, etc. --Ben T/C 07:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ali Khamenei (11 votes, stays until August 25)[edit]

Nominated August 4 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 25 2005
Reason:

Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not someone I admire, but he is someone who has a lot of history. He has been president or supreme leader of Iran since 1981, and he has a relatively small article. This can and should be expanded and improved.

Support:
  1. Osu8907 23:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sesel 06:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AllanHainey 07:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jacoplane 09:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FrisoHoltkamp 10:10, 5 August 2005 (GMT +1)
  6. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maurreen (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. siafu 21:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. *drew 00:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. naryathegreat | (talk) 00:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  11. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 03:10, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
  • Seeing as how there's a good chance Khamenei will be in the news a lot more in the coming months, it would be good to have a solid article now. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 03:10, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Franz Kafka (9 votes, stays until August 25)[edit]

Nominated August 4 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 25 2005
Support:
  1. Prometheus912 23:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sarge Baldy 03:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  3. shuri 08:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fenice 09:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dom 12:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:08:17, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
  7. Iburneditdown 00:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Renata3 05:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --TWaye 09:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Removed votes:
  1. 149.101.1.126 19:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • One of the most important writers of the 20th century, it'd be nice to see this one jazzed up. Sarge Baldy 03:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, and it probably won't take too much time to fix this article up. —149.101.1.126 19:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama (2 votes, stays until September 1)[edit]

Nominated August 25, 2005; needs at least 4 votes by September 1, 2005
Support:
  1. Falphin 23:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hottentot 00:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This had previously been a BioCOTW, and did pretty good, but it would be neat to get this article within the reach of FAC's. Falphin 23:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Beecher Stowe (1 vote, stays until September 7)[edit]

Nominated August 31 2005; needs at least 4 votes by September 7, 2005
Support:
  1. --Revolución (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • She was a very important abolitionist writer. --Revolución (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vasco da Gama (9 votes, stays until September 20)[edit]

Nominated August 30 2005; needs at least 12 votes by September 20, 2005
Support:
  1. Gameiro 19:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. *drew 21:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Pedro 01:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jcw69 --Jcw69 06:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. utcursch | talk 10:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  6. The Ogre 11:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yosri 10:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Brutannica 04:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Malafaya 11:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 200.225.90.7 17:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Such an important historic figure must have a far better article. Gameiro 21:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • personally I agree, it is very disorganized. How about starting an Article Improvement Drive on Portugal-related subjects? There are AID for Poland, Hong-Kong, etc. English would be the main problem, but there are some Portuguese-Americans in wikipedia... and other native wikipedians could also help... If Poles have an improvement drive so can we. -Pedro 01:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • forget it, those coloborations are not very active. -Pedro 02:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I might mention that he may become the next Biography Collab of the Week. Falphin 15:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed he is now the biography collaboration of the week! Excellent news for Vasco, he should probably be removed from this list now to best distribute collaboration manpower I take it? --Fxer 23:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

William Murdoch (1 vote, stays until 3 October 2005)[edit]

Nominated 26 September 2005; needs at least 3 votes by 3 October, 2005
Support:
  1. AllanHainey 12:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • William Murdoch is an often overlooked figure in industrial history; invented gas lighting, sun & planets gear, built a steam locomotive & more. I've written most of this article & would like some help in getting it to featured article status AllanHainey 12:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claude-François-Dorothée, marquis de Jouffroy d'Abbans (2 vote, stays until October 20, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 13, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 20, 2005
Support:
  1. Waltwe 23:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AllanHainey 13:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Important French inventor. The article is too short.

Hillside Strangler (3 votes, stays until October 25, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 11, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by October 25, 2005
Support:
  1. Fxer 02:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Spawn Man 05:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC), Definitely a must-expand![reply]
  3. ZeWrestler Talk 00:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina (3 votes, stays until October 27, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 13, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by October 27, 2005
Support:
  1. Waltwe 23:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gareth Hughes 15:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kaycubs 23:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • One of the most important and influential composers, contributed to the Roman Catholic church music. His page should be expanded.

John Prescott (4 votes, stays until November 1, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 18, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 1, 2005
Support:
  1. Hahnchen 17:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 15:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GhostGirl 01:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AllanHainey 13:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Deputy Prime Minister of the UK, has a very long history in politics, and is a controversial figure. Yet the article is barely beyond a stub, can be expanded to at least the length of the Gordon Brown article, most probably even further.
  • Certain to fail here and would be better off nominated at Wikipedia:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board/UKCOTW.
  • This is very USA centred so the above comment is probably right, nonetheless we can but try. Frankly I'm amazed there isn't more about him punching that bloke in 2001.

Caravaggio (8 votes, stays until November 4, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 14, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by November 4, 2005
Support:
  1. KingTT 15:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Waltwe 18:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Palladian 07:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PalX 15:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Robin.rueth 09:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Reflex Reaction 20:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. anetode ¹ ² ³ 05:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Litefantastic 17:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Featured article in French. An important and influental Baroque painter, yet his article is in dire need of a rewrite. Some parts need expansion, and the pictures and lists need to be implemented better. KingTT 15:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have improved a bit with recent changes. KingTT 14:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Gould (6 votes, stays until November 6, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 16, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by November 6, 2005
Support:
  1. cohesion | talk 07:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Palladian 07:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This would be an ideal featured article. Very influential musician Fawcett5 15:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Gareth Hughes 15:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Waltwe 13:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • He is an important musician, and the wording right now isn't that great in a lot of areas. cohesion | talk 07:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Marx (4 votes, stays until November 14, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 31, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 14, 2005
Support:
  1. Carabinieri 22:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 19:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Waltwe 11:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Marx was one of the most influential philosophers of the modern age. His economic analysis is not only respected by communists and socialists but also by capitalists. He definately deserves a FA.--Carabinieri 22:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I failing to see some gaping hole in the article at present? With an article as notable as Marx's, and already of seemingly good quality, I'd say the best way to get this to FA status would be to try an FAC now and see what feedback is generated. Harro5 04:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several short sections and short paragraphs in the article, which will probably spark concern in the FAC. FAC is not meant for comments, WP:Peer review is meant for that.
  • The biographical part of the article is much too short, his philosophical/political views are in the biographical section,--Carabinieri 20:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (8 votes, stays until November 19, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 29, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by November 19, 2005
Support:
  1. Waltwe 12:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 13:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -Irmgard 17:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carabinieri 17:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ZeWrestler Talk 18:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Brendanconway20:55, 30th October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Smmurphy 22:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Zoso 13:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Could be expanded, has a potential to become a FA.
  • I could contribute with translations from German Wikipedia which has some more sections --Irmgard 17:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzy Osbourne (3 votes, stays until December 3, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 19, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by December 3, 2005
Support:
  1. Wackymacs 23:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Waltwe 22:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Carolaman 10:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Certainly deserves to be at featured article status. Pretty shameful article, needs lots of improvement. — Wackymacs 23:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Horrible article. Really needs improvement. Carolaman 10:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sports personalities[edit]

Dan Marino (1 vote, stays until December 23, 2005)[edit]

Nominated December 16, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 23, 2005
Support
  1. Jaranda wat's sup 00:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article so far in my opinion is a joke. Dan Marino is one of the greatest NFL of all time but it's mostly the normal basics, too much lists, and some fancruft in the article. The article needs better respect than this. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movies[edit]

Henry Fonda (2 votes, stays until August 2)[edit]

Nominated 26 July 2005; needs at least 3 votes by August 2 2005
Support:
  1. A Link to the Past 23:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Volatile 23:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • A popular and well-known actor. While it's of a decent size, there's so much more to be said about the man. -- A Link to the Past 23:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

John Wayne (2 vote, stays until June 2)[edit]

Nominated May 26, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by June 2, 2006
Support
  1. RJH (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Davodd 03:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The Duke is one of the most revered and prolific movie actors ever. This should definitely be turned into a good article. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qin Shi Huang (4 votes, stays until January 19)[edit]

Nominated January 5, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 19, 2006
Support
  1. elvenscout742 23:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 07:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moonstone 21:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wikiacc • § 17:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Article is simply not of the quality that would be expected of an impartial encyclopedia article on the man who was essentially founder of the oldest and greatest civiliztion on earth. Not especially extensive or well-written, and puts an unusual emphasis on "Qin Shi Huang in fiction". elvenscout742 23:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Loyd (1 vote, stays until January 29)[edit]

Nominated January 22, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by January 29, 2006
Support
  1. King of Hearts | (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article about an extremely significant puzzle author is lacking in information. It needs a decent biography and a general summary of his works. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar (2 votes, stays until February 8 2006)[edit]

Nominated February 1, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by February 8, 2006
Support
  1. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Wikiacc • • ∞ 23:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • One of the most important emperors in World History. But our article needs the AID touch. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Seigenthaler Sr. (36 votes, stays until March 9)[edit]

Nominated December 8, 2005; needs at least 39 votes by March 9, 2006
Support
  1. Wackymacs 15:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ed 17:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Larsinio 22:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newguineafan 01:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 04:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Pepsidrinka 15:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Dvyost 17:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 20:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. zenohockey 05:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutralitytalk 01:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. American Patriot 1776 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Histmaven 16:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Carabinieri 18:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Imperialles 14:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 172 23:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. DMurphy 15:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Iamvered 20:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Pschemp | Talk 08:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Poppypetty 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Caponer 00:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Jhohenzollern 02:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Skurrkrow 06:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. zachjones4 17:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Vir 17:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Rokafela 04:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. TwilaStar 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Afrosheen 01:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC) (NOTE: Looking at the similar User Contributions histories -- note the shared West Virginia interest -- of Afrosheen, Rokafela, and SpandX, I suspect sockpuppetry is afoot. Thoughts? Andrew Levine 08:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  29. Mikker ... 07:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Vanguard 13:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 20:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 00:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. --Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 19:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Terence Ong 10:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. NuncAutNunquam 14:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. RJH 18:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested votes
  1. User:SpandX has less than 50 edits, and the vast majority are on AIDs of various kinds. I contest this vote. I'm not removing it, but it smells very funny. --DanielCD 15:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the note I posted next to Afrosheen's vote. Andrew Levine 16:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I missed that. However, I'm going to leave this comment here for now. --DanielCD 16:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should be looked into, as a week's worth of the community's energy and input is not something trivial, even though some think it to be. If these votes are removed, the status should also be called into question as these may have been added to unfairly prevent it from being dropped. --DanielCD 16:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I haven't been on Wikipedia in awhile, I was surprised to notice the recent attention I've recieved. It's appreciated, really. I am not an active contributor, so I realize my edits to AID vote ratio is skewed for that reason. To quelch the debate, I'm removing my vote. SpandX 18:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed votes
  1. Rampart 22:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gflores Talk 20:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (rm my vote. article has improved greatly Talk 15:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  3. Bob124 00:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC) (removed by --Steven 00:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)) I removed this vote due to the fact this member did not make any contributions other then voting for this one nomination. This makes the member similar in status as a non-registered member[reply]
  4. Toonmon2005 02:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)(removed by Toonmon2005 21:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)) I changed my mind about this article. I'm joining the crowd at the other side of the fence.[reply]
  5. Kaldari 05:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC) (article has improved significantly since nomination)[reply]
  6. BorgQueen 22:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC) - I've removed my vote.[reply]
  7. SpandX 18:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC) - I've removed my vote.[reply]
Comments
  • It'll make him happy since he complained about Wikipedia (and had a right to!) — Wackymacs 15:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err... I doubt that fixing this article will redeem wikipedia in the eyes of the critics. Although it may mollify J.S. slightly. :) — RJH 22:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sick of Wikipedia being attacked...I hope an Article Improvement Drive helps!! -Newguineafan 01:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Half of me says "this is a great idea! what an amusing and clever way to show the reason Wikipedia is a project with so much potential despite its brief setbacks!", and half of me says "this is a terrible idea! it shows a profound pro-Wiki bias that we would go to such efforts to cover our own tracks and put a higher priority on "atoning" and making ourselves look good than on focusing on articles on truly major and vitally important topics that are much more neglected than this article currently is!" So, I'm on the fence on this one.
  • Overall, my thought is: anyone who cares enough about Wikipedia's public image should feel free to work on improving this article, but it shouldn't be one of the weekly article improvement drives; there are too many other topics that are hundreds of times more important for us to spend time on, and in any case going to such lengths for Wikipedia's public image could easily backfire by bringing even more attention to what is really a pretty trivial event that the media blew far out of proportion. In 10 years, it will barely be worthy of a section, much less a distinct article; which is not to say that having coverage of it now is a bad thing, just that it's not something for the Article Improvement Drive.
  • There are entire civilizations and spans of millennia, people and ideas that have changed the history of mankind forever, fundamental scientific and mathematical principles that require good coverage to gain any understanding of our very universe and of existence itself, all with articles so poor that if they appeared in any printed work that work would be laughed off the market forever and become useful only as a party gag. There are thousands of such topics for us to worry about, and we go for this article just because some vandal happened to play around with it? What a victory for vandalism that would be! "Man, let's keep this up and see if we can start another news controversy and gain even more influence over Wikipedia's inner workings..." It's just not worth all this trouble. We're an encyclopedia, not a self-image-obsessed media whore, remember?
  • On the other hand, it is a neat idea. So, I say go for it on an individual level; just don't make it some big community quest using the AID. -Silence 08:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do feel sympathetic to what you are saying, however, at this particular moment in time Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community have egg on their face. If we can work together to redeem Wikipedia in the eyes of the public (even in a rather shallow and media-centric way) that may have a more beneficial long-term effect than working on any other particular article, no matter how fundamentally important it is. If no one takes Wikipedia seriously anyway, what good will it do to have a great article on History of the World? Kaldari 22:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is exactly why this collaboration is a terrible idea. Wikipedia will never be able to be taken seriously if it focuses on its self-image more than on its content. Plus, in fact, the current article on John Seigenthaler Sr. is already very good! Bringing it up to Featured Article quality is completely unnecessary, and amounts to a media stunt ("Hey! Look, media! That article that started this controversy is really good now! See? We really are awesome! ... Be our friends?"). Nothing more, nothing less. Wikipedia should strive to improve its good image by improving the actual content of its vitally-imporatnt articles, not by bowing to the demands of media muckrakers. That's where we are truly in danger of losing our credibility: in the thousands of articles on Wikipedia that are far worse than they should be considering the importance of the subject matter. Wikipedia is already far too fixated on its self-image as-is, leading to a great degradation in actual article quality; more of our Featured Articles look very pretty, but glaring flaws and silly errors are inevitable in just about all of them. Our encyclopedia content should be, now and forever, our number-one concern and focus in "Article Improvement Drive"—we are an encyclopedia, not a public relations firm. -Silence 07:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's thinking like that that causes the horrible hair-styling of politicians today. Content/ideas isn't everything. Image is important for reputation, which counts for something if you want anyone to listen to you or try out your encyclopedia. Otherwise you just end up with those who are wise enough to realize that image isn't everything, which isn't a lot of people. --Schwael 15:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um? You don't think politicians are superficial enough? You think they're too concerned with truly important issues and with doing a good job, and not enough with just appealing to the media with cheap publicity stunts and "hairstyles"? You're an extremely strange person. Unusually for me, that's not entirely a compliment in this case. I'd rather have an extremely unpopular encyclopedia that's amazingly useful and has lots of great content, than a hugely popular encyclopedia with minimal content and usefulness. Popularity is a means, not an end, and in this case actually working on the enyclopedia itself and its countless neglected vital topics is much more important than sucking up to the media. To continue your metaphor: getting a haircut's all well and good, and a shave probably wouldn't hurt either, but considering that Wikipedia has lung cancer, AIDS, syphillus, and leprosy right now, I think we should handle the major surgery issues first, and worry about the rest down the line (or do it on outside of the "Article Improvement Drive" field, which is specifically designed to improve important Wikipedia articles for the sake of Wikipedia's content, not just for the sake of its appearance). -Silence 21:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still, media is one of Wikipedia's major recruitment venues. Blows to our image such as the Seigenthaler case might drive away knowledgeable would-be-editors. Anyway, this article is already excellent, and should not take the AID spot from an article that needs it desperately. --Imperialles 15:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per comments above. Media attention has made this article pretty good already. The only effect AIDing it will have is to direct more disproportionate public attention to it; it's just too lame an effort to do something like this so late on. Let's focus on making Wikipedia more useful, i.e. AID an important topic. BigBlueFish 14:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's important for Wikipedia to address this issue. Sure, you can say that Siegenthaler doesn't himself deserve a featured article, but it's definitely a better choice than Homer Simpson. --DMurphy 15:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're not debating whether to AID Homer Simpson. This is Seigenthaler versus the Cold War, contact lenses, frogs and more. I'd never heard of this guy before, and when I do he already has a much more detailed article than is proportional, even than some of the candidates on this page. Putting this article on the Article Improvement Drive is nonsense. BigBlueFish 18:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My mistake, I didn't realise Homer had been nominated. That doesn't justify this nomination though. BigBlueFish 18:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think John has taken up enough of our time...Stevage 15:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I "oppose" this nomination as well. You might even say it's in violation of WP:POINT. The guy really isn't that notable, and giving him a featured article to show him up seems like a pretty sad idea. His article has already taken too much attention away from worthy topics. Sarge Baldy 11:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Let's make room for proper topics people actually come to an encyclopedia for. With so many important articles needing work, I think it's ridiculous to be AIDing this. It will be an entire week lost as far as I am concerned. We need to make room for oppose votes in this project. --DanielCD 23:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take it you didn't read the section about "opposing votes are not counted"? At best you may discourage a few voters who might otherwise have jumped in... :-) — RJH 19:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yea, I'm quite aware of that, and that's the idea. Hence the "We need to make room for oppose votes in this project" comment. --DanielCD 20:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those who vote for an article are expected to contribute to it. Those who don't vote are free to ignore it. Hence, since only those who favor the article count in terms of the end result, I see little or no value in measuring the total opposition. :) — RJH 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps so. But it certainly makes me feel better. ;-P --DanielCD 00:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose: This article has alteady had sufficient attention.... I foresee hardly anybody making any substantive contributons to it this week if it goes AID.... Let's get to grips with some real articles of wide merit and stop wasting time!!
  • Wow Seeing stuff like this up for AID when so many other things are needing attention is just not cool. Why? --Shadow Puppet 07:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Why are so many people wasting their time on this? Is anyone out there doing research on Mr. Seigenthaler that is going to require more than is already in the article? Of all the articles up for AID, this is, in my opinion, the worst candidate of them all. If you want to work on it, fine. But, please, don't waste precious AID time on it. PDXblazers 18:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. This is indeed a poor candidate (though at this point it's received enough votes that I don't especially care whether it's AIDed or not, since there's clearly enough interest that it would be very beneficial to the article, and I'm honestly curious as to what areas of the article people think could be dramatically improved...), but there are much worse ones currently listed, in my view: Pop art (stub, belongs on CotW), Homer Simpson (infinitely less important to pop culture than its parent article, The Simpsons, and already receives a huge amount of attention from hundreds of editors on a regular basis due to being a pop-culture fixture, making AID, which is usually meant to help bring attention to relatively under-visited, but highly important, articles, redundant.), for starters, not to mention the numerous articles listed here that are less significant and in no worse shape than their parent articles (recycling v. paper recycling, history of Iran v. Iran, West Virginia v. United States of America, etc.). I'm probably splitting hairs, though; most of the nominations on AID would make great articles to work on. -Silence 22:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: There's been enough attention on this article already, let's focus on making some of the lesser-known articles better to increase the 'pedia's standard as a whole. TheRealAntonius 10:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per TheRealAntonius Juppiter 03:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is going to get a week's wasted attention while Mussel below is going to be put out in a day. Where are the priorities around here? I strongly protest this wasteful use of the AID system and strongly encourage people to remove their votes from this. --DanielCD 15:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the plus side, you'll be free to go work on articles that you think matter. Why is everybody so control-freaky about this? :-) — RJH 15:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Putting the patronizing aspect of your comment aside: Because it does matter and concerns more than just myself. And I also know people are as free to ignore my opinion as I am to express it. --DanielCD 16:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You decidedly missed my intent. But no matter. Have a good one. :) — RJH 18:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article covers the topic well, is neat, tidy, fairly-well written, and immaculately referenced. Put it up for Peer Review. It just doesn't need any special attention, and I don't think much can be done to improve it (at least not with energy that could be much better spent elsewhere). --DanielCD 16:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose This article has had a lot of time wasted on it, and I don't think that it's worth it. At least it expires March 9!JoshuaArgent 05:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Earnhardt (4 votes, stays until March 12)[edit]

Nominated February 26, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 12, 2006
Support
  1. --Jaranda wat's sup 03:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aerobird 15:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --RA64 17:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cooleyez229 09:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Horrible article on one of the most popular American athletes and clearly the most legendary NASCAR driver of all time, filled with likely copyvios and some horrible writing and lack of images. The Earnhardt article needs much more respect than this. --Jaranda wat's sup 03:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never again insult athletes by trying to call a NASCAR driver an athlete. And driving a car around in circles isn't a sport. It takes talent, yes, but it certainly isn't a sport. PDXblazers 07:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides the fact that this comment is ridiculously out of place and completely irrelevant, most would argue that a sport is a competition involving a physical skill. This includes activities such as auto racing and billiards. Yes, some sports are more demanding then others, but to believe that considering a NASCAR racer an athlete is an insult to other athletes is absolutely ludicrous. On top of that, NASCAR racing is actually a relatively physically demanding sport, as races are often non-stop, 3-4 hours long. Should I argue that baseball is not a sport and baseball players are an insult to other athletes because they just stand around for 90% of the time? --RA64 06:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the Olympic committee, chess is a sport, so you're picking the wrong battle here, my friend. And the wrong place. This is for discussing the article's merits as an AID candidate, not arguing over semantical trivialities. -Silence 07:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support upgrading this article, on THE most recognised race-car driver on the planet, and one of the most recognised atheletes in the world. - Aerobird 15:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the world or in the United States? I have heard of a lot of athletes, and am interested in a wide range of sports, but I have never even heard of this person. Compared to the vast majority of articles nominated here, this guy is utterly non-notable. Rome? Iran? Oppose Jdcooper 02:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never heard of Kemal Atatürk, does that mean he's non-notable too? This guy is probably in the top 5 of best known racecar drivers in the United States. That should be notable enough. Would you consider Jim Clark non-notable? I wouldn't.--RA64 06:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, because one look at the Kemal Ataturk article and it is clearly obvious that he is very notable. The fact that this guy is only in the top 5 best known racing drivers, and most importantly, only in the United States implies to me that this article shouldn't waste the time of such a valuable WP resource as AID. I would consider Jim Clark non-notable as well, when compared to Rome and Iran. Its a case of priorities. Jdcooper 16:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand your logic about priorities. But your criteria for notability seems very subjective. “one look at the Kemal Ataturk article and it is clearly obvious that he is very notable”?? Sorry, that’s a pretty weak argument. The six million google hits for dale earnhardt is enough notable to me. Right now people that view the dale earnhardt article (which is listed in the top 10 google results) will be treated to a cluttered mess of fan propaganda. This is IMO, unacceptable and an embarrassment for wikipedia if a guy as notable as Dale Earnhardt has such a poorly written article! BTW, are you going to vote oppose for John McLaughlin too?--RA64 22:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't need to, since that article only has one vote, and I can't see it staying for too many weeks. Re: Kemal Ataturk, he is notable for a person, and as an important statesman in 20th century history a case could be made to put him at AID, but I havn't voted support for him either, because even that article isn't as important to improve as those such as Rome. Compared to a racing driver who is only marginally known outside of America, someone such as Ataturk who has had a great effect on the make-up of a very important country like Turkey is very notable. Re: Google, the same could be said of thousands and thousands of articles, wikipedia ranks highly for many searches on google, and many of our articles aren't fantastic. Eventually we will doubtlessly get around to improving all of them, but for now it is important to sort out the most important stuff. Still, it doesn't particularly matter what I say, if this article gets enough votes, then it gets to be improved, and good luck to it! Jdcooper 15:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologies as this certainly wasn't the best place for me to launch into my tirade about auto racing. However, while the late Dale Earnhardt is indeed popular, I would rather see articles such as Amazon Rainforest, Rome, and Recycling, topics that researchers are going to come to a general use encyclopedia for, improved to good quality before we put a lot of worry into (Gulp) it kills me to say this, athletes.

Considering that the structure of the article is pretty loose, I think this could use a good clean-up. I just haven't had time to assist in it. Hopefully I will soon. --Cooleyez229 10:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gautama Buddha (13 votes, stays until March 15)[edit]

Nominated February 8, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by March 15, 2006
Support
  1. Imperialles 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Solar 12:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jasminek 08:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vir 17:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PlasticMan 06:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Couldn't not vote for this one. Samsara contrib talk 22:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kaldari 06:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. youngamerican (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Revolución hablar ver 17:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ashibaka tock 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. deeptrivia (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Ugur Basak 00:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The fact that Wikipedia lacks a sufficient article on such a significant person is disastrous. --Imperialles 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm not mistaken, this article is about a buddha. The article about THE Buddha is at Gautama Buddha
  • Ah yes, that was actually the article I intended to nominate. --Imperialles 12:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this article is already in pretty good shape, isn't it? I may vote for it later because it's such a significant and fascinating topic, but for now there are too many equally or more important topics that are in far worse condition. -Silence 22:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article needs alot more to it, especially since its the subject of a main figure in a Major World religion. The article on Jesus is at least twice as long, but the Buddha is also a very important subject in a one of the largest modern world religions. (PlasticMan 06:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • The article on Jesus is longer, but significantly lower in quality and comprehensiveness, especially if one considers the entire Jesus series of articles vs. the Buddha series of articles. -Silence 23:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think the whole Christianity and Buddhism messes are much less messy than the Hinduism mess. Why didn't my nomination of Shiva get any votes? And would Krishna (not Wikipedia's proudest article) not receive similar neglect? Anyway, I don't see why this article so desperately needs to be improved: sure, it's important, and yes, it is relatively short, but it's of a very high quality. elvenscout742 00:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on all counts. -Silence 05:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix (6 votes, stays until March 25)[edit]

Nominated March 11, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 25, 2006
Support
  1. RomeoVoid 02:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Silence 15:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jaranda wat's sup 06:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Revolución hablar ver 05:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --kingboyk 15:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Needs inline citations and proofreading ("its" vs. "it's," "had accepted to promote," etc.). Lots of sentences are poorly written, e.g., "She later noticed his face on a record store album cover and began courting him during his Stockholm concerts (January 1968 and January 1969), leaving him love notes and flowers backstage, which Jimi would oblige by taking her along with him on his post-concert social engagements, the latter of which ended in an overnight stay at the Hotel Carlton." In terms of content and depth, this is very close to being an FA, and people have obviously worked very hard on it, but it needs more work. RomeoVoid 02:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix is one of, if not the most important, guitarist of the last century. He deserves a feature article, more than say Homer Simpson or MARIAH CAREY. RomeoVoid 03:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Hughes (5 votes, stays until March 26)[edit]

Nominated March 5, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 26, 2006
Support
  1. Jeff 06:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 09:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 00:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vir 01:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ataricodfish 07:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I came accross this article and saw that in the recent past it was a nominated to be a featured article but failed. The article is great, but it doesn't meet FA standards.. It would be great to see this article, about such an interesting person as Hughes, become a featured article. The article itself is quite good, but it's missing the annotation and footnotes that are expected these days. --Jeff 06:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genghis Khan (7 votes, stays until March 28)[edit]

Nominated March 14, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 28, 2006
Support
  1. Ugur Basak 09:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Soo 17:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Durova 00:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 12:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul James Cowie 18:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kagan the Barbarian 13:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • One of the most important leaders in history. His article is still npov tagged(now it's not). Article is 57 kilobytes long but not well structured. It is in Wikipedia:List_of_featured_articles_English_Wikipedia_should_have list. --Ugur Basak 09:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article would surely reach FA status with a week of AID TLC, and a undoubtedly a worthy topic. Soo 17:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering he built an empire that was bigger than anything Napoleon or ancient Rome assembled, he deserves attention. Durova 00:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Geri Halliwell (3 votes, stays until March 29)[edit]

Nominated March 22, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 29, 2006
Support
  1. —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC) 16:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rimmers 03:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --hottie 16:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The article is in pretty bad shape. Although I've attempted to reference a few of the earliest facts concerning Halliwell's controversy and departure from the biggest-selling girl group to date, her style, influence, albums, and musical-sound is limited to a few sentences and requires expansion. Articles such as Céline Dion, Kylie Minogue and even the non-featured article Mariah Carey could be referred to. This article, though, is a mess. Please consider promoting it to something that everyone could find useful. AID would be perfect in helping the article out. —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried to make improvements but are constantly blocked by Hotwiki, who has been reported. Rimmers 03:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. UHHH! NO! RomeoVoid 01:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a valid reason to oppose.

Kemal Ataturk (12 votes, stays until April 2)[edit]

Nominated February 26, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by April 2, 2006
Support
  1. --Ugur Basak 01:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aerobird 16:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Duran 20:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hippalus 14:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. siafu 15:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bertilvidet 09:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Macukali14:17, 6 March 2006
  8. Vir 01:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Kagan the Barbarian 10:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. physicistjedi 18:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Zfr 21:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article is important because, he has a great role for the Turkish nation's birth. This article is already a featured article in Greek, Esperanto and Portuguese wikis. Deserves to be a featured article. Needs to be expanded. --Ugur Basak 01:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I renamed the nomination to Kemal Ataturk because my babybot can't cope with unicode yet... --Dijxtra 22:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michelangelo (14 votes, stays until April 3)[edit]

Nominated March 6, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by April 3, 2006
Support
  1. HaM 19:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caponer 05:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Empty2005 21:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Silence 22:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Metta Bubble 00:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. JoshuaArgent 04:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ugur Basak 00:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jaranda wat's sup 06:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Paul James Cowie 18:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Un sogno modesto 06:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Sicilianmandolin 13:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Durova 01:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. sprocketonline 18:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Where do I begin? The opening section is an embarrassment and what follows is horribly uneven. The commission for Pope Julius II's tomb is only mentioned in passing, for instance – that's over 30 years of Michelangelo's life brushed over! This needs all the attention it can get. HaM 19:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could do with some copyediting for consistency also. Metta Bubble 00:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm echoing all the above comments.... Definitely needs attention! A good time to do it as well, with the opening of an exhibition devoted to the drawings of Michaelangelo opening this week at the British Museum. Paul James Cowie 18:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's in a league with Shakespeare and Beethoven as one of the very greatest creative geniuses. Durova 01:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fidel Castro (16 votes, stays until April 8)[edit]

Nominated March 4, 2006; needs at least 18 votes by April 8, 2006
Support
  1. Llamadog903 17:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caponer 17:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jdcooper 03:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Tom 23:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. MichaelW 10:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul James Cowie 10:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ugur Basak 00:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kaldari 05:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Dijxtra 10:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Jensbn 15:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Osbus 02:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Mkaycomputer 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. CloudNine 17:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. CarabinieriTTaallkk 18:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Bertilvidet 09:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I would like to raise this article up to featured article status, but I think it still needs some work.Llamadog903 17:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the most powerful and well-known leaders of the Americas deserves an article worthy of featured article status, and this one is definitely close to reaching that level. --Caponer 03:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Some work' is an understatement - it needs a whole hod before it will be close to featured article status, but Caponer is right - the subject deserves it. Question is who will be recognised as sufficiently impartial to judge the balance of viewpoints.MichaelW 10:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs *a lot* of attention to POV issues, as this article is particularly liable to geopolitical bias (US+allies).Jens Nielsen 14:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has real POV problems and a clique of apologists for Castro who prevent correction of misinformation, such as crediting Castro with making "free" health care available. If that health care is "free", then cotton was picked for "free" by slaves in the ante-bellum south. The slaves themselves had to be fed and clothed and prevented from escaping, just as the health care workers in Cuba. That is hardly "free".--Silverback 09:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson (6 votes, stays until April 10)[edit]

Nominated March 27, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 10, 2006
Support
  1. RomeoVoid 00:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PDXblazers 09:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 02:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 05:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Jaranda wat's sup 20:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HAM 18:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

After a quick scan, this doesn't appear too far from FA. Jefferson would certainly be deserving of such an article.

  • I just can't win, can I? RomeoVoid 18:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't comment on RomeoVoid's skills/luck in ganes of chance etc, but this article looks like it's been improved pretty well already. I can't see obvious 'needs improvement' in this article. Colonel Tom 13:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination should be removed, since it has only 6 votes, when 8 were needed by April 10. -Scottwiki 17:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Goodall (3 votes, stays until April 11)[edit]

Nominated April 4, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 11, 2006
Support
  1. Sarge Baldy 08:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sicilianmandolin 09:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Iggle 09:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed vote
  1. 64.218.106.247 22:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Among the most renowned people in her field, and an interesting person to boot. Sarge Baldy 08:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tireless worker and public servant; an inspirational speaker who tries to show people what's happening to the chimps. Iggle 09:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the anonymous vote by 64.218.106.247. -Scottwiki 01:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Contreras (2 votes, stays until April 11)[edit]

Nominated April 4, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 11, 2006
Support
  1. Jersey Devil 22:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scottwiki 02:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Contreras was second only to Pinochet in the Chilean military reguime that ousted the Popular Unity government and he was the director of DINA Chile's notorious intelligence agency/secret police during that period that was responsible for most of the torture that people hear coming out of Chile during the mid-70s and til the end of the dictatorship. I definately think this page needs expansion, Conteras was certainly notable and needs a larger and better referenced page than this.--Jersey Devil 22:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Taylor (6 votes, stays until April 12)[edit]

Nominated March 29, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 12, 2006
Support
  1. Scottwiki 10:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 07:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GrandDukeJohnofCorsica 8:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. GrantBud 1:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Nate 23:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Helmandsare 20:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Charles Taylor, former President of Liberia, periodically rises to the top of the news -- most recently, due to his dramatic disappearance and recapture. His activities, especially alleged war crimes, are likely to be a significant topic of discussion for years to come. I believe that a thoroughly well-written, well-sourced, and wikified article would be a public service. -Scottwiki 10:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this, noting that our present article says little of Charles Taylor's crimes or the direct cause of his controversy. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 07:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-GrantBudThe article provided no information about his 'crimes against humanity.'

David Berkowitz (6 votes, stays until April 20)[edit]

Nominated April 6, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 20, 2006
Support
  1. J. Finkelstein 21:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sicilianmandolin 21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Scottwiki 06:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RomeoVoid 20:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Luka Jačov 13:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Pockey 21:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article about the Son of Sam killer needs clarification and explication of events and history.


Dusty Springfield (2 votes, stays until April 21)[edit]

Nominated April 14, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 21, 2006
Support
  1. Stevecov 17:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Thefourdotelipsis 09:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A noteworthy and highly respected performer, known in Europe, North America and the Southern Hemisphere, whose early death was now long enough ago to avoid eulogy. Parts of the current biography seem almost plagiarised: I think Wikipedians can do better. - Stevecov 17:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Olivier (2 votes, stays until April 25)[edit]

Nominated April 18, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 25, 2006
Support
  1. Thefourdotelipsis 09:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sicilianmandolin 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Article about important figure in the entertainment industry, needs more information about life and times. Thefourdotelipsis 09:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna (entertainer) (14 votes, stays until May 1)[edit]

Nominated April 3, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by May 1, 2006
Support
  1. Rimmers 17:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Underneath-it-All 18:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thankyoubaby 05:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Andrew Parodi 06:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Extraordinary Machine 16:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fallout boy 06:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. PatrickJ83 20:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Rossrs 23:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. hottie 19:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. JosephRJustice 23:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FlareStar 15:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Bisco 14:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Duran 01:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. CrnaGora 03:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The article is a mess. For an artist with the profile of Madonna, her article should be a featured article but the state its currently in it has no chance. The article requires a big clean up, ideally a re-write imo. Information needs to be prioritiseds and processed appropriately. New sections need creating for her acting career for example. Parts of the article currently resemble fan sites with hotchpotched additions being made. From what I can gather on the talk page, there seems to a team of people reverting most edits made. Rimmers 17:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't insult vandals or bad written articles Rimmers and if you don't know Madonna's article was a former featured article. --hottie 17:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pointing out an article is poorly written or is a mess is not an insult - its a statement of opinion. And although the article may have previously been a featured article, it needs a lot of working doing to it now. Clearly you agree with that - otherwise you wouldn't have been editing the article for the last 4 hours! Rimmers 17:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what can de done to save this article. I've worked on it, but it seems hopeless. The "problem" is that Madonna is a major artist, a mega-artist, with a very strong fanbase on the Internet. This leads to the page coming off as a fan page rather than an encyclopedia page. I'd like to see the page improved, but I have a feeling that may be a futile wish. Andrew Parodi 06:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. I think the fact that, not too long ago, two anon editors were having a (rather heated) argument on the talk page over whether Madonna or Mariah Carey is the better singer is indicative of the problem. As Andrew said, top-selling contemporary artists such as Madonna have a lot of fans, and inevitably some of them will end up editing Wikipedia. Now I'm definitely not saying that all of the fans who edit articles such as this are bad editors (I'm sure it's a minority) or that they mean to violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but the good faith contributions of some of them actually end up hindering the article rather than helping it. I was surprised to discover that this used to be a featured article - it's certainly nowhere near featured quality at the moment, and that's a pity, as there's a lot that could be written about her (by this I don't mean stuff like "Madonna sang "Take a Bow" at the American Music Awards"). Extraordinary Machine 16:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is a huge mess. What could be an essential and fantastic resource on Madonna and her life and career and descended into a bubblegum-snapping fan page, with more attention going to opening-week sales of her albums and discussion-page battles of her 'title' as "Queen of Pop" than important aspects of her career such as her gain and loss of Maverick Records and her place in the context of pop culture.PatrickJ83 04:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with comments made so far. I think the main problem with the structure is that it uses album titles as its headers which restricts any wider discussion of her career, and encourages things like sales figures and chart positions, which are important, but there is so much more that could and should be said about this performer. Suggest it should follow a chronological "career" section as per Mariah Carey & Kylie Minogue. Would also benefit from a section about her iconic status or cultural influence (see Kylie Minogue "Image and celebrity status" section) and more depth about her musical style (see Mariah Carey "Artistry") The article is poorly referenced. Her film career is only briefly discussed, and important issues such as the "rise and fall" of Maverick records is covered in one brief, out of place sentence. The largest omission is in what people have said about her and how she has been perceived. She is arguably the most discussed woman on the planet of the last 25 years - certainly one of the most discussed celebrities of all time, but there is very little about what has been said about her. Rossrs 23:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Perón (4 votes, stays until April 26)[edit]

Nominated April 12, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 26, 2006
Support
  1. --Jersey Devil 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RomeoVoid 22:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. One of the worst right-wing dictators in 20 century South America, pro-Nazi "politician". --Darwinek 00:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Well, not technically a dictator, but persecuted oppositors... Mariano(t/c) 07:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Duran 01:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Peron is arguably the most important person in Argentine political history, the largest and most dominant political party in Argentina adopts his name. Considering Peron's importance his article should be a featured article but instead at its current state it has plenty of POV and most certainly does not have enough information about Peron's three terms as President (only two sentences on his third term). This page definately deserves much more than this.--Jersey Devil 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

This article's discussion page contains elements that balance the heavily slanted POV of the article. It will take years to compare them and source them from the publisehd scholarly work about this historical period, as requested by many discussants. A medium university library has volumes spanning at least a linear dimension of 100ft-shelf. Anything less than an authoritative and thorough review risks to be offensive to the regime's victims. Jclerman 21:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, a mix of published scholarly work with current revisionist writtings could do the job. Mariano(t/c) 07:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I meant that reviewing library materials (rather than revising) is so an extensive task that would take longer than a week. I even had underestimated the amount of printed sources, by a factor of about 3. Total linear shelf space seems to be 300ft (ca 100m)! Who and when can do it, I mean extract sourced facts and scholarly commentary that would document the diverse POVs ? Jclerman 18:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gang (3 votes, stays until June 6)[edit]

Nominated May 30, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by June 6, 2006
Support
  1. TheKillerAngel 21:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Zepheus 17:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Felixboy 12:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Gangs are an essential part of crime throughout the world. They have a significant effect on the economy, social groups, communities, and arguably, pop culture. This article is quite pathetic and needs MAJOR work. Here is a to do list:
  • Types of gangs
  • Gang structure
  • History of gangs
  • Difference between gangs, paramilitaries, organized crime, and terrorist groups
  • Gang activities
  • List of notable gangs
  • List of notable gang members
  • Gang weapons
  • Economic impact of gangs

- TheKillerAngel 21:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would argue against the use of the word 'essential' in the above sentence though. - Zepheus 17:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig van Beethoven (3 vote, stays until May 7)[edit]

Nominated April 30, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 7, 2006
Support
  1. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 02:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cow790 00:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Funper 20:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The sub-articles for Beethoven (ex. for each of his symphonies) are great, and yet the composer's article is so & so. Easily a good article, can become featured with a bit of effort. Beethoven's life is also very well-documented and therefore shouldn't have any NPOV problems. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 02:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sitting Bull (3 votes, stays until May 9)[edit]

Nominated May 2, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 9, 2006
Support
  1. Ezeu 22:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scottwiki 02:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Underneath-it-All 19:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article about a significant historical figure has often been vandalized. It seems the article is relatively unwatched, so much vandalism has been unreverted, hence some sections contain many blatant errors. Many complaints as to its accuracy have been made on it's talk page. The article, and one section, has been marked for a complete rewrite, but no one taken the challenge. After a discussion on the it's talk page, it was decided that the article be stripped down somewhat, and that assistance be sought from this place. It is shameful that an article about Sitting Bull, one of the most famous Native American warriors, and a famous person in the history of the United States, cannot be of better quality.

Charles Proteus Steinmetz (1 vote, stays until May 9)[edit]

Nominated May 2, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 9, 2006
Support
  1. --Kbh3rdtalk 20:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Steinmetz was a truly significant giant of the industrial revolution and a fascinating character with an unusual and compelling life story.

Željko Ražnatović (9 votes, stays until May 18)[edit]

Nominated April 27, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by May 18, 2006
Support
  1. Gail Wynand 23:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scottwiki 05:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Хајдук Еру ( Talk || Contributions) 00:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. estavisti 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Caponer 21:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. serbiana - talk 03:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CrnaGora 21:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. TheMightyQuill 10:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The subject of this article, better known as Arkan, was a major figure in the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s. Yet the article is in incredibly bad shape. There is plenty of information, but very little is verifiable, and the structure is completely disorganized. Stylistically and grammatically, it's also in need of a great deal of improvement, much of it having likely been written by non-native English speakers. This is a very interesting historical figure who still inspires a lot of interest today and this could easily become a great FA despite the controversial subject.

Jimi Hendrix (16 votes, stays until May 20)[edit]

Nominated April 15, 2006; needs at least 20 votes by May 20, 2006
Support
  1. RomeoVoid 18:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Jaranda wat's sup 19:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thefourdotelipsis 09:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -Benbread 11:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kingfisherswift 15:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. RENTAFOR LET? 02:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Manwe 09:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CrnaGora 03:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Silence 15:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. PDXblazers 18:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Vint 03:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Osbus 22:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. LearningKnight 16:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. TheFountainhead 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. ASimplePlan 15:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Carolaman 23:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "In his brief four-year reign as a superstar, Jimi Hendrix expanded the vocabulary of the electric rock guitar more than anyone before or since." Hendrix is one of the most important and highly regarded musician of all time, and needs to have a featured article. RomeoVoid 07:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silence supported this article in a earlier nomination. RomeoVoid 16:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Franz Liszt (7 votes, stays until May 21)[edit]

Nominated May 7, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 21, 2006
Support
  1. Funper 18:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. M A Mason 13:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James Barlow 18:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mak (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Shawnc 10:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. RexNL 09:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. CrnaGora 00:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This man is the father of romantic music, such as Liebesträume No 3 and Hungarian Rhapsody No 2. There are houndreds of hundreds biographies of Liszt and over thousand letters written by Liszt, but despite this, his article is only 3 pages long.
  • Certainly one of the most underrated composers, about whom many myths and preconceptions dating back even as far as the 1830s still exist. It's only recently that these are being challenged and the importance of Liszt and his place in music history is being fully recognised. The article goes some way to showing just why so many people are so passionate about the man and his music, and why he deserves to be recognised and not just a footnote in other articles; the many contributors have done a great job so far, and yet it needs that extra push to make it the featured article it ought to be. I urge you all to at least glance at the article and come to some kind of decision. Thanks, M A Mason 12:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Tesla (14 votes, stays until May 29)[edit]

Nominated May 1, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by May 29, 2006
Support
  1. (^'-')^ Covington 07:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. estavisti 11:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 15:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kris12 21:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Over-long, full of goo and dribble, probably suffers from a residue of Reddi-isation and Tesla-philia. Badly in need of improvement William M. Connolley 19:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Asterion talk to me 01:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Steven 22:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BabaRera 07:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ante Perkovic 13:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Aleksandar Šušnjar 21:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Krytan 21:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. CrnaGora 21:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Lakinekaki 17:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 01:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Shania Twain (3 votes, stays until June 6)[edit]

Nominated May 30, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by June 6, 2006
Support
  1. Thankyoubaby 05:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caldorwards4 05:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. NorthernThunder 18:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article has a lot of potential, it just isn't in line with many other artist's pages. And could really benefit from this drive.
  • Page and topic don't impress me much. - Stevecov 17:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's exactly why people should vote for it, to make it more impressive. Thankyoubaby 17:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Ben-Gurion (15 votes, stays until June 11)[edit]

Nominated May 14, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by June 11, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 20:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Asterion talk to me 20:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC), as long as NPOV is carefully watched.[reply]
  3. Gail Wynand 22:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. serbiana - talk 22:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jersey Devil 05:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kimchi.sg 13:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -Reuvenk[T][C] 23:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Manwe 08:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Duran 20:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Twenex 17:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Flymeoutofhere 15:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Bobcheezy 15:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 18:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Leaders100 17:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. PiMaster3 13:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Hugely influential as the first Prime Minister of Israel, serving two terms and playing a major role in the Independence and early development of the Jewish State.... Ben-Gurion definitely deserves to be elevated to Featured Article status. Paul James Cowie 20:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business and Economics[edit]

Developing countries' debt (4 votes, lack 2 votes, Archived on July 22)[edit]

Nominated July 7 2005; needs at least 6 votes by July 21 2005
Support:
  1. Fenice 7 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)
  2. Jacoplane 7 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)
  3. Poli 21:55, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
  4. Eric Forste 03:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Needs better referencing and expansion; maybe the article should be moved to a different title, because third world is considered derogatory by some.--Fenice 7 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)
  • This is quite a current event, considering the G8 is considering what to do with this. Is it ok to have such current articles as improvement drive? I could imagine some time in the future it might be linked to on the front page. Jacoplane 7 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)
    • We're the ones making the rules. -Litefantastic 7 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)
    • Even more so. If it gets more traffic while it is linked to from the front page it should really be in a better condition than it is in now. The least we can do is let the reader know we are working on it. --Fenice 9 July 2005 10:39 (UTC)

Harrods (18 July)[edit]

Nominated 11 July 2005; needs at least 3 votes by 18 July 2005
Support:
  1. Wackymacs 16:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Only several short paragraphs about this popular department store in London. Wackymacs 16:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second Industrial Revolution (July 3)[edit]

Nominated June 20 2005; needs 6 votes by July 3 2005
Reason
Support
  1. Fenice 08:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Falphin 01:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Imperialles 09:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comments

Sony (2 votes, stays until October 8, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 1, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 8, 2005
Support:
  1. Wackymacs 19:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. C-squared 15:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • We all know who Sony is, and at one time or another most of us have used a Sony product, wether it be a radio, camera, TV, computer, hi-fi system, or any other piece of electronics they've made over the years. I was hugely disappointed when reading this article, as it doesn't even mention the majority of Sony's products such as their TVs and sound equipment. Sony are a very important brand, and is lacking when compared to other company articles. Come on, let's improve it!!! — Wackymacs 19:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Revolution (1 vote, stays until October 27, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 20, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 27, 2005
Support:
  1. Wackymacs 20:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Seems to be a topic that could be substantially improved, with pictures, sections, references, and more detail. However, all the websites I found so far (on the 1st page of Google results) contained similar info. Maybe there isn't much more to say on this topic, would be interesting to see it as a featured article. — Wackymacs 20:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Cluetrain Manifesto (1 vote, stays until December 26, 2005)[edit]

Nominated December 19, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 26, 2005
Support
  1. cohesion★talk 03:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Pretty important online cultural artifact, could stand some editing, and fleshing out. cohesion★talk 03:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of Credit and Commerce International (2 votes, stays until February 8 2006)[edit]

Nominated February 1, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by February 8, 2006
Support
  1. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Wikiacc • • ∞ 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • An international scandal that cost people Billions of dollars and involved, in one way or another, the Saudi royal family, Pakistani intelligence, John Kerry, President Bush, the precursors to al-Qaeda, and nuclear proliferation. A fascinating story, and the article needs a lot of help. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early 2000s recession (3 votes, stays until February 16, 2006)[edit]

Nominated February 2, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 16, 2006
Support
  1. Juppiter 02:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caponer 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jhohenzollern 03:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Over-generalizes, doesn't provide enough solid facts. Also fails to get into causes and aftermaths and the human effect.
    • How can an article with a title like Early 2000s recession not overgeneralise?! - Hahnchen 18:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you prefer it be called 9:00 AM September 11, 2001 - 6:54 PM August 5, 2003 recession? Juppiter 21:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Crash of 1929 (14 votes, stays until March 17)[edit]

Nominated February 10, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by March 17, 2006
Support
  1. Mark J 22:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)(sign with four tildes)[reply]
  2. Lbbzman 13:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vir 17:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Melaen 02:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lukobe 05:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Daniel NZ 21:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul James Cowie 09:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Silence 08:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Caponer 16:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mkaycomputer 22:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Andrew Levine 22:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Aaronwinborn 00:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Rory096 00:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Surely this is one of the most important events in the history of the 20th century. Yet the Wikipedia article on it is incredibly poor, nothing more than a stub really. I find this hard to believe, when the event affected people all over the world for decades. This is a disgrace. Mark J 22:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. This could potentially be an extrememly interesting and comprhensive article. And, as already stated, is an extrememly important event with repect to its long-term effects etc. Daniel NZ 21:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public defender (2 votes, stays until April 11)[edit]

Nominated April 4, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 11, 2006
Support
  1. Sherool (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CarabinieriTTaallkk 19:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Currently it focuses exclusively with the US system. I think it could do with additional information about the general consept and maybe a few examples on how it works in various different legal traditions besides the US one. I tagged it with {{Globalize}} back in September to no effect, so hopefully an improvement drive will help attract some people knowledgable about other legal systems (I'm afraid I'm not legal buff myself). --Sherool (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stock exchange (6 votes, stays until May 17)[edit]

Nominated May 3, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 17, 2006
Support
  1. Felixboy 15:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BorgQueen 17:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Page Up 13:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Typelighter 22:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Steven 22:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Okinawadude 16:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
This article has a good template but needs so much more to be complete and informative. Felixboy 15:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture[edit]

Spork (July 2)[edit]

Nominated June 25, 2005; needs 3 votes by July 2, 2005
Reason: Come on! It's a fork and a spoon! Who could ask for more in a utensil?
Support:
  1. Litefantastic 23:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Roswell incident (2 votes, stays until January 19)[edit]

Nominated January 12, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by January 19, 2006
Support
  1. Harris0 23:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Anonunit 21:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Comments

It needs it. I was interested in getting an unbiased account of the topic and it just wasn't available. Harris0 23:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia College Chicago (2 votes, stays until January 20)[edit]

Nominated January 13, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by January 20, 2006
Support
  1. Anthonyiamurri 06:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jasenlee 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The article is in dire need of a more in-depth description. It needs to be cleaned up and generally re-organized. It could greatly benefit from some help. Anthonyiamurri 06:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnosis (July 9)[edit]

Nominated June 18 2005; needs 9 votes by July 9 2005
Reason
This is a long article, but a poor one. It needs a total reorganisation, the input of some experts and more wikilinks and external links. Yes, there are short articles that need to be made longer - but this is a long article, about an important subject, that is not up to scratch yet.
Support
  1. Batmanand 19:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Litefantastic 01:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Exir 01:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Niz 00:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Rich Farmbrough 20:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fenice 2 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)
  7. Kabads 5 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)
  8. Scott Ritchie 02:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Peruvian cuisine (July 10)[edit]

Nominated June 26 2005; needs 6 votes by July 10 2005
Support:
  1. Fenice 18:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. J3ff 23:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jmabel | Talk June 29, 2005 00:39 (UTC)
Comments:
  • This was translated by the Weekly Spanish Tranlation Collaboration. The history section should be expanded (inca/Aztec cuisine). Some things have to be cleared up: f. i. which foods does Peru import? There is a question on the talk page whether Peru acutally imports cocoa from Africa. Some further economic info could be researched, like what do poor people eat in Peru? There are lots of lists in the article that need to be dealt with: omit? put in boxes? tie into text?--Fenice 18:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Asian values (22 July 2005)[edit]

Nominated July 15 2005; needs at least 3 votes by July 22 2005
Reason
Would like to see more info on this topic.
Support:
  1. Quantum bird 22:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Deryck C. 03:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Game (13 votes, stays until July 23)[edit]

Nominated June 18 2005; needs 15 votes by July 23 2005
Reason
An entry level article on a vast and important subject that was just a few paragraphs long when I came across it. I've added a few more paragraphs with basic info on the anthropology of games; they themselves could stand expansion. Other views are also needed.
Support
  1. Smerdis of Tlön 23:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fenice 05:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Niz 00:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Litefantastic 16:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Scott Ritchie 05:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Imperialles 23:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Luigi2 | Talk June 29, 2005 22:14 (UTC)
  8. Maurreen 2 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)
  9. Anser 3 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)
  10. Scott Ritchie 02:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Phil Bordelon 14:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bjwebb 18:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Debroglie 12:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  1. AlMac for what it is worth,
    1. I have designed several games in the area of Simulation Games and Board Games
    2. I have moderated a variety of multi-player games, mainly back in the 1960's when computer moderation was not affordable.
    3. I consider myself knowledgeable about a spectrum of brain games such as (this is by no means a comprehensive list)
      1. Fairy Chess, my favorite being Kriegspiel Chess
      2. Role Playing Games particularly the kinds that existed before Dungeons and Dragons was invented
      3. Military Miniatures
    • Well then I think you should definitely advertise your background and not sign it. ;-) RJH 19:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extended family (4 votes, stays until 29 July 2005)[edit]

Nominated July 15 2005; needs at least 6 votes by July 29 2005
Reason
Sociology-related article; not enough info. Any takers?
Support:
  1. Quantum bird 22:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Eric Forste 01:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jmabel | Talk 18:34, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  4. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Comments:

The Tasmanian Devil (3 votes, August 3)[edit]

Nominated July 20 2005; needs at least 6 votes by August 3 2005
Support:
  1. ZeWrestler Talk 12:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Quantum bird 23:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jacoplane 23:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • I was working on the Tasmanian Devil article and for curesosity sake took a look at the cartoon character's encyclopedia article. From what I can see, this article needs a lot of work. Particullary, it should be wikified, have some pictures added, and be organized a bit better. --ZeWrestler Talk 12:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wikified the article a bit by adding section headers, expanding the introduction, and adding references. I'm not sure what problems you find with the organization; it's chronological at the moment. Nevertheless, pictures would be a good addition, and expansion of the article may still be in order. BrianSmithson 13:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T shirt (2 votes, stays until August 2)[edit]

Nominated July 26 2005; needs at least 3 votes by August 2 2005
Support:
  1. Irishrichy
  2. Deryck C. 03:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Italy (3 votes, stays until August 10)[edit]

Nominated August 3 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 10 2005
Support
  1. Vladdraculdragon 17:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Fenice 07:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sesel 06:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Important topic, could be quite easily improved...most of the info is available on pages it links to.Vladdraculdragon 17:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National Football League (6 votes, stays until August 17)[edit]

Nominated August 3, 2005; Needs at least 8 votes by August 17
Support:
  1. Falphin 20:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ooryl 23:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Phoenix2 17:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Carbonite | Talk 00:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cmadler 15:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. King Kool 19:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Removed votes:
  1. User:24.171.36.233 23:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Comments:
  • This article lacks history, and could you reorginazation. It wouldn't be the most difficult of jobs either and would be a change of pace. Falphin 20:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Percussion instrument (7 votes, stays until August 20)[edit]

Nominated August 6 2005; needs at least 8 votes by August 20 2005
Support:
  1. Fenice 06:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maurreen (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – flamurai (t)
  4. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. siafu 21:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Deryck C. 03:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. David Brooks 16:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This article needs expansion and should be improved to match featured articles on other instruments like the Saxophone and Timpani. Some of the information is already there in subarticles like Timpani.--Fenice 06:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural appropriation (5 votes, stays until August 20)[edit]

Nominated August 6 2005; needs at least 8 votes by August 20 2005
Support:
  1. Djbaniel 00:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Eric Forste (Talk) 04:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dvyost 15:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fenice 08:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Soygurl 22:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • A subject that would benefit from contributors of many different cultures.
    • There's absolutely nothing herein stated about what specifically is wrong with the article. And, as a matter of fact, it already has had input from people of different cultural backgrounds. I think the listing of cultural appropriation on the improvement page is ridiculous and completely unnecessary. It's a good, solid piece. As a matter of fact, here's a comment on the article posted to my talk page: "I want to complement you on the rewrite you did on this page. It's been a while since I've seen a newer article of its size that well written." deeceevoice 03:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deeceevoice, I think you misunderstand the purpose of this page. The point isn't to list bad articles; the point is to help articles reach featured status.--Pharos 03:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, Pharos. Gotcha. Yep. Recently, a couple of people have been complaining about the article -- when their problem has not been with the verbiage, but with the concept (which is downright silly; it is what it is). Still relatively new to Wikipedia, I assumed this was a consequence of their griping. The way the entry here for cultural appropriation was worded, I interpreted it as just another run-of-the-mill complaint about a perceived, but nonexistent, "black" slant to the piece. Thanks for the clarification. Of course, as with many articles on Wikipedia, this one could benefit from additional, constructive input. deeceevoice 08:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a great featured article. There's nothing preventing deeceevoice (or anyone else) from nominating it for featured article as it stands; this kind of situation where articles have been nominated both here and there, during the same span of time, has happened before, I think. --Eric Forste (Talk) 04:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I never said anything about nominating this for featured article status, and I don't think there are any imminent plans to do so. deeceevoice 18:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should have a history section, and a section on effects on the borrowing culture and effects on the culture borrowed from. It also lacks references. I think this article has the potential to be improved to featured quality.--Fenice 15:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current TV (2 votes, stays until September 11)[edit]

Nominated September 4 2005;needs at least 4 votes by September 11, 2005
Support:
  1. Gchriss 02:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Litefantastic 11:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

I know this may seem an unusual nomination, but the world moves quickly and I think Wikipedia readers would be interested. In addition to the article itself, I would love to see a well-rounded article on how younger citizens are receiving information flow. Feel free to leave comments on my (empty) user page. Gchriss 02:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flirting (20 votes, stays until September 12)[edit]

Nominated July 25 2005; needs at least 21 votes by September 12 2005
Support:
  1. Jacoplane 18:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:45, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Theycallmemorty 20:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Litefantastic 19:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Djbaniel 00:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  6. drboisclair 15:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fieari 21:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Polydor 21:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Richy 14:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hillel 12:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Syrae Faileas 21:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ben T/C 07:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Ambi 09:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Sbwoodside 23:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Mekalika 17:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Debroglie 08:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Behun 21:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. The Tom 20:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. RMG 16:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Elias Bizannes 16:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • I think a lot can be added. This is the main mechanism through which our species achieves reproduction and I think it deserves a better article. Jacoplane 18:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would debate that flirting is the main mechanism for the entire species. For the West, sure, but given that a significant portion of the world throughout the history of the species has relied on arranged marriages or other non-flirtactious means, I wouldn't say flirting deserves that status. The article should mention the difference between "flirting" and other forms of gaining attention from a potential mate. (Of course that's another reason to improve the article.) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:45, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Flirting isn't only a sexual activity. Flirting is used between hetrosexual people to build rapport. You may live in a country that represses sexual flirtation, but I doubt business flirtation is repressed, nor childhood flirtation betweem you and your friends. It is teasing in a fun way, and sexual flirtation is only one type of flirting. Flirting is an important life skill, and those they understand it, benefit immensley. Elias Bizannes 16:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not it is the "main mechanism" (a phrase which is not without ambiguity in the context of reproduction in general), I think it would serve wikipedia well to have flirting as a comprehensive article.
  • added vote and updated count .. Debroglie 08:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Latin America (19 votes, stays until September 18)[edit]

Nominated August 14, 2005; needs at least 20 votes by September 18 2005
Support:
  1. Maurreen (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Osu8907 04:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fenice 07:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. arkuat (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wackymacs 08:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. *drew 08:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SpiceMan 11:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Nick_C 14:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Spangineer (háblame) 15:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Carioca 19:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Sarge Baldy 06:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mariano 06:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Vanguard 21:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Poli 01:46, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
  15. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 03:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Milena 17:04, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Xaliqen 05:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 11:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  19. ddlamb 00:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • About half the text is on etymology. Tagged for cleanup. Maurreen (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the info needed for this article is already on Wikipedia in subarticles. This should be easy.--Fenice 07:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus, this is the topic of one of the childrens books for WikiJunior. Remember? We could possibly develop some synergy here. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 03:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)


Heraldry (13 votes, stays until September 18)[edit]

Nominated August 14 2005; needs at least 16 votes by September 18 2005
Reason

While a very good article, it can be improved. The article could be made clearer for people unfamiliar with the subject.

Support
  1. Mb1000 01:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Syrae Faileas 17:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tyler Mitchell 20:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sadaukar 06:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DiamondDave 09:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Trevor macinnis 18:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Palnatoke 20:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Saswann 22:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Valentinian 10:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. dagamezmasta 4:10, 17 August 2005
  11. Behun 06:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. HJKeats 16:43, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  13. RMG 16:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article seems to be referenced moderately often, and I've run into a few times. It might be nice to get it improved. --Syrae Faileas 17:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has the potential to be improved to featured status. We could also improve it by translating some of the featured material on this topic from the French wikipedia.--Fenice 19:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Venice (8 votes, stays until September 17)[edit]

Nominated August 27, 2005; needs at least 12 votes by September 17, 2005
Support:
  1. GhePeU 19:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 20:17, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Joy [shallot] 19:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. *drew 22:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Alr 23:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Walter Chan 02:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -Pedro 08:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 16:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • The Republic of Venice was a major power in Italy, Europe and in the Mediterranean Sea for centuries. Hundreds of articles link to Republic of Venice or, incorrectly, to Venice (this should be fixed too) but the current article contains only a short summary of the history of the Republic. GhePeU 19:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstock Festival (2 votes, stays until 20 September 2005)[edit]

Nominated 13 September 2005; needs at least 4 votes by September 20, 2005
Support:
  1. --Richy 18:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --HistoricalPisces 18:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Huge impact on pop culture. This festival was legendary. I think it could use more about the cultural impact of the festival. Also about the running and organisation of the festival. --Richy 18:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seduction Community (1 vote, stays until 7 October)[edit]

Nominated 30 September 2005; needs at least 3 votes by 7 October, 2005
Support:
  1. (sign with four tildes)
1 DutchSeduction User has less than 50 edits, all to do with this article or closely related topics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DutchSeduction
2 Strack 18:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC) User:Strack has only two entries, from an account created today, all on this article [2][reply]
3 Puga 08:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC) User:Puga has only two entries, from an account created today, all on this article[reply]
Comments:
  • Currently receiving media attention after the recent publication of "The Game" by Neill Strauss, which is now on the NY Times Bestsellers List.

This article has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seduction Community.

Ripley's Believe It or Not! (1 vote, stays until 14 October)[edit]

Nominated October 7 2005; needs at least 3 votes by 14 October, 2005
Support:
  1. Spawn Man 00:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This is a great article with so much potential. Almost everyone will be interested in Robert Ripley & his company. Spawn Man 00:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religious pluralism (17 votes, stays until November 15, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 4, 2005; needs at least 18 votes by November 15, 2005
Support:
  1. Robin.rueth 05:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. C-squared 15:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ciraric 16:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BMF81 11:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cormallen 14:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Howrealisreal 17:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Gareth Hughes 15:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Squideshi 16:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mamawrites & listens 21:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Irmgard 17:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Mark J 11:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Carabinieri 22:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 20040302 12:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. CG 17:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Smmurphy 22:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Omblet 00:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This is a rather lengthy article on what I consider a very important subject: What do members of different religions think about the creeds of the others and how do they manage to get on with one another? However, the article so far lacks a clear structure - you can see a proposal for a new outline under talk:Religious Pluralism#New Outline for Rewrite - New version. Furthermore, I have proposed a new conceptual framework to make things a bit clearer, but now the whole article needs reworking to eliminate the loose terminology throughout. Finally, claims in many sections are rather general, badly founded in facts and sometimes, in my opinion, not-NPOV. So lots of work to be done for everyone interested in questions of religion and Clash_of_Civilizations.--Robin.rueth 05:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that articles related to Religious_pluralism are also in bad need of editing, and the articles need to be linked better. Among the related articles, there is Interfaith and Religious_tolerance (with a POV dispute going on).
  • Robin and I have been looking through potential revised structures, and will be attempting to rationalise the entire topic area - tweaks, rather than overhauls. This includes mild structural overhaul of the main article as well as spawning off some specialization articles (for which there is already precedent for eg Judaism) I advocate a Stay FTM, and possibly a retraction, depending on how well we do. (20040302 11:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • A new outline of the article has now been proposed on Talk:Religious_pluralism. Everyone, especially those who have voted for this page, is invited to give their opinion on it and - if there is agreement - to co-operate in implementing the proposed new outline. (I suppose this is too much work for two people!) This entails a considerable amount of work because I reckon it's rather a complete overhaul than anything else. Expert knowledge is needed on
  • Concepts, such as: universalism, particularism, proselytism, exclusivism, inclusivism, syncretism
  • the teachings of different religions,
  • history of religions,
  • history of different situations of inter-cultural / inter-religious coexistence and conflict
  • the Clash of Civilizations theory
  • Enlightenment philosophy views on religious pluralism
  • and others

This is going to lead to a series of interlinked articles, with Religious_Pluralism on top, rather than to a single massive article. Expert knowledge is also required on how to organize such rather huge projects. So even if this page has not (yet) been agreed on for Article Improvement drive, I invite everone to participate in improving it.--Robin.rueth 13:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asian fetish (13 votes, stays until November 15, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 11, 2005; needs at least 15 votes by November 15, 2005
  1. Howrealisreal 04:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Idont Havaname 04:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BBlackmoor 16:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. elvenscout742 20:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Orborde 07:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KingTT 14:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wasabe3543 22:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Bash 02:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Litefantastic 23:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — THOR =/\= 21:41, 6
  12. Omblet 07:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. splot 14:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This article, about a controversial term that brings up important issues regarding ethnic stereotypes and interracial relationships, reads more like a bad freshman sociology paper than an encyclopedia article. In particular, there is an overall lack of scholarly sources and a superfluous amount of POV statements. At the very least, I hope it can benefit from increased visibility which might encourage different viewpoints to edit, contribute, and create a more objective resource on this important subject. --Howrealisreal 04:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is a mess. Scattered among the NPOV observations and statistics is an endless tirade of unsubstantiated assertions about "white" people who happen to be dating a person of Asian descent (and vice versa). Additionally, traits and beliefs are repeatedly attributed to "whites" and "Asians" as if these are homogenous groups. There is a section titled "Social Consequences" which is nothing more than a series of lurid crimes where individuals of Asian descent happened to be the victims. This is, at best, sloppy journalism. All in all, the phrase "POV" doesn't begin to cover the extent of this. This article needs serious work. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous poster is incorrect. The Social Consequences section lists crimes against Asian women who were targeted exclusively because they were Asian. Isn't that what the essence of what an Asian fetish is? You make it sound as if just random crimes were listed. But in each case it is clear that the perpetrator had a clear fixation and obsession with Asian women. Also, it is a fact that Western Culture has exoticized Asian female sexuality. Just type the word "Asian" into Google and see how many PORN sites come up. This article discusses a valid topic and should be kept the way it is. I have a feeling that the people objecting to the article are white people who object to being portrayed as the perpetrators of this fetish. --143.127.3.10 7:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
For the record, if you do a google search for "Asian" it goes for pages and pages without turning up a hit for a pornography site. --Howrealisreal 21:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, search for "Asian Woman," and there's a mail order bride site listed on the friggin first page. -3

To "Howrealisreal", I find it interesting that you chose not to address the points I made in my post. I think it goes without saying that when one types in the word "Asian" in any search engine, there will be an overwhelming number of hits devoted to pornographic sites. You also failed to address my point about how the crimes listed under the "Social Consequences" section were indeed relevant and demonstrative of Asian Fetish.

I think what is being unsaid here is that the people on the 2 sides of this debate fall into 2 clear categories: Asian American men and women who are the victim of Asian Fetishm and White Men who are currently dating or are pursuing Asian women. Reading through the discussion page on this article is clear enough evidence of that. That being said, I find it difficult to give the people opposed to this article much credit. This is analagous to an article on racism where the victims of racism are saying one thing while the perpetrators of the racism are denying it exists. Does that mean that everyone opposed to this article is racist? Of course not. But I think a lot of the misunderstanding over this article is due in large part to the majority (white men) being unable to relate to the experiences of a racial minority.

There is a reason why Asian Female news anchors dominate television. There is a reason why people are yelling "ME SO HORNY" at Asian women on schools across this country. There is a reason why there are a number of successful Asian female actors in Hollywood but almost no Asian male actors. To deny that Asian fetishism exists is to deny that racism exists in this country. --143.127.3.10 7:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 18:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I did not address your comments about the validity of the subject matter because that was not what I had a problem with. I definitely agree that there are things that need to be understood about ethnic stereotypes in popular culture (and even ethnic stereotypes in pornography), but this sensational and accusatory nature of reporting fails to do it adequately. Keep in mind that I am not advocating that everything, including your perspective, is totally incorrect and I want to censor it; I was the one that nominated it here and not at Wikipedia:AfD. I also want to know the answers to the questions you raise in your comment, but using examples like google searches that don't even pan out to be correct just damages the credibility of the topic. Are we trying to get to the bottom of why we make these negative stereotypes and what we all can do to correct them, or are we just trying to perpetuate them? --Howrealisreal 22:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out the aspects of the article that are "sensational and accusatory". Pointing out the fact that Asian Fetishm exists is not accusatory....unless you are the one promoting it. The article goes in depth as to the possible motivations of the people who use this label and discusses the various social and sexual stereotypes that contribute to it. Quite simply, I fail to see what your objection is other than the fact that you don't think Asian Fetishm exists at all. Denying it exists is just another way of perpetuating it. --143.127.3.10 7:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 19:45, 11 October 2005

I was just thinking the same thing. I am sorry to have complicated this page, I was not expecting it to turn out like this. I also welcome this discussion on the article's talk page and invite other users to join in. I believe the only way we can hope for this article to be improved is with wikipedia consensus. And by "improved", please know that I don't mean it to be understood as censorship, or an Asian fetish cover-up operation. Quite the contrary, by "improved" I would like to see expansion of the topic with sources. --Howrealisreal 00:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't usully spot pseudoscience and PoV in articles very easily, but this one just stood out as I was reading a portion of it. It reads a little like the kind of rant one might find here.elvenscout742 20:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole page is the subject of a big fight. I'd say that's reason enough to put it up as needing attention. --Orborde 07:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that these court cases are "non-notable" or that the victims "just happen to be Asian" (a phrase that has come up several times) is non-neutral. Rapes and murders may be isolated incidents, "non-notable" to those who are uneffected by the underlying social prejudices, but wanting to base what is including in the article on that single perspective is strongly POV. In fact, there's a strong argument that "race doesn't matter and these people happen to be Asian" in the face of pervasive media stereotyping of Asian Americans is not a viewpoint that warrants "equal validity".

The request for better sources for the article is a great suggestion for improvement. Adding a section that describes the fact that "fetishization" can be unintentional and non-malicious in intent would be a step forward. Omitting discussion of prevailing racial dynamics--"white men", etc.--when dealing with "Asian fetish" would be ridiculous. If you think that's wrong, come up with some solid sources, but remember this passage on the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_Point_of_View#Anglo-American_focus

That entry is not great either. It neglects an important fact--it's hard for non-white males to support their perspective without original research because the means of publishing in the society tend to be white male owned and operated. User:Xian 11:28 AM 10/11/2005

  • Let's stick to the topic please. Some people here fail at reading comprehension, it's about fetishes, not interacial dating. A lot of the arguments here are based on ad hominem. --Disco crusader 00:57, 14 October 2005
  • This article needs improvement in the worst way. It's a scattershot POV mess at the moment, and the talk page is mostly aimless rambling and ad-hominems.--Wasabe3543 22:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article now has more of a diversity of sources. I think this is a notable improvement, because now at least people can read the article and realize it is a credible topic and not just write it off as a subjective rant. --Howrealisreal 13:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva (2 votes, stays until November 22, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 15, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by November 22, 2005
Support:
  1. elvenscout742 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Simetrical (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • I definitely think that one of the chief deities of Hinduism needs a tidier, better article. This is just one of dozens of messy Hinduism-related articles, and probably the most appalling of them. elvenscout742 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God (6 votes, stays until November 28, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 7, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by November 28, 2005
Support:
  1. --Carabinieri 17:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Trevdna 04:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --splot 14:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CG 19:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. —jiy (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. —Simetrical (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Very important topic, which needs a FA.--Carabinieri 17:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree --Trevdna 04:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Man, this one might start some edit wars! ike9898 00:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy (4 votes, stays until December 19, 2005)[edit]

Nominated December 5, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by December 19, 2005
Support
  1. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 18:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Carabinieri 16:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tarret 23:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is unfortunately very Anglo- and U.S.-centric at the moment. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation (14 votes, stays until January 17, 2006)[edit]

Nominated December 14, 2005; needs at least 15 votes by January 17, 2006
Support
  1. Ashibaka tock 06:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. cohesion★talk 03:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Fenice 12:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Csbodine 17:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Melaen 18:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Luis Dantas 18:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Solar 13:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Lumiere 03:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Triona 09:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. DaGizza Chat 00:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NeoJustin 02:36 January 4, 2006 (UTC)
  12. Kaldari 21:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Metta Bubble 04:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ≈ Ekevu talk contrib 18:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is an extensive and important topic, it looks like the core bit is well-written but some of it is an ad-hoc mess. This would make a nice featured article with just a little work. Ashibaka tock 06:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Every day life[edit]

Microwave oven (4 votes, stays until December 24, 2005)[edit]

Nominated December 10, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by December 24, 2005
Support
  1. King of Hearts 01:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 20:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mgm|(talk) 14:14, 14
  4. Zath42 15:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 2005 (UTC)

Comments
  • This article on an extremely important part of our lives could use more work in several sections. -- King of Hearts 01:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't even have a microwave yet...but whatever. — Wackymacs 20:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also needs an image to describe its workings. - Mgm|(talk) 14:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Microwave is a fascinating piece of technology that has made its way into the home.

Time management (3 votes, stays until January 16, 2006)[edit]

Nominated January 2, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 16, 2006
Support
  1. Fenice 12:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Pamri • Talk 08:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. User:Jtneill - Talk 10:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is an important business topic. Wikipedia is still very week on management topics and social sciences in general. This is a hole in our coverage that could be filled.--Fenice 08:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marketplace (7 votes, stays until January 31)[edit]

Nominated January 11, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by January 31, 2006
Support
  1. Durantalk 00:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dijxtra 08:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cuivienen 21:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. *drew 02:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daanschr 19:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gflores Talk 09:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wikiacc 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  1. Cons: Markets have been around for a very long time. I was surprised that this article was mostly bare. Could use some work and expanding.


Classicism (6 votes, stays until February 1)[edit]

Nominated January 11, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 1, 2006
Support
  1. In dire need. Renata 05:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. User:Havardj 8:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Fenice 18:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daanschr 19:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Juppiter 20:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is one of the major art styles and there is almost nothing about it! For those who studied art history it should be pretty clear that this is a high-profile article (especially in architecture - just check the White House). Renata 05:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Very short article for such a significant period. User:Havardj
  • We have a featured article on Palladian architecture that we could summarize into a section of this article. --Fenice 18:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human sacrifice in Aztec culture (11 votes, stays until February 2, 2006)[edit]

Nominated January 5, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 2, 2006
Support
  1. Fxer 02:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. TestPilot 06:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ZeWrestler Talk 03:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jmabel | Talk 02:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. User:Havardj 21:18, 10 January (UTC)
  6. Wikiacc 00:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Steven 20:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Vitall 22:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Ugur Basak 23:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Metta Bubble 12:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A large part of Aztec culture, one of the most striking aspects of the civilization to this day. Article has few wikilinks, is completely unreferenced, and a cursory glance shows lots of incorrect info!

Culture of the Ottoman Empire (6 votes, stays until February 6)[edit]

Nominated January 16, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 6, 2006
Support
  1. Mukadderat 23:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 17:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ugur Basak 00:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CG 17:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wikiacc 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Aerobird 16:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • It was a large and long living empire. Its influence on cultures of Southeast Europe is very noticeable. User:Tommiks makes a formidable effort in a big number of articles about History of the Ottoman Empire, including this one. But he is overwhelmed with work and definitely needs a hand Mukadderat 23:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran and weapons of mass destruction (2 votes, stays until February 19, 2006)[edit]

Nominated February 12, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by February 19, 2006
Support
  1. Neutralitytalk 04:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Somewhat disorganized and weak article on an important topic of current concern in international affairs; often appears on the Main Page. --Neutralitytalk 04:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd draw attention to the fact that Iran is nominated above and would personally focus on that article first. Lbbzman 15:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neolithic religion (3 votes, stays until February 21)[edit]

Nominated February 7, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 21, 2006
Support
  1. Ghelaetalk 15:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DanielCD 03:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vir 17:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Self-nomination, I originally made it as a collection of the deities of the Neolithic, but I did a bad job at it, and the article really needs to be improved. Ghelae 15:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Record collecting (4 votes, stays until March 7)[edit]

Nominated February 21, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 7, 2006
Support
  1. Jdcooper 11:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Un sogno modesto 09:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bryant 19:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Litefantastic 19:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article is not very wikified, or cleaned up, or long, or neutral, considering that it is quite an interesting and important subject. Also needs picture, and better organisation. Jdcooper 11:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the comments made here by Jdcooper. It wouldn't take too much, but community support for this article would do a lot to help this article reach its potential.

Aztec (17 votes, stays until March 10)[edit]

Nominated January 22, 2006; needs at least 19 votes by March 10, 2006
Support
  1. User:Llamadog903 23:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 02:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gflores Talk 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul James Cowie 10:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Empty2005 05:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wikiacc (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ugur Basak 23:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Vir 17:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. SpacemanAfrica 04:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Jasminek 15:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Melaen 02:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Silence 08:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Caponer 16:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Lbbzman 16:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. darkliighttalk 10:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I think there is more that could be added.--User:Llamadog903 23:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely a culture and a people that could be expanded upon. Paul James Cowie 10:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really could use a clean up and more info! Empty2005 05:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what info do you think it needs? there is so much to say, yet the article is currently being splited in sections because is too big. Suggestions are welcome :) Nanahuatzin 07:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lacrosse (2 votes, stays until March 10)[edit]

Nominated March 3, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by March 10, 2006
Support
  1. Osbus 02:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mkaycomputer 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is an article lacking clear structure and information. This is such a great sport with and interesting history. It has the potential to be featured article material Osbus 02:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lacrosse (1 vote, stays until June 2)[edit]

Nominated May 26, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by June 2, 2006
Support
  1. Yarnalgo 23:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Lacrosse is a very important and historical sport. All it really needs is some citations and references, and just basic cleanup. Yarnalgo 23:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No doubt it's a historical sport, but it has been nominated before and failed. Maybe you should pursue a different route? For instance, you could contact Osbus and Mkaycomputer and work on the article with them. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. --Yarnalgo 02:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neolithic religion (14 votes, stays until March 22)[edit]

Nominated February 22, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by March 22, 2006
Support
  1. SatanaeltalkSatanael 20:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Silence 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Zserghei 10:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. - Ghelaetalkcontribs 07:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Caponer 16:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. cohesion★talk 05:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Revolución hablar ver 03:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jdcooper 02:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Vir 19:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. youngamerican (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ugur Basak 00:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Jazriel 16:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 12:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Re-nomination, this was removed because of too few votes not long ago, however as I feel this is too interesting a subject to be left behind, I want to contribute in any way I can to see to it that this article improves, especially since it constitutes, what I can see, a subject that is difficult to find information about unless one is working specifically on it. Satanael 20:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great candidate! Even more expansive than Proto-Indo-European religion. -Silence 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very interesting topic. --Zserghei 10:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks you guys, nice to know that somebody likes my work enough to nominate it for improvement. - Ghelaetalkcontribs 07:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fascinating article! I know next to nothing on this topic, but I consider it quite important, and certainly worthy of the attention of the AID to help improve it even more. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I would like to see a lot more information about this topic, it is very interesting but pretty sparse.. Jdcooper 02:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improvement would seem to require starting from scratch, if not refocussing the article altogether, per my comments on its talk page.--cjllw | TALK 08:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally, fresh page. Awesome possibilities. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 12:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horse racing (4 votes, stays until April 3)[edit]

Nominated March 20, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 3, 2006
Support
  1. Yellowspacehopper 16:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BorgQueen 19:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Xxxxxxx 09:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hamster200 13:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Lacks focus and structure. Feels unbalanced. Poor referencing. In need of expansion. -- Yellowspacehopper 16:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toy (10 votes, stays until May 1)[edit]

Nominated April 10, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by May 1, 2006
Support
  1. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GfloresTalk 06:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Scottwiki 08:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sicilianmandolin 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maurreen 02:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Steven 19:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Juan Scott 21:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Rory096(block) 18:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kingfisherswift 13:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Game (3 vote, stays until May 3)[edit]

Nominated April 26, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 3, 2006
Support
  1. --Seahen 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yarrow1 20:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Listed on Wikipedia:Most visited articles. It's also the subject of a WikiProject with four sub-projects (not counting WikiProject Sports and its sub-projects). Unlike many others, this article's subject matter affects everyone, regardless of location, age, gender, race or economic status. Yet for all its importance, this article is largely unsourced, needs heavy copyediting, has many missing or inadequate sections, and barely begins to answer such questions as, "What definitions of game are there?" "What can anthropologists tell about people by the games they play?" Seahen 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fawkes Night (1 vote, stays until May 16)[edit]

Nominated May 9, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 16, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 14:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Highly scant treatment for this annual event, redolent with historical and religious associations, and still popular in many parts of the Englsih-speaking world. Needs a careful balanced treatment. Paul James Cowie 07:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much of your comment may be valid. However, I feel that "highly scant" overstates your case. The article is far from a stub. How much longer should it be? -Scottwiki 06:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian calendar (2 vote, stays until May 31)[edit]

Nominated May 24, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 31, 2006
Support
  1. roozbeh 21:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Karl Palmen 08:20, 25 Mary 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • There are various contrary claims on the article that need to be checked against outside sources. The existing sources are also incomplete, and are mostly based on webpages, while the subject matter is mostly documented on paper. Also, the article needs some good organization so it becomes useful both to newbies and readers seeking more advanced knowledge. roozbeh 21:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus (24 votes, stays until June 1)[edit]

Nominated April 13, 2006; needs at least 28 votes by June 1, 2006
Support
  1. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 09:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. rossnixon 11:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 17:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --CTSWyneken 17:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Jaranda wat's sup 21:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. —Brand 15:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Avala 22:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Homestarmy 03:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --MonkeeSage 16:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Un sogno modesto 22:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Caponer 00:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Caf3623 02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Eshcorp 11:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. CrnaGora 03:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. American Patriot 1776 01:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Petrichor 17:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. John R Murray 22:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 1652186 19:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --Asterion talk to me 22:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Skinnyweed 19:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 02:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Duran 19:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed
  1. 24.218.72.42 02:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Evman2010 22:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Rick Norwood 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. TestPilot 21:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as an "Oppose" in approval voting, as used at AID. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 14 May 2006 @ 16:40 UTC
Comments
  • We're currently working on improving the historicity section, including the second paragraph of the introduction, which is related. We may need more about the viewpoints of the Apocalyptic Prophet Model a la Albert Schweitzer, the Jesus Seminar, and the cultural and historical background of Roman-Era Israel.
  • The chronology, Life and Teachings, and Pauline Christian views sections could also use some feedback.
  • Any other recommendations for improvement would also be useful.
  • Article improvement drive should be for articles that are not getting sufficient attention. The Jesus article is getting more attention than is easily handled already. Rick Norwood 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. This is one of the most heavily-edited articles on Wikipedia; AID should be used efficiently to help give attention to neglected articles. If you need help from the community at large resolving a certain dispute, then just file an RfC, but Jesus clearly is already getting plenty of attention relative to its importance. However, keep in mind that this is a support-only vote; an "oppose" section won't be counted. -Silence 09:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were disputes back in February but now, not so much. If the article were still under dispute, I would not have nominated it for the AID. We are asking for additional attention with the goal of driving improvement of the article. After all, isn't driving improvement of an article the point of the Article Improvement Drive? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 10:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and as I just said, we have to choose articles that receive insufficient attention, not ones that already get plenty of editing and improvement. Our objection has absolutely nothing to do with whether there are content disputes, it has to do with the fact that there are only 52 weeks in a year and there are waaaay too many articles that are even more important than Jesus, in much, much worse shape than Jesus, and receive infinitely less editorial attention than Jesus. So, while I don't object to its being nominated here, and may even contribute to the article a bit if it's AID is successful, I don't feel that it merits or requires AIDing at this point, even though I agree that it, like most articles, has a lot of deficiencies. -Silence 10:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are related articles that don't receive as much attention as the main Jesus article and may require more work. I may nominate them in the future, but I thought I'd start at the top. As for the non-related articles that need more attention, well, we can wait for our turn like all the other nominations in the queue. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 10:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you didn't start at the top. Starting at the top would be starting with Christianity, the largest religion in the world and one of the most important ones in modern society, yet, unlike Bahá'í Faith and Hinduism (and formerly Buddhism), not a Featured Article (and receiving much less attention than Jesus regularly does). Heck, Christianity isn't even a "Good Article" yet, unlike the Judaism and Islam! That's an article I'd support, even though it too is a very heavily-visited article. -Silence 03:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone were to nominate Christianity, than I would vote for it. You'd have a point about starting at the top if I had nominated Christian views of Jesus. I didn't, though. I nominated Jesus. This article isn't just about Christianity. It's also about the historical views, the Muslim Isa, those Hindus who see Jesus as a guru or an incarnation of Vishnu, the new age A Course in Miracles program, &c, &c, &c and a variety of other perspectives. It isn't just about Christianity. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 12:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, the article isn't just about the Christian Jesus. But lets not be coy about this: obviously Jesus' main objective claim to fame is as the founder (of sorts) of Christianity. If someone nominated Gautama Buddha when Buddhism was in much worse shape and I pointed out that Buddhism might be a better place to start from, would the nominator be justified in pointing out that Siddhartha has had an enormous amount of influence outside of Buddhism, and that he also plays a role in other religions, such as Hinduism? Sort of, but it would be missing the point on a technicality of sorts; obviously you nominated Jesus primarily because of his importance to the largest religion in the world today, Christianity. Your own user page indicates that you are a devout Christian. So, let's be real here. :) -Silence 16:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Yes, I am a Christian (Lutheran, to be precise). However, I have not been involved in the Christianity article, and I wouldn't know where to begin to create a to do list for that article. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 17:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. In any case, though I don't think this is the best choice for AID, I'll at least concede that it's better than most nominees. Good luck with the article, whichever way it goes. -Silence 08:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is such a broad subject that a lot of participation from different editors is needed to make sure it is properly NPOV and balanced. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 22:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with SOPHIA. In particular, we've done significant work on the "Life and Teachings" and "Religious views" sections (although we should check these for redundancies), but we haven't done as much for the historicity section. More attention has been paid to the second paragraph of the intro, which is meant to summarize the historicity section, than has been paid to the historicity section itself. Thus I'm driving to improve the historicity section of the article. We should also ask for additional attention to the overall balance of the article (some have said that it leans too far towards religious perspectives). I think that's appropriate for an AID drive. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 08:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the news of the Gospel of Judas coming out earlier this week, some attention should be devoted to alternate views of the life of Jesus. Perhaps some extra time should be spent on alternate gospels. Furthermore, a lot of literature has recently come out on historical interpretations of the life of Jesus. The book "The Dynasty of Jesus" is one such example that discusses possible explanations for why Jesus ate bread on Passover (it was the day beforehand), what the transformation of the early church did to Jesus' ideas, and an alternative view of historical documents on the virgin birth that point to a father named Partena. An interesting addition might also be the recent CNN article about the cold conditions that might have frosted over Galilee for Jesus to walk on ice instead of water, though it is not too convincing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I think the gospel of Judas would go in a "Gnostic views" section since, you know, im pretty sure they were the ones who wrote it (In addition to several other works, they really were churning out stuff fast to discredit Jesus to my knowladge), don't we already mention the gnostics? :/ Homestarmy 03:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gnostic section, maybe also a mention in the historicity of the texts section. GOJ has been in the news, and people will be looking for it. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 12:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the votes of (Evman2010 (talk · contribs), Eshcorp (talk · contribs), Lord_Eru (talk · contribs) and Petrichor (talk · contribs) all removed? No reason is given. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 00:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Evman2010 might make sense since that user has one other contribution. However Eshcorp and Petrichor have many. Maybe they removed themselves? — RJH 18:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was Skaterblo, here's the diff: [3]. I've discussed this with Skaterblo, on the project talk page and on our own talk page, and he simply made a mistake. However, since I was the one who nominated this article, I wasn't sure if it was proper to restore the votes myself. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 18:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per the above and Skaterblo saying his action was a mistake, I have restored the votes of Eshcorp and Petrichor. Evman2010 I have not restored because the status of this editor is not clear. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 00:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science[edit]

Astrodynamics (July 2)[edit]

Nominated June 18 2005; needs 6 votes by July 2 2005
Reason
I've tried to rewrite this turkey, but I have come to realize that I am not expert enough to choose a good high-level structure for this article, and I am not novice enough to know what's generally interesting. --Doradus 06:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Support
  1. Doradus 06:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fenice 18:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Imperialles 19:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comments

Psychotherapy (7 votes, stays until Aug. 6)[edit]

Nominated July 10 2005; needs at least 7 votes by Aug. 6 2005
Support:
  1. Fenice 17:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lumos3 19:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Erica1978 14:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. JoeSmack (talk) 22:11, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  5. siafu 18:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vaughan 09:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. whicky1978 13:14, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
  • This article which concerns many people consists mainly of lists. Most of the information is there in subarticles, it just needs to be summarized.--Fenice 17:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have watched the list grow for about 18 months with almost no change to the text. Its time an attempt was made to give the article a worthy description sense. The lists could well be seperate articles of their own. Lumos3 19:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has been limp for far too long. Considering how valuable psychotherapy is to people I think we should have a concise, comprehensive article on the matter. Not doing so would be as remiss as having a flimsy article on 'medicine'. JoeSmack (talk) 22:11, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • The article could most benefit from a more thorough treatment of the history of theory and practice. siafu 18:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archive note: This was originally removed from the project page without being placed here. It appeared to have been removed early. But the date in the header for removal due was actually wrong. Maurreen (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know. I was wondering what was up... JoeSmack (talk) 15:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear power phase-out (3 votes, stays until August 26)[edit]

Nominated August 19 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 26 2005
Support:
  1. Ben T/C 03:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. arkuat (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Howrealisreal 16:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I think the topic of nuclear phase-outs and a discussion of nuclear energy is very important. The article needs still much work. Some tasks are outlined here. I am trying to find as much help as I can and have people from other wikipedias work on the topic also. Besides for German (which was first), an article on that topic exists already in Spanish, Russian, Italian, French, and Japanese (all translated from the English article). A Chinese version is planned. Ben T/C 05
00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Vulcan (planet) (1 vote, stays until August 29)[edit]

Nominated August 22 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 29 2005
Support
  1. Litefantastic 11:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

No, this isn't the planet from Star Trek. It's a hypothetical sphere that, as it turns out, didn't exist. Nifty. -Litefantastic 11:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Autism epidemic (3 votes, stays until August 31)[edit]

Nominated August 24 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 31, 2005
Support:
  1. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 14:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mamawrites 14:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. *drew 20:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Needs serious all-around help to meet quality of articles such as Autism --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 14:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human genome (14 votes, stays until September 2)[edit]

Nominated August 5 2005; needs at least 16 votes by September 2 2005
Reason:

The sequencing of the human genome was one of the most profound achievements in the history of science. I've kicked this article off with a solid basis in technical and scientific fact, but it needs expansion to reach its full potential. --Mike Lin 09:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support:
  1. Mike Lin 09:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 19:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Deryck C. 03:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. User:Filur 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Encephalon | ζ | Σ 08:33:18, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  6. Plociam 05:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Zath42 09:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Pedro 11:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Renata3 05:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. OtherDave 17:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Lomedae 19:04, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Nicholas 20:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Mouvement 21:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. inks 20:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • It's about your genome, people. Come on, vote up.--Encephalon | ζ | Σ 18:22:20, 2005-08-12 (UTC)
  • Chaqu'un à son goût, but my vote's here because two video game characters are higher on the list. OtherDave 17:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Skin (2 votes, stays until Ocotber 13)[edit]

October 6 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 13, 2005
Support:
  1. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 22:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ech! That picture of the model is awful, with those labels all at angles and hard to read. --bodnotbod 13:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Skin is one of the most important organs in your entire body. I think this article should be at a higher level. I mean without it, no one would be able to survive. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 22:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterrestrial life (1 vote, stays until October 25, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 18, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 25, 2005
Support:
  1. --Revolución (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Crystallization processes (3 votes, stays until 30 January 2006)[edit]

Nominated 16 January, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by 30 January, 2006
Support
  1. Melaen 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. TantalumTelluride 21:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mukadderat 22:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Biology[edit]

Walking (2 votes, stays until December 22, 2005)[edit]

Nominated December 15, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 22, 2005
Support
  1. Proto t c 16:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -Silence 13:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is one of those things that is really important to people in general, yet has a whole heap of what could be really useful information and topics missing. I've suggested a bunch on the article talk page, as have some other people. Proto t c 16:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the most basic topics for an encyclopedia of the sum of all human knowledge. I say, make it sexy. -Silence 13:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bearded Dragon (5 votes, stays until December 24 2005)[edit]

Nominated December 10 2005; needs at least 6 votes by December 24, 2005
Support
  1. Rampart 19:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cyde Weys talkcontribs 19:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ZeWrestler Talk 21:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --liquidGhoul 13:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -Moonstone 18:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This could use a huge reworking. Right now it's not much more than a pet owner's manual. Rampart 19:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. It doesn't even tell me anything about the phylogeny of the bearded dragon, which I would be interested to know. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 19:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughbred (1 vote, stays until March 11)[edit]

Nominated March 4, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by March 11, 2006
Support
  1. — Catherine\talk 03:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A rather short article which touches on many aspects but doesn't really explain much, and lacks references. Seems mostly a vehicle for the list of breeding farms and such. I'm really surprised this article isn't better written and researched, given the broad interest in horses and racing. — Catherine\talk 03:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Penguin (8 votes, stays until March 8)[edit]

Nominated February 14, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 8, 2006
Support
  1. ZeWrestler Talk 21:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Samsara contrib talk 13:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aerobird 02:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Joyous | Talk 02:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ubern00b 22:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Spawn Man 01:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moonstone 01:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Needs help very fast!JoshuaArgent 05:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Article needs to be cleaned up. There is much more that can be added to the article that the AID should be able to help it with. I believe this article can easily become FA with a little bit of help from here. --ZeWrestler Talk 21:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may want to consider nominating this article for Wikipedia:Join in, which allows you to establish a collaboration even if only a smallish number of people indicate an interest. - Samsara contrib talk 18:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mussel (6 votes, stays until March 11)[edit]

Nominated February 18, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 11, 2006
Support
  1. DanielCD 01:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lbbzman 17:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Juppiter 07:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 14:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Aerobird 17:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PDXblazers 05:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Another core subject article any encyclopedia should have a solid article on. This article is bare bones and is missing key information. Also the referencing should be improved. It's just sloppy and very little, if any, useful information can be extracted from it. People will read this and leave Wikipedia thinking this is a junk heap. Let's clean this up. --DanielCD 01:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may want to consider nominating this article for Wikipedia:Join in, which allows you to establish a collaboration even with a small number of contributors. - Samsara contrib talk 18:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. And thanks for supporting it here BTW. --DanielCD 14:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pheromone (10 votes, stays until February 12)[edit]

Nominated 15 January, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 12, 2006
Support
  1. EastNile 03:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Silence 09:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ZeWrestler Talk 22:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fenice 17:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ≈ Ekevu talk contrib 17:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gflores Talk 16:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Samsara contrib talk 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carolaman 05:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutralitytalk 07:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. SpacemanAfrica 21:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article is pathetic, considering the importance of its topic in biology. #EastNile 03:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks alright to me. Not exactly FA but there are surely weaker articles on more significant topics. Soo 16:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with EastNile. - Samsara contrib talk 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should say, it's not just biology, it's important in psychology as well. - Samsara contrib talk 18:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bandicoot (1 vote, stays until March 1)[edit]

Nominated February 22, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by March 1, 2006
Support
  1. Newguineafan 22:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is an important animal (I'm sure everyone has heard of it), yet we can't seem to fix this article. It has great potential, and I think if we fix it up we can get it to featured article status. We don't even have a discussion page for this! --Newguineafan 22:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do tell us a bit more about why it's important! - Samsara contrib talk 20:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. My reasons for nominating this article were:
  • There was a video game named after it.
  • The common person would know something about the animal.
  • It inhabits quite a large area, from Australia to New Guinea:).

I hope this can help!


Veterinary medicine (9 votes, stays until January 24)[edit]

Nominated December 28, 2005; needs at least 12 votes by January 24, 2006
Support
  1. Tuf-Kat 05:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AED 07:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mac Davis ญƛ. 12:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutralitytalk 01:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TachyonP 16:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Waltwe 18:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ≈ Ekevu talk contrib 18:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Fenice 19:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Melaen 18:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Aside from the section on veterinary education (in the US), this article is a stub. I would have put it on COTW, but it isn't marked a stub and I guess it's not really a stub, but... I originally nominated this as a Medicine COTW, but that's really more geared towards human medicine. Tuf-Kat 05:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs some serious improvement. -- Mac Davis ญƛ. 12:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

50000 Quaoar (4 votes, stays until March 1)[edit]

Nominated February 15, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 1, 2006
Support
  1. Aerobird 04:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Steven 23:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Reyk 06:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This most interesting object has an absolutely pathetically-short article; if "two paragraphs or less" wasn't in the definition of a stub, I'd call this sucker a stub for sure. Needs lots of TLC but this article has a chance to become a gem. - Aerobird 04:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturopathic medicine (4 votes, stays until February 22, 2006)[edit]

Nominated February 8, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 22, 2006
Support
  1. Un sogno modesto 06:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vir 17:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lukobe 05:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dodgens 14:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A very important topic in today's world. Naturopathic medicine has been on a steady incline in recent decades, as a result of modern medicine and its many questionable side effects. The article is in awful shape and in need of cleaning.
  • "The healing power of nature"? Yay, more New Age bullshit on AID. -Silence 07:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paper recycling (4 votes, stays until March 10)[edit]

Nominated February 24, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 10, 2006
Support
  1. PDXblazers 07:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Toonmon2005 21:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aerobird 15:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hurdygurdyman1234 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Terrible intro, not much acutal info, certainly no references, needs cleanup. For such an important process, Wikipedia has very little info, as it is little more than a stub. If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously, articles like this needs to be improved.
  • I agree with you. This article needs to be expanded badly.Toonmon2005 21:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So does recycling, which truly isn't in much better shape. -Silence 09:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, this article is a stub and should be nominated for COTW, not here. - Samsara contrib talk 21:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is now on COTW. Please support it there. PDXblazers 05:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunication (12 votes, stays until March 11)[edit]

Nominated January 28, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by March 11, 2006
Support
  1. Gflores Talk 02:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Wikiacc • 01:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steven 01:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Aaronwinborn 03:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Walkerma 03:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Aerobird 02:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Metta Bubble 13:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SpacemanAfrica 04:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Vir 17:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Lukobe 05:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Samsara contrib talk 16:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. BorgQueen 09:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Essential article. Also one of the core topics for Wikipedia 1.0. Gflores Talk 02:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow! I'm blown away that such a core topic has such a light on treatment. A definite candidate for fleshing out. This one and a few of the daughter articles could also be brought into line with each other. Peace. Metta Bubble 13:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myotragus balearicus (1 vote, stays until March 13)[edit]

Nominated March 6, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 13, 2006
Support
  1. --Francisco Valverde 15:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • It needs to be rewritten in correct English. The article is interesting for all the paleotologists and zoologists out there. --Francisco Valverde 15:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean "correct English"? --Lukobe 19:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carpal tunnel syndrome (8 votes, stays until March 17)[edit]

Nominated February 17, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 17, 2006
Support
  1. DanielCD 00:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Joyous | Talk 00:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. lightdarkness (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Samsara contrib talk 16:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WS 17:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. MarcoTolo 04:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Un sogno modesto 06:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Vir 01:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is an important issue that people come to an encyclopedia and expect to find information on. However, this article is very poorly written and an embarrassment to Wikipedia (IMHO). It is poorly referenced, makes questionable assertions, and even edges on giving medical advice at some points. We need this to be an article that readers will leave with a feeling Wikipedia has given them some solid information, but alas: it is a mess. References are especially needed; those that are there are cited in-text and are incomplete. --DanielCD 00:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting, because this is the disorder Wikipedia is most likely to cause in its editors. Joyous | Talk 00:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An additional note: this article has been cited in the Houston Chronicle. --DanielCD 01:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insect (10 votes, stays until March 18)[edit]

Nominated February 18, 2006; needs at least 13 votes by March 18, 2006
Support
  1. Samsara contrib talk 19:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Joyous | Talk 19:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aerobird 04:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Silence 05:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. liquidGhoul 09:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BigBlueFish 16:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Pedro 13:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. HaM 18:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. PDXblazers 06:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Ugur Basak 00:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Eighty percent of the world's described species are insects. People in some countries depend on them as their main source of protein.

This article is essentially one step away from featured status. It contains great text, beautiful and illustrative photos, a well-selected array of internal and external links. All it needs is footnote citations; the references would also have to be found. It recently failed to get Good Article status for this reason. Although it is so close to success, it surprisingly does not have an active community driving it forward. This would be an easy FA bounty for a small pack of committed individuals. - Samsara contrib talk 19:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great AID candidate. Has good content to work with, but also has lots of shortcomings, strange layout choices, and coverage gaps. Some expansion and editing will be a boon, and this topic is much more significant than the current AID, frog, so there are no worries about importance. -Silence 05:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some formatting issues with it; mainly the images, and section size. Content-wise I find it very good, and it may be completed before it can become AID. --liquidGhoul 09:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like that attitude! - Samsara contrib talk 16:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need some good focused rearrangement - a good candidate if I ever saw one. BigBlueFish 16:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2003 UB313 (14 votes, stays until March 25)[edit]

Nominated February 18, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by March 25, 2006
Support
  1. Aerobird 04:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. shaggy 06:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Reyk 07:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Pedro 02:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DMurphy 06:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Caponer 16:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. siafu 18:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Revolución hablar ver 16:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ashibaka tock 01:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Vir 19:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The Tom 16:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Poppypetty 09:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Was previously nominated for FA but just missed the cut. Let's push it over the top. - Aerobird 04:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm using this article to create the Portuguese one pt:2003_UB313, it has many unneeded technical aspects that do nothing for the article and do not inform the reader about the object. I would like more info that could be gattered about the object: its atmosphere, its composition, its moon, temperatures, seasons, etc etc... it will be really hard cause there's maybe nothing more :S -Pedro 02:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wierd name is of the so called 10th planet. Just in case you don't know. ---Pedro 13:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not the actual name, it's the temporary name until the IAU approves a permanent name. -DMurphy 23:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that. I've finnished the Portuguese version, which is very different from this one. --Pedro 19:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting article, certainly a topic that deserves to be a FA. -DMurphy 06:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bird (8 votes, stays until March 25)[edit]

Nominated March 4, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 25, 2006
Support
  1. Spawn Man 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aerobird 17:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Joyous | Talk 18:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RexNL 21:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Metta Bubble 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ugur Basak 00:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. PDXblazers 01:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Very close to becoming a "Featured Article". It is already classified as a "Good Article", so I feel that with a final push that AID can give, the article could easily make it to the main page. All the starters are there it just needs some... pruning. Get it? Birds, pruning... Never mind... Spawn Man 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnivorous plant (5 votes, stays until March 25)[edit]

Nominated March 11, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 25, 2006
Support
  1. Litefantastic 01:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BorgQueen 08:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ugur Basak 20:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. polypompholyx 15:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kalumet Sioux 11:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Stumbled across this in my travels. It's actually in striking distance of greatness, with a nice long body of text flanked on all sides by snappy pictures. -Litefantastic 01:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just added references to the entire article, but it still needs more work. - polypompholyx 15:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Dog (11 votes, stays until April 1)[edit]

Nominated March 4, 2006; needs at least 14 votes by April 1, 2006
Support
  1. Spawn Man 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Joyous | Talk 23:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Un sogno modesto 19:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PDXblazers 06:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Duran 20:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Pedro 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ugur Basak 00:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. lightdarkness (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Soo 15:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 04:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Most of the article consists of one paragraph sections & photos of people's own pets, most of which are dark & shabby or out of focus. Compared to Cat, this article sucks. All you so called "dog lovers" should not want the cat to get all the glory? Surely cats & dogs should be equal. Well I think so too... Spawn Man 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spawn Man is right about the photos; there is the potential for wonderful pictures adding to the text, but what is there isn't very good. Joyous | Talk 23:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dog lovers everywhere unite!! Make Dog a featured article! PDXblazers 06:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep (10 votes, stays until April 4)[edit]

Nominated March 14, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by April 4, 2006
Support
  1. Spawn Man 09:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. lightdarkness (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ugur Basak 20:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jazriel 16:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. RexNL 19:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CloudNine 16:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. baa kingboyk 15:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thankyoubaby 05:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. JoshuaArgent 07:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Pityful article!! If its featured in Hebrew, why isn't it featured in English? Very vague, such as: "There are about 8 species of sheep". About? That sounds certain, not.... Get sheep, dog, insect & bird featured!!! Then we can work on the rest of the barn yard... Spawn Man 09:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like most of the good info is in Domestic sheep--Rayc 16:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you kidding me? This article doesn't even have pictures for THREE of the species!

Human Genome Project (33 votes, stays until April 8)[edit]

Nominated January 21, 2006; needs at least 35 votes by April 8, 2006
Support
  1. ragesoss 02:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Steven 20:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Revolución (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Empty2005 02:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TestPilot 20:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Marskell 08:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DMurphy 15:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. VegaDark 04:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Samsara contrib talk 07:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WS 09:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ugur Basak 23:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Un sogno modesto 19:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. —Wikiacc • • ∞ 23:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutralitytalk 07:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. UmbrageOfSnow 03:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. SpacemanAfrica 04:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Vir 18:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Osbus 23:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. lightdarkness (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Ubern00b 22:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Kingpomba 09:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Doug 01:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Jdcooper 16:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Moonstone 01:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Splette 17:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Snailwalker | talk 14:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Silence 11:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. AED 07:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Daniel Collins 17:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. darkliighttalk 00:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. CloudNine 13:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Rory096 21:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed votes
  1. Blackfrost12:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC) (67.52.221.60) by --Steven 21:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article is decent, but it could be much more informative, and needs to be updated. The discussion page identifies a range of shortcomings; in particular, there is little about the cultural impact of the HGP and the criticism of it. It is also somewhat slanted toward the Celera side and doesn't focus much on the competition between the government research and the private research. In short, this is the kind of article that could benefit most from the variety of perspectives and added details AID can provide.--ragesoss 02:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is really important and yet it has no images. 100 % support Empty2005 02:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also vote for Human genome on Science Collaboration of the Week! - Samsara contrib talk 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a scientific advancement/acheivement this great, we can definitely give it some more work. It is also a topic most standard encyclopedias don't cover in depth, if they cover it at all, but something everyone should know. Osbus 23:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article really needs some better organization and a few pictures, quotes, and other related goodies. A section on the societal impact of this topic would also be helpful. Blackfrost 12:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Summer (6 votes, stays until April 16)[edit]

Nominated April 2, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 16, 2006
Support
  1. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 15:28 (UTC)
  2. BorgQueen 15:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sicilianmandolin 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Scottwiki 21:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Un sogno modesto 01:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blake's Star 20:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Even compared to the shortest of the other season articles (spring), this article is horribly dwarfed, and it is pathetic compared to autumn and winter. The information is mostly about the asronomical delineations of summer and does not explain anything about the important aspects of the season. In short, it is desperately in need of attention. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 15:28 (UTC)


Fat (10 votes, stays until April 20)[edit]

Nominated March 30, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by April 20, 2006
Support
  1. --PDXblazers 06:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --St jimmy 13:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Daniel Collins 15:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --King of Hearts talk 00:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Francisco Valverde 14:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jasu 13:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. iceman 13:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Silence 11:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. JosephRJustice 15:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Note: This topic originally appeared on the COTW, but was deemed too long to qualify as a stub. It has been moved here.

Invasive species (2 votes, stays until May 11)[edit]

Nominated May 4, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 11, 2006
Support
  1. Jonthecheet 05:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Votes
  1. Cow790 00:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 16:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC) (no other contributions other then votes)[reply]
Comments
  • I found this page to be extremely interesting, but I believe it should be reviewed and some sort of media (i.e. examples of Invasive Species) should be added. In addition to this page, the obviously related List of invasive species needs work. I am thinking in terms of adding more species and creating a clearer format for the list. My idea was to list the species by region of origin which can easily be found by just visiting the sites of reference. Overall, I would just like these pages to be brought up to a higher level.--Jonthecheet 05:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aeronautics (6 votes, stays until May 16)[edit]

Nominated May 2, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 16, 2006
Support
  1. RJH 21:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BorgQueen 17:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steven 22:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PDXblazers 05:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CrnaGora 21:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Hestemand 14:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Important and interesting subject that deserves more development. Thanks.

Tectonic plate (50 votes, stays until May 21)[edit]

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 52 votes by May 21, 2006
Support
  1. APower 03:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. TestPilot 11:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gflores Talk 16:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Samsara contrib talk 20:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TachyonP 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Joyous | Talk 01:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Aerobird 18:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SpacemanAfrica 18:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. DanielCD 03:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Durova 17:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. ZeWrestler Talk 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Newguineafan 22:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Lbbzman 16:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Tcie 15:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Revolución hablar ver 17:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. RJH 18:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Ugur Basak 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Jazriel 12:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Daniel Collins 17:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Kumar 10:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Tarret 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. PDXblazers 01:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. --Alik007 12:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 04:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Mariano(t/c) 07:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. J. Finkelstein 20:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. (^'-')^ Covington 07:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Colonel Tom 13:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Skaterblo 14:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. CP/M 03:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Ante Perkovic 16:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. JosephRJustice 21:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Thefourdotelipsis 08:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Nick Mks 20:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Kingfisherswift 15:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. MikeMorley 09:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Vint 03:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Jakiša Tomić 23:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. BioTube 20:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Dryman 20:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Flymeoutofhere 13:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. gadha 01:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Daniel 00:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Vanguard 17:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Weatherman1126 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Skinnyweed 00:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Votes
  1. 216.56.60.211 by Steven on 01:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  2. Silence 23:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (confused with page for plate tectonics)[reply]
  3. Steven 02:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC) (per above, I rather support a merge)[reply]
  4. Keith 01:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC) (agree with merge proposal- how about something else related?)[reply]
  5. 19:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • Tectonic plates are a primary study in the field of geology. However, there is only a small article on them. The article could easily be a featured article.
  • I have recently completed studies on Tectonic Plates, and it is center to the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift. I agree, let's get this article fixed up.
  • This should be an easy fix, once you get a bunch of people looking at it. J. Finkelstein 20:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plate tectonics is already a featured article. Perhaps tectonic plate should simply be merged into (and redirect to) plate tectonics. -Scottwiki 01:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support such a merge. The two subjects are too closely-linked, and the number of votes here demonstrates very well how many people this subtle distinction can mislead into thinking that there's no comprehensive article on the subject. However, I do not strongly support the merge, because if this article was expanded another page or two it would be a worthy daughter article of plate tectonics. Until then, though, it is kind of stubesque. -Silence 04:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it should be merged with plate tectonics for the simple reason that the plates can be better explained in their own article rather than as a section of another(the current article is already a little long to merge). BioTube 20:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tectonic movement is a fascinating and large subject, it would be easy to enlarge wiki's tiny article on them into a full feature. Skaterblo 14:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned just above, it already is. Plate tectonics is a featured article.
  • Currently, there are two deadlines listed for this article: April 30 and May 7. Which is correct? -Scottwiki 06:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the merge proposal. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 02:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neanderthal (3 vote, stays until May 24)[edit]

Nominated May 17, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 24, 2006
Support
  1. --Francisco Valverde 17:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CrnaGora 00:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steven 15:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

History[edit]

Babylonia (4 votes, stay until July 12)[edit]

Nominated June 28 2005; needs 6 votes by July 12 2005
Support:
  1. Fenice 28 June 2005 08:05 (UTC)
  2. Maurreen 2 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)
  3. Phileas 4 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)
  4. Poli 21:58, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
  5. NatusRoma 01:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Important ancient culture that deserves a better article...--Fenice 28 June 2005 08:05 (UTC)

History of Minnesota (3 votes, stays until August 16)[edit]

Nominated August 8 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 16 2005
Support:
  1. A Link to the Past 14:30, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Zath42 09:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mb1000 01:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Decent article as it is, but is definitely in need of improvement. -- A Link to the Past 14:30, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hannibal (8 votes, stays until August 29)[edit]

Nominated August 8 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 29 2005
Support:
  1. Paul James Cowie 13:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. siafu 22:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Valhallia 13:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Renata3 05:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fenice 19:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Peter Kirby 06:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dejvid 15:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Lomedae 19:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
  • One of the great personalities of the ancient world and the focus of an upcoming blockbuster movie treatment. Article is really shoddy, based on old encyclopaedia articles and poorly written / documented. A real shame. Paul James Cowie 13:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with what Paul James Cowie said. He's one of the more interesting personalities in history. Valhallia 13:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Balkans (24 votes, stays until September 5)[edit]

Nominated July 4 2005; needs at least 27 votes by September 5 2005
Support:
  1. Litefantastic 4 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)
  2. Maurreen 7 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)
  3. CristianChirita 7 July 2005 06:32 (UTC)
  4. Fenice 7 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)
  5. Tothebarricades July 8, 2005 18:56 (UTC)
  6. Milena 12:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Poli 21:57, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
  8. Eric Forste 00:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jmabel | Talk 18:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Valentinian 23:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Amina 17:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Vladdraculdragon 16:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Howrealisreal 16:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Beland 02:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. siafu 21:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Renata3 05:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. E.A 17:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Djbaniel 20:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Ghidra99 10:00, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  21. ijelisavcic 5:56, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Mamawrites 20:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Cmadler 12:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Whitejay251 07:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Created from scratch for the COTW, then sponsored as an AID article, I think it's time to send in the TWID. It's just too big for regular maintence to hold together -Litefantastic 4 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)
  • Great nomination. I think we could bring this up to featured standard if we can add references and inline notes.--Fenice 7 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)
  • I was the one who nominated it for COTW - I'm very impressed with what's been done. Still needs improvement, though. This might be a good place considering the vastness of the subject. --Tothebarricades July 8, 2005 18:56 (UTC)
  • Agree with Tothebarricades - Milena 12:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is over 70k and is going to continue to get larger. It needs to be split up into a chronological series, like History of China or History of the People's Republic of China. -- Beland 02:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beland is right. We need to realize that in many cases the most promising article-improvement drive is going to involve an article that is too long, and that needs to have detail moved off into more detailed, related articles, many of which already exist, in this case. If we decide to vote for History of the Balkans, this is the kind of work that will be cut out for us. That's why I voted for this article in the first place. In the meantime, we can read what's there right now, and start thinking about how to generalize usefully about the details that are going to end up getting moved into related articles. (And, yeah, I changed my sig, hope that doesn't bother any of you.) --arkuat (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with arkuat and Beland; article winning AID would be a great opportunity for reorganization.Djbaniel 20:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) (10 votes, stays until September 5)[edit]

Nominated August 15 2005; needs at least 12 votes by September 5 2005
Reason

A very important article which only provides stub section on major events, and doesn't give any proper conclusion of the effects of the movement on American history and society. Could easily become a great featured article if people worked hard.

Support:
  1. Harro5 02:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  2. EKMichigan 03:29, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Syrae Faileas 21:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AlMac|(talk) 23:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 03:04, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mamawrites 20:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Simesa 08:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Alabamaboy 11:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Scott P. 23:15:36, 2005-08-27 (UTC)
  10. Cmadler 12:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • How would you like to see this organized? Osu8907 03:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A history section on the civil rights movement in general, with a timeline linking to articles on various events (eg. Montgomery bus boycott). Then, information on how the movement was received and grew in popularity, with a final section on the legacy of the civil rights movement in contemporary American history. Essentially, a focus on the movement as a whole not just mini-stubs and links to other articles. Maybe see Racism in the United States for some ideas. That's my thoughts anyway. Harro5 08:03, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe that the addition of a brief subsection describing the mutually supportive relationships during that era between the Racial Equality movement, the Women's Rights movement, the Gay Rights movement, and the Religious Toleration movement would enhance the article. Many of the members and leaders of these various movements would also attend the marches and rallies of the other movements and support one another in the speeches given at their own rallies and marches. Many recognized the mutual benefit experienced by all in the furtherance of Civil Rights.
  • I have no evidence I can cite to prove any assertions about this claim, but I am a white man who was there ... I was in the march when Martin Luther King Jr gave a great speech about his dream, that a lot of people have memorized today, I participated for a while in CORE (Congress on Racial Equality) until it became neccessary for Black Pride, for the White volunteers to leave its membership. AlMac|(talk) 23:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great Depression (5 votes, stays until September 9)[edit]

Nominated August 26, 2005; needs at least 8 votes by September 9, 2005
Support:
  1. Zhatt 22:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Yabbadab 04:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Harro5 00:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Cmadler 12:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Ehouk1 14:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 16:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • A major global event. This article has been vandalized and is missing a lot of information. This really should be up to Feature Article status considering that it has its own category. Zhatt 22:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is unclear whether the article is intended to discuss the global depression, or just the depression in the US. The article mentions a few happenings outside the US, but on the whole seems US-focused. Cmadler 12:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does focus mostly on the US depression, and should include events outside the US. Most of the information on the article now should be moved over to Great Depression in the United States that is linked in the See also section. Once this article is cleaned up, efforts can be moved over to the Great Depression articles for the individual countries. Zhatt 17:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • This event is genrally consided to be one of the major causes of WWII, this diserves a wider and better article than it curently has. --Ehouk1 14:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Rome (5 votes, stays until September 13)[edit]

Nominated August 30, 2005; needs at least 8 votes by September 13, 2005
Support:
  1. ZeWrestler Talk 16:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 卫weizhe哲 01:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Behun 03:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Osu8907 03:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jdhowens90 18:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This article was the product of a Collaboration of the Week, a while back. Reviewing it, I believe that we can make it into a featured article, after some work through the Article improvement drive. For starters, there is not one referance cited in this article, there is a few section stubs that need to be filled in, and just general maintance to the article would be good. I believe after the article goes through this drive, that it will be ready to be sent to a peer review. --ZeWrestler Talk 16:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egypt (9 votes, stays until September 14)[edit]

Nominated August 24 2005; needs at least 12 votes by September 14, 2005
Support:
  1. Magicmonster 02:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Litefantastic 15:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ZeWrestler Talk 17:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Veledan • Talk + new 21:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul James Cowie 10:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Pedro 01:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Renata3 00:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. naryathegreat | (talk) 00:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Tsm1128 17:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This Article needs serious rewriting. This is such an important civilization that nothing less than a feature article will do. Magicmonster 02:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Good work has been done, but the article is incomplete and the style is dodgy in places, and the topic definitely deserves an FA ~ Veledan • Talk + new 21:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great Retreat (5 votes, stays until October 19, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 5 2005; needs at least 6 votes by October 19, 2005
Support:
  1. Spawn Man 07:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Apyule 12:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill Lokshin 13:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ciraric 17:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Waltwe 21:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • I think this forgotten article could do with a bit of TLC.Spawn Man 07:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Information Age (4 votes, stays until November 6, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 23, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 6, 2005
Support:
  1. Tarret 13:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 14:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ZeWrestler Talk 20:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. File Éireann 22:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Its the current age whice we are in now. It could be expanded to reflect what is going on in the world today when it come to technology and the modern day economy. I added some pictures and information but it could still use work. It could also talk about the future. Tarret 13:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egypt (2 votes, stays until November 15, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 8, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by November 15, 2005
Support:
  1. Magicmonster 03:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul James Cowie 22:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • If we're going to be reviving old nominations, I might as well return this old one. It brings back such memories...Magicmonster 03:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Rome (4 votes, stays until November 17, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 3, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 17, 2005
Support:
  1. Attilios 3 November 2005
  2. Spawn Man 03:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. JDH Owens talk | Esperanza 19:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Former article was almost merely a sequel of dates. Rome needs a more in-depth history. Missing mainly Renaissance and modern era details. I'm working sometimes on it, but if you can help you're welcome.

1998 U.S. embassy bombings (4 votes, stays until November 21, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 7, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 21, 2005
Support:
  1. Harro5 04:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 12:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wackymacs 19:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. *drew 23:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • A good article with the potential to be a first-rate historical page on a major event that really brought Osama bin Laden to the global intelligence community's fore. Harro5 04:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal from the Restoration to the 1755 Earthquake (1 vote, stays until November 23, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 16, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by November 23, 2005
Support:
  1. Gameiro 21:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Colonialism (11 votes, stays until November 28, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 31 2005; needs at least 12 votes by November 28, 2005
Support
  1. Falphin 00:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Robin.rueth 07:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Howrealisreal 13:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carabinieri
  5. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. splot 14:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Marskell 20:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Waltwe 22:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. —Simetrical (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Tarret 21:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mariano(t/c) 12:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article and many related articles are INMHO worthy of the improvement drive. (Colonization:Spends too much time on history nothing on how its done), (Dutch Colonial Empire-Needs clean up) (Italian Colonial Empire]-Need expansion) etc. This article could particullarly use it. We need to start with Colonialism in Antiquity(no article) move on to the Middle Ages, etc. Specifically, it would be important to go over the Phoenecians, Greek, Romans, and then European Colonial Empires. There is really a lot that could be done. Falphin 00:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arts dept's don't spend half their time yapping about it for no reason. Marskell 03:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Iceland (5 votes, stays until December 1, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 17, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by December 1, 2005
Support:
  1. Zoso 15:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'd be willing to chip in. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bjarki 15:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tarret 21:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Iotha 04:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • In my opinion, this article could well be worthy of FA status with sufficient attention. I have been editing it sporadically but it could definitely bear a lot of improvement.

Pilgrims (1 vote, stays until December 3, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 27, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 3, 2005
Support:
  1. Bkwillwm 00:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It will be an interesting NPOV challenge. — David Remahl 20:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • A very important historical subject to the history of the United States, at least to US cultural identity, but this article does not do a good job relating the Pilgrims' story and is far too short considering the available information.--Bkwillwm 00:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


History of Quebec City (2 votes, stays until February 23)[edit]

Nominated February 16, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by February 23, 2006
Support
  1. Juppiter 03:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caponer 06:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I've exhausted internet sources on the subject. Much of the article was directly translated from the french version and reads somewhat awkwardly. Could be a featured article but I need more stuff. I need all of you. Juppiter 03:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Tunisia (9 votes, stays until February 25)[edit]

Nominated January 28, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 25, 2006
Support
  1. Darwinek 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. gren グレン ? 10:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. User:Havardj 12:33, 29 January (UTC)
  4. —Wikiacc • ∂ 23:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vir 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SpacemanAfrica 04:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. *drew 12:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Juppiter 03:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Tunisia is small country but very rich in history. Carthage, Romans, Phoenicians, Numidians, Berbers and Arab tribes shaped Tunisia's history and this article is just a medium tiny article. It's sad. - Darwinek 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's more about Togo than Tunisia... needs more definitely. gren グレン ? 10:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of El Salvador (5 votes, stays until March 5)[edit]

Nominated February 19, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 5, 2006
Support
  1. Harris0
  2. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 00:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dannycas 17:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lbbzman 00:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

History of Florence (13 votes, stays until March 12)[edit]

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by March 12, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 11:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rokafela 18:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Un sogno modesto 19:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Caponer 20:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jhohenzollern 23:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. JoJan 09:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. TwilaStar 23:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Juppiter 21:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Melaen 02:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Vanguard 13:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ham 20:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Sicilianmandolin 02:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Jmh 14:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed votes
  1. SpandX 16:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • For one of the most influential city-states in Renaissance Italy, the coverage of Florence's long and interesting history is absolutely appalling. A great candidate for collaborative improvement. Paul James Cowie 11:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that's what I'm talking about.Juppiter 21:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian Conservation Corps (4 votes, stays until March 14)[edit]

Nominated February 28, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 14, 2006
Support
  1. Juppiter 07:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 14:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. youngamerican (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Caponer 05:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Something that was in all parts of the country. The CCC's effect on our surroundings is still apparent today. Juppiter 07:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of technology (6 votes, stays until March 17)[edit]

Nominated March 3, 2006; needs at least 7 votes by March 17, 2006
Support
  1. Gflores Talk 06:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ragesoss 23:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Silence 11:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Metamagician3000 01:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ugur Basak 00:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Steven 22:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Very stubby, yet there's so much history! Gflores Talk 06:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've come across this article in the past and been amazed by the unexplored potential of it. Most of its daughter articles, like Ancient Roman technology, are in much better shape than this article. Could be a superb FA. -Silence 11:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potentially important article which is currently very messy and needs a lot of help. Metamagician3000 01:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terracotta Army (21 votes, stays until March 19)[edit]

Nominated January 22, 2006; needs at least 25 votes by March 19, 2006
Support
  1. Heesung 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Steven 22:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thunderforge 22:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ugur Basak 00:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sstidman 15:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. —Wikiacc • ∂ 23:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Polaris75 13:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 07:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SpacemanAfrica 04:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ghirla | talk 17:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Unterdenlinden 01:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Melaen 02:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Silence 09:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Hong Qi Gong 16:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Spawn Man 01:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Duran 21:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. LordAmeth 06:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. HaM 18:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. The Tom 20:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The Terracotta Army is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and is one of the most important cultural finds ever. The article right now is messy and must be improved.--Heesung 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. This is an important find and one of the few connections we have to the time period and this topic needs to be covered. Thunderforge 22:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The particular sentence that made me realize this article needed help: "All of the soldiers were badly broken when the site was first discovered". That makes it sound like the archeologists damaged the soldiers during excavation. -- Sstidman 15:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Blockade (8 votes, stays until March 21)[edit]

Nominated February 28, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 21, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 04:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aerobird 01:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 05:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Duran 21:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Hippalus 14:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jeff 14:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. youngamerican (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. El Zilcho 20:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The first major crisis of the Cold War - the efforts and sacrifices of those involved deserve a much better article than this current coverage. Paul James Cowie 06:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A highly significant historical event - this deserves a longer and more comprehensive article. El Zilcho 20:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon (26 votes, stays until March 24)[edit]

Nominated January 20, 2006; needs at least 28 votes by March 24, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 20:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Revolución (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wikiacc 20:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ugur Basak 23:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Polaris75 13:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Poppypetty 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Melaen 12:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Vir 17:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Un sogno modesto 08:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SpacemanAfrica 04:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Duran 22:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Juppiter 05:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. BorgQueen 19:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Fan1967 03:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Silence 10:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Spawn Man 01:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Jdcooper 16:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Duran 21:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Moonstone 01:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Joe I 05:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Satanael 21:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. --Zmmz 22:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Jazriel 12:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Daduzi 19:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Insufficient coverage for one of the longest-lived and influential capitals of the ancient world. Paul James Cowie 20:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree completely with Paul. --Revolución (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprisingly short. Duran 21:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Iran (10 votes, stays until March 24)[edit]

Nominated February 24, 2006; needs at least 13 votes by March 24, 2006
Support
  1. Amir85 18:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Un sogno modesto 06:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Zereshk 20:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wikiacc (?) 16:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kaldari 06:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Revolución hablar ver 03:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Kash 10:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Zereshk 21:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SouthernComfort 15:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Persia (Iran) was one of the most influential civilizations in the ancient world. Right now, article quite brief and its not written well. It takes more than a person to improve. It requires a coordinated group work. Amir85 04:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely agree with the previous statement. Very important topic, considering the massive amounts of attention surrounding it. Un sogno modesto 06:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iran has already been nominated for AID. Vote for it instead; if it's successful, it will be easy to work on the history section and daughter article at the same time the rest of the page is improved. -Silence 09:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Revolution (7 votes, stays until March 28)[edit]

Nominated March 14, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 28, 2006
Support
  1. Dijxtra 11:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caponer 18:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jersey Devil 00:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Revolución hablar ver 05:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Harris0
  6. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Passdoubt | Talk 08:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is an awfuly written article with great potential. It needs a lot of work, but a lot of easy work - this part of history is well documented, even in Wikiepdia itself. We could make this article a great featured article, but a lot of work is needed. Let's colaborate! :-) --Dijxtra 11:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to strongly agree with the above post. The article doesn't have any citations and there is so much more that could be added to it. This is definately the type of article that could be a featured article someday if worked on.--Jersey Devil 00:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


History of El Salvador (2 vote, stays until March 29)[edit]

Nominated March 22, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 29, 2006
Support
  1. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caponer 02:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed invalid votes
  1. 192.80.64.232 05:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horse archer (5 votes, stays until April 9)[edit]

Nominated March 26, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 9, 2006
Support
  1. Ka34 11:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RJH 18:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jazriel 09:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Steven 00:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Important topic, especially in the world of archery and historical warfare - both modern and ancient. Deserves a lot more recognition. 100% fully capable of reaching Featured Article status, just needs to be expanded on and given more attention. Ka34 11:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare to Cataphract. RJH

Kojiki (4 votes, stays until April 12)[edit]

Nominated March 29, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 12, 2006
Support
  1. elvenscout742 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ugur Basak 02:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jazriel 09:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Imagine1989 00:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article on the Japanese Aeneid is woefully short, despite immense historical importance (I haven't read a book on Japanese mythology that didn't refer constantly to it, and the well-known fact that the Emperor of Japan claimed to be descended from Amaterasu gained its legitimacy partly from this volume) and other such articles on things it describes perhaps getting more attention. elvenscout742 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sacco and Vanzetti (9 votes, stays until April 23)[edit]

Nominated April 2, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by April 23, 2006
Support
  1. Osbus 17:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sicilianmandolin 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CarabinieriTTaallkk 18:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sarge Baldy 01:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casey14 23:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. J. Finkelstein 20:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. RomeoVoid 20:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Jaranda wat's sup 15:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. JosephRJustice 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • For a trial this important, the article needs a lot of work. The lead, for example, made me blush. -Osbus 17:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porajmos (3 votes, stays until May 6)[edit]

Nominated April 29, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 6, 2006
Support
  1. TheMightyQuill 15:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scottwiki 03:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Luka Jačov 12:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • As well the deaths of millions of Jews, the Holocaust involved the attempted extermination of Roma people. The Porajmos (the Romani term for the attempted Genocide) is not well known, despite a good deal of research. This page is embarassingly poor, and could be a lot better with some serious work.

Thirteen Colonies (3 vote, stays until May 9)[edit]

Nominated May 2, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 9, 2006
Support
  1. Felixboy 19:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cow790 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jaranda wat's sup 03:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The beginnings of the United States needs more than this! Felixboy 19:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis and Clark Expedition (31 votes, stays until May 13)[edit]

Nominated March 18, 2006; needs at least 32 votes by May 13, 2006
Support
  1. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is pathetic, we should be much better than this. --Rory096 01:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wow, that needs help, badly -- Tawker 04:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It does need work done to it. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I added the list of expedition members, and I've since kept an eye on this one for vandalism for a long time, but never had the oomph to really tackle it as it should be tackled; I'd definitely help in a community effort. — Catherine\talk 04:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Absolutely. This is an article that is of high importance, so it should be of high quality. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wow. Truly in terrible shape. PDXblazers 03:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Caponer 19:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. lightdarkness (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. *drew 15:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Joyous | Talk 00:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Sarge Baldy 01:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ClarkBHM 02:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. this is really not so great. User:Trevdawg
  16. RomeoVoid 22:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 14:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --G Clark | Talk 16:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC) (no relation)[reply]
  19. JosephRJustice 21:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Dude. Where to begin... ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 21:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Vint 03:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --JorgeBeach 19:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Alvin6226 03:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --πᎠᏢ462090λE=mc² 21:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Lovemetendernow 03:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Pruneau 16:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Whoa... definetely needs working on... Yauhin 21:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. --Manwe 13:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. This is just awful! ~Linuxerist E/L/T 03:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I'm highly disturbed. American Patriot 1776 13:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Votes
  1. Big support 216.226.127.190 14:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gracielita 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC) (no other contributions other then votes[reply]
Comments
  • Very poor article on one of the most notable events in history. Very short lead, one footnote and some further reading. Needs major expansion also. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to mention that a large chunk of the article is simply a list of expidition members. This definitely needs a lot of work. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 14:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Death (8 votes, stays until May 22)[edit]

Nominated May 1, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by May 22, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 06:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Asterion talk to me 01:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jaranda wat's sup 22:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Steven 22:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Stbalbach 14:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. TestPilot 21:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Okinawadude 16:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Teodorico 08:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Killed one third of humanity in the Old World at least... In these days of worry over bird flu and other potential pandemics, it could be worthwhile upgrading this article to Featured status.... (It's already been judged to be a Good article, so it shouldn't require too much effort!) Paul James Cowie 06:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the failed FA review has information regarding the improvements needed. — RJH 18:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban Revolution (3 votes, stays until May 28)[edit]

Nominated May 21, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 28, 2006
Support
  1. Jersey Devil 07:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Twenex 17:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 01:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • No references, no talk what so ever about the urban resistance in Havana (which many say were actually more useful than the guerrilas in Sierra Maestra), and very much in need of expansion. Very important historical event that should be a "featured article".--Jersey Devil 07:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October Revolution (13 votes, stays until June 2)[edit]

Nominated May 5, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by June 2, 2006
Support
  1. Jersey Devil 05:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul James Cowie 08:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 16:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Zocky | picture popups 02:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CrnaGora 21:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Asterion talk to me 12:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Casey14 23:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kimchi.sg 13:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Zserghei 18:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Twenex 17:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Stevage 15:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Pruneau 19:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Stevecov 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I couldn't believe the state this article was in when I saw it. This is definately an article that needs to be featured material but instead is very short and undescriptive.--Jersey Devil 05:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • C'mon guys, just two more votes...this is the first "Communist" revolution in history we are talking about.--Jersey Devil 16:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Southeast Asia (11 votes, stays until June 5)[edit]

Nominated May 15, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by June 5, 2006
Support
  1. __earth (Talk) 17:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casey14 23:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (^'-')^ Covington 00:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kimchi.sg 13:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Steven 22:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Terence Ong 10:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. CrnaGora 00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hong Qi Gong 15:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wisekwai 13:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Ancheta Wis 15:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. sendai 07:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 18:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Southeast Asia as a region is rich in history, from prehistory to great mediaeval kingdoms to modern time characterized as "economic miracle". Unfortunately, contributors so far are only interested in contributing to individual countries of the region and in a way, are ignoring the big picture. This does not describe how countries of Southeast Asia are interconnected with one another, especially with growing regionalism second only to of the European Union. An improvement drive will correct that the neglect of the "big picture". __earth (Talk) 17:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a Southeast Asian American myself I would especially like to see some improvement in this article. Also, in the United States, Southeast Asian history (other than the Vietnam War) is virtually ignored. At Wikipedia, this article could benefit from the help of many more interested people. Let's fix this up. (^'-')^ Covington 00:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politics[edit]

Proportional representation (7 votes, stays until March 1)[edit]

Nominated February 8, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 1, 2006
Support
  1. The Tom 07:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Durova 17:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. youngamerican (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Skurrkrow 08:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Vir 17:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Caponer 05:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Dry topic, but while articles on specific election systems (like Single Transferable Vote) have been brought up to featured status, this core idea underlying most discussions of voting systems remains an embarassment. I've removed a whack of original proposals for new voting systems already, but it could do with the loving caress of multiple editors determined to make it both comprehensive and accessible. The Tom 07:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Consciousness Movement (10 votes, stays until January 10, 2006)[edit]

Nominated December 14, 2005; needs at least 12 votes by January 10, 2006
Support
  1. Harro5 11:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Banes 11:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Revolución (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dvyost 17:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fenice 07:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Totallycrazyman 22:06, 1 January 2006 (GMT)
  8. JohD 09:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Howrealisreal 02:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 07:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Recently saw huge improvements as the African COTW, but could really use some extra editors to make it into a valuable FA. Harro5 11:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely important topic for world history, in an area often neglected by WP. --Dvyost 17:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prison farm (1 vote, stays until January 2, 2006)[edit]

Nominated December 27, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by January 2, 2006


Support
  1. Waltwe 12:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aaronwinborn 02:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Important part of history currently a stub, Waltwe 12:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Stubs shouldn't be here, according to the top of the page. --AySz88^-^ 16:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article is worthy, simply listed in the wrong place. I made a nomination for it at Collaboration of the Week. Aaronwinborn 02:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-profit organization (July 6)[edit]

Nominated June 29 2005; needs 3 votes by July 6 2005
Support:
  1. Fenice 29 June 2005 10:12 (UTC)
Comments:
  • Should be expanded. --Fenice 29 June 2005 10:12 (UTC)
  • How much overlap or differentiation between this and NGOs? Maurreen 3 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

Agricultural policy (3 votes, stays until 28 July 2005)[edit]

Nominated July 14 2005; needs at least 6 votes by July 28 2005
Support:
  1. Beland 00:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Howrealisreal 16:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jmabel | Talk 18:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
  • This article includes agricultural subsidies, a current issue of great import. It seems to need some internal integration, and it is flagged for cleanup. -- Beland 00:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. detention (July 15)[edit]

Nominated July 8 2005; needs at least 3 votes by July 15 2005
Support:
  1. Maurreen 9 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)
  2. Fenice 19:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Badly out of date. Maurreen 9 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)
  • I agree, it should be up to date.--Fenice 19:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidy (August 18)[edit]

Nominated July 14 2005; needs at least 15 votes by August 18 2005
Support:
  1. Beland 00:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 05:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sherool 14:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- BD2412 talk 20:15, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Scott Ritchie 09:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Benjamin Gatti 15:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Howrealisreal 16:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Poli 05:29, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
  9. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Joefu 20:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. RedWordSmith 22:43, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Eric Forste (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cryoboy 12:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Sesel 06:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • There is also a lot of dispute between wealthy nations as to who can subsidize which of their products - this is dealt with under the GATT, which allows countries to take action against other countries who oversubsidize domestic industries, but there are exceptions. -- BD2412 talk 20:15, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

American Empire (9 votes, stays until August 24)[edit]

Nominated August 3 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 24 2005
Support:
  1. Jacob 20:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  3. EatAlbertaBeef 21:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Punkmorten 21:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Howrealisreal 12:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Trevor macinnis 21:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WiseSabre 09:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Rfredian 16:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Alr 23:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Advertising regulation (5 votes, stays until 22 September 2005)[edit]

Nominated 8 September 2005; needs at least 8 votes by September 22, 2005
Support:
  1. violet/riga (t) 19:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (Contributions) 03:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Whitejay251 17:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. MizuAmina 20:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. *drew 03:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • A large topic which could draw on details from articles such as tobacco advertising and alcohol advertising as well as the numerous (easily-accessible) rulings online. violet/riga (t) 19:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm being stickler stub status again: AID isn't necessarily the place for this. I strongly encourage you to take this to COTW.(And I'm voting for it anyway). Whitejay251 17:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Election judge (3 votes, stays until October 3, 2005)[edit]

Nominated September 19, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by October 3, 2005
Support:
  1. EdwinHJ | Talk 22:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Whitejay251 15:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- MicahMN | μ 21:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Important and timely as US reviews election procedures and voting. EdwinHJ | Talk 22:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like we'll continue to get stubs nominated, even though it says this project is for non-stub articles in the very first sentence of the page. I'll continue to point out they belong at WP:COTW, and vote for them anyway, as they are usually pages that should have much better coverage. Whitejay251 15:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corporatism (4 votes, stays until October 11, 2005)[edit]

Nominated 27 September, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by October 11, 2005
Support:
  1. MC MasterChef 22:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Howrealisreal 22:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Niku 02:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Whitejay251 16:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This is a fairly important concept in political science, but this article's definition is still rather muddled in places, although I have made an effort to restructure it in a number of parts. More references are probably needed, as is some careful copyediting to distinguish the various aspects of corporatism from each other. MC MasterChef

Green Party (United States) (10 votes, stays until November 26, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 29, 2005; needs at least 12 votes by November 26, 2005
Support:
  1. Carabinieri 17:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Revolución (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Howrealisreal 21:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Squideshi 14:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ben Manski 8 November 2005
  7. Deirdre 23:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Waltwe 19:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Celestianpower háblame 12:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. TrafficBenBoy 02:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Removed:
  1. mesoandy 18:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC) (see talk)[reply]
  2. dbreuer 17:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC) (see talk)[reply]
Comments:
  • This party is gaining in relevancy, yet the article is still pretty poor.--Carabinieri 17:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • History section needs improvement. Deirdre 00:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insufficient recent sources; history section demonstrates lack of perspective. kakistocracy (Unsigned entry by 12.221.104.128 (Talk; Contribs) @ 00:28, 9 November 2005)

Kurdistan Workers Party (6 votes, stays until January 28)[edit]

Nominated January 7, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by January 28, 2006
Support
  1. FrancisTyers 03:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Durantalk 15:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Iotha 20:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wikiacc • § 19:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Khoikhoi 02:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • Cons: A lot of uncited information, speculation, POV, not particularly useful structure. Pros: Could easily be improved with a little work.

Palestine Liberation Organization (3 votes, stays until January 30)[edit]

Nominated 16 January, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by 30 January
Support
  1. Carabinieri 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CG 17:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wikiacc 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments


Post-Soviet states (11 votes, stays until February 13)[edit]

Nominated January 16, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 13, 2006
Support
  1. Juppiter 20:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 20:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —Nightstallion (?) 21:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wikiacc 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. mikka (t) 07:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ugur Basak 23:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Aerobird 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Caponer 22:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jhohenzollern 03:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. TwilaStar 08:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SpandX 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • COTW candidate that failed and has since developed into little more than a stub. An important, current article that could be 10 times as long. Needs more images, important names, and solid facts. Juppiter 20:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very suitable for this collaboration - some information should already be there is subarticles.--Fenice 20:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important topic, help always welcome. —Nightstallion (?) 21:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German law (8 votes, stays until February 22 2006)[edit]

Nominated February 1, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 22, 2006
Support
  1. // paroxysm (n) 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 00:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 22:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jhohenzollern 03:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TwilaStar 08:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rokafela 19:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SpandX 17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SpacemanAfrica 04:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is an important topic with a subpar and incomplete article. We might be able to get a headstart from the de: article, if there is one. // paroxysm (n) 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one needs so much work. --SpacemanAfrica 04:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Federal Bureau of Investigation (13 votes, stays until February 24)[edit]

Nominated January 20, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by February 24, 2006
Support
  1. Carabinieri 22:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Silence 23:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Finnegar 00:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carolaman 05:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Gflores Talk 03:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. RJH 15:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Joyous | Talk 05:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. UmbrageOfSnow 03:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Un sogno modesto 08:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SpacemanAfrica 04:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Sertrel 00:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Jdcooper 12:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Still a very short (and in many parts not very good) article for one of the most relevant and famous institutions in the US.-Carabinieri 22:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shockingly incomplete. Barely beyond stub-level. -Silence 23:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section is the most skeletal section, but none of it is sufficient.Jdcooper 12:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Juris Civilis (2 votes, stays until March 13)[edit]

Nominated March 6, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 13, 2006
Support
  1. Caponer 05:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Silence 11:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I was surprised to find when randomly looking up the article on the Justinian Code (AKA Corpus Juris Civilis) that it's article was nothing but a mere glorified stub! The Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law) served as the basis of the revival of Roman law in the Middle Ages, so it most definitely merits more than the honorable mention it receives in its Wikipedia article. The Byzantine Empire is a featured article, so it is only fitting that its codes and laws, as important as they are, be featured as well! I realize that the list of nominations on this page are getting longer and longer but I just had to include this one! ;) --Caponer 05:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Senate (4 votes, stays until March 14)[edit]

Nominated February 28, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 14, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 06:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. youngamerican (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 17:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SpacemanAfrica 02:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Extremely vague, disorganised treatment of Senate as a political concept.... More attention needed to background history and to the nature of various Senates around the world. Paul James Cowie 06:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas (13 votes, stays until April 2)[edit]

Nominated March 5, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by April 2, 2006
Support
  1. Bertilvidet 09:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mkaycomputer 16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hooperbloob 03:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Joyous | Talk 00:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AladdinSE 14:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Zeq
  7. Silence 18:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ugur Basak 00:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Paul James Cowie 11:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Daniel Collins 17:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ka34 16:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. CloudNine 20:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006, and is thus a very important factor in contemporary Middle Eastern politics, which deserves a clear, comprehensive and balanced article on Wikipedia. Unfortunately the current article is not very well-written, and is caracterized by being written by a few people who had too many edit fights. I believe this article can become much more clear with some people coming fresh to the problem. Bertilvidet 09:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I think it would be interesting to weigh the justifications of this organization's existence...Mkaycomputer 16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree. Wikipedia is not a place for moral judgments or for estimating "justifications". Tazmaniacs 17:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamas have invested a lot in a PR makeover [4] and surly they need it in Wikipedia as well. It is just that reality changes faster than Wikipedia edits. At list the history remain the same. Zeq 15:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Food and Drug Administration (7 votes, stays until April 10)[edit]

Nominated March 27, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 10, 2006
Support
  1. BorgQueen 23:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mkaycomputer 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Un sogno modesto 22:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Remember 13:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sicilianmandolin 21:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AED 22:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Lakinekaki 18:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Such organization with a global influence and rich history deserves a more detailed, better organized article. Certainly substantial improvements can be made. --BorgQueen 23:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the FDA certainly has its faults, this article is extremely one-sided in its negative presentation of the organization. -AED 22:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Canadian Army Cadets (1 vote, stays until April 26)[edit]

Nominated April 19, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 26, 2006
Support
  1. mad_cat_42 17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • As an Army Cadet myself, I was quite disappointed to see the article in the shape that it is now. The Army Cadet movement has had a positive impact on Canadian youth and on communities and the nation as a whole, whether or not it gets noticed. The organization deserves a featured article. mad_cat_42 17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H.R. 4437 (17 votes, stays until April 30)[edit]

Nominated March 26, 2006; needs at least 20 votes by April 30, 2006
Support
  1. Scottwiki 22:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 04:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Passdoubt | Talk 08:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jonas Liljeström 13:38, Monday March 27, 2006 (UTC)
  5. Accurizer 19:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mkaycomputer 23:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kimun 18:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kaldari 01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Imagine1989 00:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Osbus 14:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Lakinekaki 18:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Katrianya 22:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. NorseOdin 06:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Colonel Tom 13:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. CaliforniaKid 08:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Socom49 12:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. angner 18:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Wikipedia has paid surprisingly little attention to a bill that has inspired protests by hundreds of thousands of people. -Scottwiki 22:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pleased that this nomination has quickly gained support. While waiting to see whether this eventually becomes the Article Improvement Drive article, I hope that more Wikipedians will contribute edits to this important and fast-changing topic. -Scottwiki 06:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article needs to be able to be a reference to anyone who is interested in this debate. The protests are all over the media in the States, but short clips of info aren't enough to enlighten people about the fundamental reason for the opposition NorseOdin 06:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is currently at a state where it can inform well. It could be resectioned, however, and I think there's scope for a lot of the debate to be encapsulated on this page as well. There is more content to be added, basically. It would be grand to have this FA.

Republic of Macedonia (34 votes, stays until May 4)[edit]

Nominated March 2, 2006; needs at least 35 votes by May 4, 2006
Support
  1. Caponer 17:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vlatko 13:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bitola 19:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Bomac
  5. Macedonia 21:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. youngamerican (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ruff 12:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ugur Basak 00:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Komitata 15:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. *drew 15:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Maria 20:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. High Elf 21:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oscabat 21:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. MyLifeIsought 13:15, 04 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Misos 18:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. estavisti 17:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. dr.alf 02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. — SasaStefanovic • 22:38 13-04-2006
  21. Gorast 03:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. -- Mir Harven 12:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Sombrero 12:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I'm all for this; apropos, see note below. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Neoneo13 21:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Ante Perkovic 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Thefourdotelipsis 08:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Casey14 21:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Kris12 18:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Aldux 17:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 04:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Mostssa 02:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Jakiša Tomić 23:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Votes
  1. RaptorCore 12:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 22:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (only 1 contribution)[reply]
  2. Gogo 15:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 22:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (only 1 contribution)[reply]
  3. Cyberboki 23:47, 01 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 22:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (only 1 contribution)[reply]
  4. User:Trimond 23:08,8 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 22:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (only 2 contributions, both are voting)[reply]


Comments
  • Note: As a result of ongoing lengthy discussions and recent edit warring regarding (namely) the article lead, the article has been protected from editing; to help resolve this issue, a poll is currently underway (with an expiry of 30 April 2006) to determine the precise lead for this article. (Please weigh in!) Before this time (pending resolution) and given discussions, though, a request should be made to unprotect the article. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia makes an excellent candidate for the Article Improvement Drive because it is very close to reaching featured article status in both content and layout. I feel as if we should always be focusing on articles that only require minor adjustments and additions in the AID instead of those that need complete and total reworking, and this is one that will only require a week to make the small adjustments required. Macedonia deserves a spotlight since it poised to become a member state of the European Union and is a state that we will be hearing much more about in the news in the years to come. Its location adjacent to Albania and Kosovo will also make it a player in the upcoming debate over Kosovo's independence movement. I just feel it will be a fabulous choice and I hope you will think so, too. --Caponer 17:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Macedonia deserves the best treatment it can get. Now, I'm sick & tired of idiotic FYROM-like concessions to the Greek chauvinism. No mentally sane person thinks that contemporary Macedonians are ethnically the same as Alexander's Greek Macedonians. Glad to see this pseudo-controvers is being settled in a rational way.Mir Harven 12:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The personal feelings of individuals should not be allowed to interfere with good and true information. People are entitled to feel sick and tired about the Macedonian issue and its standing at the UN. But being 'sick and tired' is not a resonable basis for passing editorial judgment on ROM/FRYOM or for being racially derogatory against a nation (in this case, against the Greeks) just because they respect the UN's interim resolution governing the appelation 'FYROM'. Politis 17:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Declaration of Independence (19 votes, stays until May 6)[edit]

Nominated April 1, 2006; needs at least 20 votes by May 6, 2006
Support
  1. Mkaycomputer 18:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JW1805 (Talk) 18:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SR Bryant 04:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 05:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Caponer 19:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PDXblazers 03:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ClarkBHM 02:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sicilianmandolin 21:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. J. Finkelstein 17:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Jaranda wat's sup 18:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Argon233 T C U @  ∠  22:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Bpiereck 05:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. JosephRJustice 23:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. General Eisenhower 00:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. AndyZ t 13:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. JONJONAUG 18:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Richard the Lion-Hearted 4:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Lovemetendernow 03:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed invalid votes
  1. N. Dunn 01:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • This article is one of the articles on wikipedia that needs to be featured. Period, the end. Mkaycomputer 18:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Because its about the states? dr.alf 02:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, because the mere fact that the document was issued completely changed the course of world history. Not only did it create the United States, (and who knows what the world would be like today without the US, you could argue it would be better or worse, but it would no doubt be way different), but the United States was also the first colony to successfully break away from its parent country. Along with Magna Carta and Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen (which would also make good AID candidates), it is one of the most important documents ever created, because they broke through barriers and allowed other countries to adopt their models. This has nothing to do with cultural bias, it is just that damn important. PDXblazers 04:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article seems to already be well constructed and detailed. I think I need a more compelling and articulated argument than "Period, the end" to sway me to vote for this article, however. (PDXblazers, you certainly met both of my above criteria, but I don't fully concur with your arguments. Just my opinion.) Colonel Tom 14:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War on Terrorism (4 votes, stays until May 5)[edit]

Nominated April 21, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 5, 2006
Support
  1. Harris0
  2. Steven 21:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 19:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 1652186 19:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Marxism-Leninism (1 vote, stays until May 8)[edit]

Nominated May 1, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 8, 2006
Support
  1. Harris0 18:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • While I despise it's anti-democratic and authoritarian principles, this particular brand of Marxism is one which has had a HUGE effect on the history of the 20th century, and the lives of billions of people. The article as it is now is pathetic.

Darfur conflict (14 votes, stays until May 7)[edit]

Nominated April 9, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by May 7, 2006
Support
  1. Scottwiki 00:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CloudNine 09:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vint 01:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sicilianmandolin 03:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tjss 15:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jdcooper 01:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Isaanian 19:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. estavisti 21:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. helix 15:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. *drew 05:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -Reuvenk[T][C] 20:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. TheMightyQuill 11:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. PDXblazers 05:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed vote
  1. 68.82.229.196 03:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cadaver05 21:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 23:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (no other contributions)[reply]
  3. Gracielita 01:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 01:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC) (only votes as contributions)[reply]
Comments
  • This is one of the most significant events in the world today, and a topic worthy of featured article status. Yet, among other deficiencies, the chronological updates are growing thinner as time passes. (Compare the 2004 entries with late 2005 and 2006 entries. Moreover, note that there is an entry for February 2006, but not for January or March.) This is such a large and important topic that I believe that we need a community effort to improve it and keep it up-to-date.
  • I removed the vote by 68.82.229.196 because to "vote or nominate you have to be a registered user."[5] I hope that 68.82.229.196 will log in as a registered user and re-vote. -Scottwiki 17:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, I disagree with the removal of votes by Cadaver05 and Gracielita. The only currently stated qualification for voting is to be a "registered user." Since Cadaver05 and Gracielita (as opposed to 68.82.229.196) followed the current rule, their votes should count. -Scottwiki 04:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with Scottwiki. Gracielita and Cadaver05 should be put back on the list. --Tjss 23:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tjss and others interested in this issue might want to vote or comment in the ongoing poll on this subject. -Scottwiki 05:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I still believe that the votes by Cadaver05 and Gracielita should count, I don't want to make a fuss over this issue, just to save the nomination. Despite the failure of the nomination, I hope that more people will work on the article. The article needs improvement; and the crisis, despite a partial peace deal, is very far from over. -Scottwiki 03:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States immigration debate (6 votes, stays until May 10)[edit]

Nominated April 26, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 10, 2006
Support
  1. Harris0
  2. Arch O. La Grigrory Deepdelver 19:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Scottwiki 05:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Felixboy 15:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mkaycomputer 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Timely topic.
  • Timely indeed (it was on the April 10 cover of Time Magazine!) The United States is a nation of immigrants, yet US immigration policy has become more restrictive in recent decades (no more Ellis Island). Some who are in the US are here illegally are merely seeking a better life, while others are drug smugglers and other criminals. This is a controversial topic in US politics today. Arch O. La Grigrory Deepdelver 19:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • HR 4437 was nominated but recently failed. I would put my support behind this and would be willing to work on it. Mkaycomputer 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Left (3 votes, stays until May 16)[edit]

Nominated May 9, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 16, 2006
Support
  1. Harris0 19:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jersey Devil 03:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Osbus 16:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Marxism (6 votes, stays until May 29)[edit]

Nominated May 15, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 29, 2006
Support
  1. Harris0 21:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 23:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jersey Devil 02:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --darkliight[πalk] 10:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Zserghei 18:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CrnaGora 01:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Very important topic.

1968 Democratic National Convention (5 votes, stays until May 29)[edit]

Nominated May 15, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 29, 2006
Support
  1. Sarge Baldy 21:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 01:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
  3. Harris0 01:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jersey Devil 02:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tothebarricades 06:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is pretty embarassing. One of the most important demonstrations of the 1960s is practically summed up in two paragraphs, with very little detail. It doesn't give a good sense of what happened there at all, and Pigasus isn't even mentioned. Sarge Baldy 21:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal immigration to the United States (2 vote, stays until June 1)[edit]

Nominated May 25, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by June 1, 2006
Support
  1. Tothebarricades 06:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 04:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Legit![reply]
Comments
  • One of the most important and volatile political topics and the moment, and much of it is incoherent, poorly written, and even at times offensive and (subtly or not so subtly) biased. Deserves and requires a good deal of colloborative expansion and improvement. --Tothebarricades 06:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page United States immigration debate was nominated a month ago; you can see the vote. H. R. 4437 was also nominated; see the vote. Pruneau 17:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women's rights (15 votes, stays until June 8)[edit]

Nominated May 11, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by June 8, 2006
Support
  1. Felixboy 17:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. M A Mason 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Yes please![reply]
  4. Okinawadude 16:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (^'-')^ Covington 00:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Pruneau 14:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. —CuiviénenT|C, Wednesday, 17 May 2006 @ 16:51 UTC
  8. Clay 00:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. CrnaGora 01:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Davodd 06:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Stevecov 17:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Lemon4u 19:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Zepheus 22:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This affects everybody in the world so it deserves more than this. Felixboy 17:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definately, with a bit of work this could be an excellent article. M A Mason 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very important subject with limited info! Okinawadude 16:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per above. Let's make this into a featured article. (^'-')^ Covington 00:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK girls, I've got you another week...! - Stevecov 17:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technology[edit]

Textile (July 2)[edit]

Nominated June 18 2005; needs 6 votes by July 2 2005
Reason
A broad topic with technological and cultural aspects. This article is off to a good start, but is stagnating. Alot of the article is lists. People from many backgrounds will be able to contribute to this - maybe some good pictures of textiles from different parts of the world.
Support
  1. ike9898 19:44, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fenice 09:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. The Kohninater 04:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Loggie July 2, 2005 15:01 (UTC)
  5. Maurreen 2 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)
Comments

---

Hummer H2 (12 votes, stays until July 23)[edit]

Nominated June 18 2005; needs 15 votes by July 23 2005
Reason
Love it or hate it, the Hummer H2 has become an icon of American society. The article itself seems to be under the control of editors pushing to demonize the vehicle and even the drivers (quote: For USA taxpayers with substantial income other than salaries (e.g. private practice income such as medical practitioners, attorneys, and real estate agents or other independent professionals).... Needless to say, this is far from being NPOV. I believe that this is a worthy article that can be improved to Featured Article status, but it needs a lot of love and dedication before it can come anywhere near being a good article. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:32, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Support
  1. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:32, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Jacen Aratan 15:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fenice 16:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. SFoskett 16:04, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Harmil 13:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Rentastrawberry 02:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Flgook 30 June 2005 22:27 (UTC)
  8. Eriknikel 30 June 2005 22:40 (UTC)
  9. Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 04:47 (UTC)
  10. 500LL July 5, 2005 19:36 (UTC)
  11. Dare Devil 03:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Malas 03:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
This article really has a neutrality-problem, and nobody is working on it, there doesn't seem to be an edit war going on right now.--Fenice 16:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We have been working on improving this article. Please see Talk:Hummer H2 for details. However, to characterize any editor as "pushing to demonize the vehicle" smacks of a personal attack and is not supported by facts. That being said, I would welcome any improvements to the article and support this improvement drive. --SFoskett 16:04, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Multimedia (24 July)[edit]

Nominated 17 July 2005; needs at least 3 votes by 24 July 2005
Reason:

I was expecting more content in this article such as a history section, multimedia examples and details of more uses of multimedia. The article is quite stubby and needs a lot of improvement (sections, pictures, more external links and see also links). Multimedia is a very broad and popular topic, it deserves a better article.

Support:
  1. Wackymacs 08:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maurreen 20:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Sysop (August 17)[edit]

Nominated 10 August 2005; needs at least 4 votes by 17 August 2005
Support
  1. Newguineafan 17:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fenice 06:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technology (17 votes, stays until August 23)[edit]

Nominated July 12 2005; needs at least 18 votes by August 23 2005
Support:
  1. Fenice 13:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maurreen 16:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jacoplane 09:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Deryck C. 03:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Pentawing 01:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Eric Forste 00:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ZeWrestler 02:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ike9898 15:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Magicmonster 15:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Pedro 15:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Beland 01:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Toothpaste 10:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. naryathegreat | (talk) 00:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Steven McCrary 21:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Zath42 10:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Syrae Faileas 20:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • The article lacks a history section, as well as some information on where innovation takes place nowadays. Much of the text for this article could be mined from other wikipedia-articles. Then there is the section on ideology which needs a pov-check: some of it is sourced, some is not.--Fenice 13:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, is it appropriate for me to say here that I added a skeletal outline to the Technology page, and put some "meat on those bones." If anyone is comfortable with this topic and not the other collaborations (like me), I could sure use some help over there. If inappropriate, please advise. Thanks, Steven McCrary 18:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Multimedia (6 votes, stays until August 25)[edit]

Nominated August 11 2005; needs at least 8 votes by August 25 2005
Reason:

This is a renomination, I was surprised to see this article only get 2 votes last time. Multimedia, as a term, covers a wide variety of different things. Multimedia had an outburst in the 1990s, and is seen in TV, radio and computing. Multimedia has changed entertainment and business as well as society. This article lacks images, sections, references and doesn't show examples of different multimedia. With lots of work this article could make a good read. I'm sure that most users who load this page are disappointed with the lack of information on such a notable and popular subject. — Wackymacs 20:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support:
  1. Wackymacs 20:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 20:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Osu8907 19:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maurreen (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  ~shuri 11:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

SpaceShipOne (3 votes, stays until August 25)[edit]

Nominated August 18 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 25 2005
Support
  1. Litefantastic 23:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cmadler 12:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AllanHainey
Comments

Spyware (5 votes, stays until September 1)[edit]

Nominated August 18 2005; needs at least 8 votes by September 1 2005
Support
  1. Syrae Faileas 21:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FOo 23:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Litefantastic 23:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. arkuat (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DFH 16:16:36, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
Comments
  • Good article but could be improved. I would like to see this as a featured article.
  • As one of the major contributors to this article, I would like to invite everyone with knowledge of the subject to contribute. There has been a specific request (in a featured-article nomination) for more screenshots of spyware in action. --FOo 23:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be helpful to have a section on potential conflicts when more than one anti-spyware programs have been installed. DFH 16:16:36, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

History of technology (3 votes, stays until September 12)[edit]

Nominated 5 Sep 2005; needs at least 4 votes by September 12, 2005

This article is in bad shape. First, content inappropriately put in History of science was dumped into it. It has been sitting around for many months, fairly neglected and fairly disorganized. I have recently attempted to impose a structure roughly parallel to "History of science", but most of the sections - indeed most of the main articles on histories of sub fields - remain entirely unwritten. This is core encyclopedic content which is sadly missing from the wiki. This topic is big enough to benefit from an entire WikiProject, but a collaborative repair effort would be a good start. -- Beland 05:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support:
  1. Beland 03:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 03:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Whitejay251 17:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Moved from WP:COTW. -- Beland 05:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen highway (3 votes, stays until September 15)[edit]

Nominated 8 Sept 2005; needs at least 4 votes by September 15, 2005
Support:
  1. Behun 02:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Zhatt 16:55, September 8, 2005 (UTC) Sounds intresting.
  3. Whitejay251 18:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • While yes, this is an interesting topic that would be great to see expanded upon, AID is for non-stub pages. Stubs may be nominated at the COTW. Whitejay251 17:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just contributed about as much as I know to the article and removed it's stub status because of the dramatic increase in size and content. If you feel it should still be a stub, I will re-add the stub and later move to the Collaborations site if it does not get enough votes. Behun 21:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to be a stickler about the stub thing, but I think it may have been why this hasn;t garnered many votes yet. Looks like there's more to work from now. Seems to me I may have some articles on the filling station infrastructure that would be needed to implement hydrogen highways. So if I can find them I'd be glad to work on this article. Whitejay251 18:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Motors (2 votes, stays until October 2, 2005)[edit]

Nominated September 25, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 2, 2005
Support:
  1. Litefantastic 22:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AllanHainey 12:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Come on! This has to be the most original automaker of its generation. -Litefantastic 22:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hoverboard (2 votes, stays until 4 October, 2005)[edit]

Nominated 27 September 2005; needs at least 3 votes by 4 October, 2005
Support:
  1. Fxer 19:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Whitejay251 16:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • What's more fun than the Hoverboard from Back to the Future Part II? The science to attempt to create a real Hoverboard is quite interesting (possible?), and personal hovercraft resembling the Hoverboard are pretty awesome too! Not many fictional articles get nominated here, it'd be awesome if this one could get on the Main Page someday!

Landmine (6 votes, stays until October 23, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 2, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by October 23, 2005
Support:
  1. MC MasterChef 15:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Robin.rueth 15:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. C-squared 15:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ciraric 17:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Behun 19:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gareth Hughes 15:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This could be a very rich subject, with political-moral, military-strategic, and technical angles to it. It was listed previously on Peer Review, where I found it and gave it something of an organizational makeover; there is still substantial room for improvement. The German wikipedia article looks quite impressive, can we develop ours further? MC MasterChef 15:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The German article you quoted is very technical (very exhaustive about that), with comparatively little about the political-moral aspect. --Robin.rueth 15:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Filling station (10 votes, stays until October 29, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 1, 2005; needs at least 12 votes by October 29, 2005
Support:
  1. Whitejay251 17:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 11:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC) (Unsigned vote by User:AllanHainey)
  3. Ciraric 16:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Litefantastic 23:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. *drew 00:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Luath 02:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ganymead 02:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Benbread 18:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wackymacs 21:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carabinieri 17:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • It was on the main page as part of an in the news item a bit back. Imagine readers' surprise when confronted with an {{attention}} tag. Tysto (on the talk page) nailed the main problem with the article: "The original editor seems to be relating personal experience, which probably varies greatly from region to region." Whitejay251 17:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki (8 votes, stays until November 4, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 14, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by November 4, 2005
Support:
  1. Squideshi 21:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. cohesion | talk 07:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sysys 18:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Freiberg 15:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tarret 13:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. gflores 14:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Litefantastic 12:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • If any article deserves featured article status, it's this one. This article is about the technology that we're all using right now. We want Wikipedia to be the best possible encyclopedia, and that means that we should be able to feel confident sending people to this Wikipedia article to explain wikis. The article needs a lot of work. For example, it barely touches upon the philosophy of a wiki, the language does not flow, and it is not organized very well. Let's collaborate on this important article! Squideshi 21:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100% agreement. Freiberg 15:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the point in wasting a week improving this article, as it is not as important as some of the other nominations that are currently up here. For example, how many people are going to want to read a Wiki that is about Bill Gates or Dinosaur? At the moment, Wikipedia has a serious quality problem (as discussed by The Register in an article of theirs, also linked to from this page in the Bill Gates nomination), and the majority of the most important subjects either have cleanup tags, tone problems, or need major rewrites, or they might need references, and it goes on and on. I'm not saying the Wiki article is not important, but it's not as important as some of the other articles that are in more need. — Wackymacs 12:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that it's critical to provide readers with information about the process used to create Wikipedia articles. Wiki technology is central in this explanation. Why should anyone trust an article about Bill Gates or dinosaurs if they aren't familiar with the source of the information? Do you believe everything you read, or do you sometimes check sources? The absence of this explanation undermines the credibility of all other articles; and that makes this article very important, indeed. Squideshi 21:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well what do you think Wikipedia:How to edit a page is for? The Wiki page is not meant to describe how to edit Wikipedia specifically, and shouldn't even describe how to use the Wiki software, because according to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. — Wackymacs 18:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not suggesting that this article describe how to edit Wikipedia or how to use wiki software. I am suggesting that people have an opportunity to learn what a wiki is and, in theory, how a wiki is expected to produce quality articles. This is not tied to any specific implementation. Wikis are used on a variety of sites other than Wikipedia, so an article about Wikipedia is not sufficient--this is only one implementation of a broader technology. Squideshi 19:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cybernetics (10 votes, stays until November 8, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 11, 2005; needs at least 12 votes by November 8, 2005

Support:
  1. Joel Russ
  2. Jwdietrich2 23:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. David HC Soul15 October 2005
  4. James Howard (talk/web) 18:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wackymacs 19:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tarret 13:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. cohesion | talk 01:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. moxon 22:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sempron 05:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Smmurphy 15:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • The Wiki article is incomplete or inconsistent on its own terms. It alludes to the fact that Weiner was interested in aspects of how organisms function, as well as in the "governing" of devices and machines. The mention of this biological interest is little more than Weiner's first book title - which is Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and machine. Weiner discovered some principles functioning in the biological world and relevant to the discipline of biology - but this is not developed at all in the Wiki article (which will be many people's introduction to the subject of cybernetics). The article as it stands now is lopsided. Digi tech and computers etc have obviously become important in our world, but humans and other organisms utilize cybernetic principles in their physiology, and have been doing so for millennia and epochs. We shouldn't allow enthusiasms for bionics and "cyborgy stuff" (however interesting or valid these related topics) to obscure the more fundamental and encompassing insights that Weiner had. Here are some homely examples of the biological aspect ... Your your hand snaps back if you accidently touch a hot frying pan. Your house cat gets into the sunlight coming through a window for the added warmth. Cybernetics. I'm nominating the article because I couldn't learn enough from it, but the article should be fleshed out by people much more knowledgeable about this than myself.

Mac OS X History (5 votes, stays until November 22, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 8, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 22, 2005
Support:
  1. Support - TDS (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'll admit that I don't know much about Macs in general, but enough that even my non-Mac friends think the OS X is solid. Working on this article would teach me a lot. Jacqui ★ 04:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul James Cowie 22:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Spawn Man 03:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. of course! Wackymacs 10:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Rubber (5 votes, stays until November 30, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 16, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 30, 2005
Support:
  1. —Simetrical (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ike9898 21:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Spawn Man 03:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Waltwe 22:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tarret 21:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Unbelievably poor quality for such an important substance. —Simetrical (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motorized bicycle (2 votes, stays until December 3, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 26, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 3, 2005
Support:
  1. CyclePat 18:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 13:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Article needs NPOV to be able to include more facts. Article has a Timeline of Motorized bicycle history that is nominated for deletion. At the same time perhaps that article could be improved to be part of the [[Category:motorized bicycle]]. Article of Moped is nominated to be merged with Motorized bicycle. This article needs more recent products such as the electric bicycle article from where it originated. We're not that far off from a featured article 18:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Article has a number of active editors and is improving steadily. I am unable to identify the supposed POV issues in the article; perhaps the nominator could start out by stating these issues on the (already well used) talk page? The timeline's creation was contentious and there is an emerging consensus to refactor this into a wider timeline of powered two-wheel transport (or maybe just light motorcycles). I don't know who proposed merging moped (it was an anon drive-by, by the looks of it), I see is no significant support for this and several pertinent reasons not to, all of which have been discussed on the Talk page. My view is that motorized bicycle is proceeding well and not in pressing need of massive additional effort, but of course I welcome anyone who wants to come and help. Nominator has already solicited support and help from external moped forums, resulting in at least one new and knowledgeable editor. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


House (8 votes, stays until December 3, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 13, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by December 3, 2005
Support:
  1. Tarret 00:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. *drew 12:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. splot 14:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carabinieri 15:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wackymacs 07:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. —Simetrical (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Waltwe 09:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Pylon 20:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • It the everyday shelter we live in. Certainly deserves featured article status. Tarret 00:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Central processing unit (13 votes, stays until December 25, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 20, 2005; needs at least 15 votes by December 25, 2005
Support
  1. Djbaniel 02:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 06:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wackymacs 08:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oh gosh yes. Jacqui★ 18:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Waltwe 22:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. —Simetrical (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Tarret 21:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. JustinWick 06:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC) - Not sure my vote counts, but I'd love to see this article in better shape.[reply]
  9. Gflores Talk 20:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Jcmaco 00:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 02:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

removed votes:

  1. 23:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC), by IP 66.69.158.47. Only registered users can vote. vote removed by --Fenice 11:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --80.189.232.35 15:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)vote removed by--Fenice 11:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Has been tagged for quality since August 2005.
    • I don't see why it is tagged for a cleanup because it looks pretty clean to me, but it needs a lot of expansion and possibly a copyedit. — Wackymacs 08:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was tagged for cleanup because it was in a condition that I generally refer to as a "blitering mess" before I completely rewrote it. I had planned to finish fleshing out all its sections and make it flow well myself, but things got real busy and I never removed the tag. I'll still eventually finish the article myself, but if there are other folks with enough knowledge to write a good article on the subject who want to help out, I'd be happy to have the help. -- uberpenguin 00:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I should probably point out that at this point I've finished writing the article and all that it lacks is some copyediting, flow consideration, and a bit of fact checking. -- uberpenguin 01:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is such a good article, and is going through peer review, shouldn't it be removed from here? --liquidGhoul 23:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Computer (5 votes, stays until December 16, 2005)[edit]

Nominated December 2, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by December 16, 2005
Support
  1. Tarret 20:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 20:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Carabinieri 21:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ike9898 21:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Estrellador* 18:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Personal computer (10 votes, stays until March 7)[edit]

Nominated February 07, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 7, 2006
Support
  1. uberpenguin 15:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 17:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nifboy 03:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Steven 02:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lukobe 05:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ZeWrestler Talk 05:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Samsara contrib talk 13:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Joyous | Talk 02:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mushroom King 04:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Ace of Risk 18:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article is in very bad shape for one that most wikipedians know at least something about. I've done a little work on it, but it still reads too much like a PC enthusiast's guide and is poorly organized. Furthermore, the article was mentioned in Forbes last year as an example of factual errancy. The specific problem has since been fixed, but a lot of the other claims made by the article are suspect and could use some revising and fact-checking. -- uberpenguin 15:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with uberpenguin; the article fails to provide sufficient information and detail - The Apple II isn't mentioned properly, and deserves a good paragraph or two as the first "truly" personal computer. The History section is absolutely shocking, only a few paragraphs long, and not even mentioning Dell or the Apple Macintosh, for example.
I think a strong editorial decision would be needed to be true to the original concept of a personal computer, rather than it being a synonym for "IBM-compatible PC" (aka Intel compatible). - Samsara contrib talk 13:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The history of the PC, like many other things, is a bit convoluted. The history section should probably talk about its earliest use a bit, a brief history of computer hobbiest kits, then focus on microcomputers that were actually marketed as PCs since the term has really come into common use with these latter devices. -- uberpenguin 03:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the history of computer magazanes would be relevant, how the shelves were once full of magazines for different and mutiple systems, and now an equal number just for the IBM PC, which has now become synonymous with "Personal Computer". Ace of Risk 18:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linux (5 votes, stays until March 20)[edit]

Nominated March 6, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 20, 2006
Support
  1. Dijxtra 22:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Metta Bubble 00:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Arundhati Bakshi 13:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vir 01:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is happy 00:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Reason? Windows XP is featured :-)))) No, seriously, this one is failed featured article candidate, therefore we have list of things which should be done to improve it. This one should be very easy to lift to featured status, and article about one of 2 major operating systems today deservs it... --Dijxtra 22:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that I'm opposing, but if it's very easy and so close to becoming featured, why do many editors have to work over a week to bring it to FA status? I think all the article really needs is a *few* expirenced editors to correct the problems raised in the failed FA nom. --lightdarkness (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm. You have a point. I'll try to improve it and will remove the nomination when it reaches the FA status. --Dijxtra 16:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll toss in my knowledge and try to improve where the FA nom failed. --lightdarkness (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like it is a good candidate for Wikipedia:Join in --liquidGhoul 11:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was just about to recommend the same thing. Definitely give it a look and contact other interested members. Gflores Talk 06:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open source (15 votes, stays until March 22)[edit]

Nominated February 15, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by March 22, 2006
Support
  1. ZeWrestler Talk 20:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Elijahmeeks 22:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Davidpk212 09:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul James Cowie 06:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rappo 01:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Samsara contrib talk 00:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Aerobird 03:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --naught101 10:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ace of Risk 19:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. cohesiont 03:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. lightdarkness (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. CComMack 22:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Aaronwinborn 00:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. My vote don't count, cause I refuse to register, but hell, I think it should be improved. 65.94.60.22 06:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. jacoplane 16:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Important concept that started the linux revolution and is the foundation of what wikipedia is built upon. The article needs to be cleaned up and should be no less than FA quality. --ZeWrestler Talk 20:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch. Davidpk212 09:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • needs some pictures, of founders, logos, concept diagrams, to interest people --naught101 10:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No dumbass, that's the OSI you're thinking. 65.94.60.22 06:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Internet (11 votes, stays until March 29)[edit]

Nominated March 1, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 29, 2006
Support
  1. Duran 21:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BorgQueen 15:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jdcooper 16:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lbbzman 22:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SpacemanAfrica 18:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Jaranda wat's sup 23:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Vir 02:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ugur Basak 00:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Alvin6226 01:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Richy 10:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 04:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Not as good as I would like it to be. For an article as important as this, it should at least not have stub articles in it. Duran 21:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Army Knife (3 votes, stays until April 24)[edit]

Nominated April 17, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 24, 2006
Support
  1. Litefantastic 23:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Thefourdotelipsis 09:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steven 21:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Come on! Who doesn't have one of these at home? ...okay, neither do I, but it's still an important topic. A solid article that needs only lengthening. -Litefantastic 23:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Hardware (11 votes, stays until May 21)[edit]

Nominated April 30, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by May 21, 2006
Support
  1. Foxjwill 17:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SmintsAreDelicious 18:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JONJONAUG 18:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (^'-')^ Covington 07:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. RJH 21:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BorgQueen 17:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Steven 22:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CrnaGora 21:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ace of Risk 16:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 23:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Twenex 17:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article, being the core article for computer hardware, needs to have some bulk and organization which, at the moment, it lacks almost completely. It consists almost entirely of links and has very little text. It definitely needs work. Foxjwill 17:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blade server (1 vote, stays until May 28)[edit]

Nominated May 21, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 28, 2006
Support
  1. Skaterblo 23:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article quite abrupt, and can be expanded drasticlly. Skaterblo 23:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geography[edit]

Alps(July 5)[edit]

Nominated June 21 2005;needs 6 votes by July 5 2005
Reason
Support
  1. Falphin 01:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fenice 05:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Martg76 21:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Guus June 29, 2005 20:35 (UTC)
  5. Phlebas July 5, 2005 12:23 (UTC)
Comments
  • The article and its subpages are in urgent need of improvement. It might be a good idea to translate some of the pages from the German Wikipedia. Martg76 21:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Amsterdam(July 10)[edit]

Nominated on 03:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC); needs 6 votes by 10 July.

I know this is not a stub, however, this article is surprisingly short compared to other city articles. As mentioned on the talk page by User:Big Brother is Watching, "The Rotterdam article is quite a bit longer. Rotterdam has more than 100,000 people less than Amsterdam and it is commonly reffered to as The Netherlands' second city." Also the article is quite messy and is nothing compared to Paris, for example. ---Hottentot

Support:

  1. Hottentot 03:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fenice 08:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Dystopos 20:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jacoplane 21:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • If this were to become the improvement drive article, I'm sure we'd be able to get a lot of people from the dutch wikipedia to come and help out. Jacoplane 23:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is this listed for the second time in as many weeks? The first time it was obvious there was no interest. I also strongly contest Hottentot's characterization that article is "messy"; that is nonesense. As for the Paris article, its length appears to be largely due to numerous lists, such as "List of Paris mayors since the French Revolution" and "Boutiques, department stores and hotels", which IMO doesn't necessarily consititute good encyclopedic writing. This listing was frivolous the first time around, and it is frivolous this time. -- Viajero | Talk 15:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gaborone (4 votes, stays until July 23)[edit]

Nominated July 9 2005; needs at least 6 votes by July 23 2005
Support:
  1. NatusRoma 9 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)
  2. Revolución 9 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)
  3. --Dvyost 12:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DiamondDave 20:00, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
  • This is a national capital, but the article is incredibly short. NatusRoma 9 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)

Brunei (8 votes, stays until August 14)[edit]

Nominated 24 July 2005; needs at least 9 votes by 14 August 2005
Support:
  1. Maurreen 09:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Osu8907 21:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Evil Eye 12:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Darwinek 10:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fenice 07:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. __earth 10:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  7. *drew 00:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Renata3 05:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Rock cycle (6 votes, stays until August 19)[edit]

Nominated August 5 2005; needs at least 8 votes by August 19 2005
Reason: Recent Science Collaboration of the Week, the article has a great base, but still can be significantly expanded. There are two blank sections on the article, plus a color diagram could be added to it as well. --ZeWrestler Talk 12
26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Support:
  1. ZeWrestler Talk 12:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Evil Eye 19:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Eric Forste (Talk) 04:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Deryck C. 03:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fenice 18:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Syrae Faileas 21:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • The blank sections have been filled up, but this article should still be voted for because it has featured article potential written all over it. --ZeWrestler Talk 18:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natural environment (2 votes, stays until August 19)[edit]

Nominated August 12 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 19 2005
Reason

This article is in a state of severe neglect, and this topics can easily be made feature article quality, with such things such as dangers and a summary of it missing, it is barely not a stub.

Support:
  1. Magicmonster 06:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agentsoo 12:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Tunis (11 votes, stays until September 7)[edit]

Nominated August 17 2005; needs at least 12 votes by September 7 2005
Support:
  1. AlbertR 04:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Red Star 21:13, 17 August 2005 ET
  3. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 03:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Dejvid 15:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lomedae 19:09, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  6. *drew 12:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sbwoodside 23:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Joy [shallot] 19:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Renata3 00:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Walter Chan 01:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Wackymacs 16:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Pathetically short article. A capital city deserves more than this. The history section contains no details and is only a brief summary (the only mentioned event mentioned after 1956 is the Arab League's use of the city). The geography section also deserves more information. The sights section could be expanded into something bigger. A transportation hub, this city has more than just an airport, in fact it is actually one of only two cities in Africa with a rapid transit system. AlbertR 04:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only is this article pathetically tiny, it's also important as Tunis will be the site of second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society from 16 to 18 November 2005! Sbwoodside 23:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tongass National Forest (2 votes, stays until September 10)[edit]

Nominated September 3 2005;needs at least 4 votes by September 10, 2005
Support:
  1. Falphin 15:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Luigizanasi 18:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Rome (6 votes, stays until September 13)[edit]

Nominated August 30, 2005; needs at least 8 votes by September 13, 2005
Support:
  1. Magicmonster 00:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Litefantastic 13:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. *drew 21:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Osu8907 03:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jdhowens90 18:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tsm1128 04:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This one is really quite self explanatory, and the article really should be much better for such an important topic. Magicmonster 00:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lena River (1 vote, stays until October 20, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 13, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 20, 2005
Support:
  1. Waltwe 23:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • One of the world's largest rivers, flows in Siberia. The article need to be expanded.

Cusco (3 votes, stays until November 2, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 19, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 2, 2005
Support:
  1. --Revolución (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KingTT 13:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AKeen 18:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RJH 22:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Important city --Revolución (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Former capital of the Inca Empire before the Spanish trashed the place; currently a frequent tourist's gateway for trips to Macchu Picchu; UNESCO World Heritage Site; it's also located at an altitude of 11,600 feet. They have a tradition of serving coca leaf tea to visitors to help counteract the altitude effects. — RJH 22:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Omaha, Nebraska (2 votes, stays until December 9, 2005)[edit]

Nominated December 2, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 9, 2005
Support:
  1. Swid 17:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mbeerman 17:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Removed:
  1. Davereid 19:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)(see talk)[reply]
Comments:
  • This article could be a FA candidate down the road with some work. Right now, the Omaha article is quite long, relies too heavily on bulleted lists, is VERY hit-or-miss on the information it provides about the city, and needs to be brought up to WikiProject Cities standards. Many of the sections can be expanded into their own articles; much of the information about the metropolitan area (not Omaha proper) should be moved to the Omaha-Council Bluffs metropolitan area article. I reworked the Lincoln, Nebraska article a while back; however, improving the Omaha article is a task I don't want to venture into alone. –Swid 17:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Texcoco (4 votes, stays until January 18)[edit]

Nominated January 4, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 18, 2006
Support
  1. Fxer 22:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Iotha 00:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fenice 07:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 03:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The Aztec empire had their capital, Tenochtitlan, in the middle of the lake! Hernán Cortés had to flee across the causeways to escape the city! Mexico City is now on top of the lake after it was drained! --Fxer 22:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite interesting but I think there are more worthy candidates at the moment. The article isn't even that bad. Soo 15:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness (8 votes, stays until January 26)[edit]

Nominated January 5, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by January 26, 2006
Support
  1. Jtneill - Talk 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --MONGO 04:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Eoghanacht talk 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. *drew 02:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Youngamerican 16:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Empty2005 05:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Thunderforge 22:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • Wilderness is a vital and globally-relevant concept for the 21st century, yet this is an impoverished article in need of attention. - Jtneill - Talk 02:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree, just in the U.S., there are almost 700 wildernesses within just U.S. Government lands. Surely on a worldwide scale, there must be 10 times that many, even if not designated as such, they probably meet the criteria.--MONGO 04:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • QUESTION: I guess I am in favor of the wilderness article, but when you really think about it. Wilderness is a such an expansive topic, I think it needs to be decided wants needs to be covered. CuBiXcRaYfIsH 05:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the entire article needs a rewrite, explaining the loss of habitat, the conservation movement, how it has progressed and that areas that were still pristine were converted from a former status to a highly protected wilderness zone, where no improvements will be made ever. I'm not familiar with the designations outside the U.S., and since this deals with all areas that can be wilderness, it would be nice to get everyone involved.--MONGO 06:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs work, something just does not seem to be encyclopediatic about it. Also needs clarification in terms of the common idea of wilderness, and the legal concept (particularly in terms of related articles nature reserve, wilderness area, and other IUCN categories). — Eoghanacht talk 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major clean up needed 100% support! Empty2005 05:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this is an important concept and does need to be a project cleanup article some time. Thunderforge 22:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albany, New York (3 votes, stays until February 18, 2006)[edit]

Nominated February 4, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 18, 2006
Support
  1. Juppiter 21:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wikiacc 20:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Capital of New York State, historical site of the Albany Plan of Union, host of many important sites, location where the Thruway becomes I-87 instead of I-90. An important city (and my hometown) whose importance has been too overlooked for too long! Juppiter 21:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luxor (4 votes, stays until February 15)[edit]

Nominated February 1, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 15, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Wikiacc • • ∞ 23:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Durantalk 11:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SpacemanAfrica 04:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • An absolutely appalling article for what is one of the premier tourist destinations within modern Egypt. As the ancient capital of Egypt over several dynasties and a showcase of ancient religious and funerary architecture, possibly uneuqalled anywhere in the world, Luxor definitely deserves a campaign of concerted improvement. Paul James Cowie 14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia (10 votes, stays until February 16, 2006)[edit]

Nominated January 19, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 16, 2006
Support
  1. TwilaStar 08:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caponer 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Youngamerican 14:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jhohenzollern 18:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rokafela 04:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mike H. That's hot 08:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SpandX 19:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Skurrkrow 06:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Vir 16:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Lukobe 05:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

West Virginia (11 votes, stays until February 27)[edit]

Nominated January 30, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 27, 2006
Support
  1. Caponer 18:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SpandX 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TwilaStar 19:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Juppiter 19:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jhohenzollern 21:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Youngamerican 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Rokafela 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. jay 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Skurrkrow 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Vir 18:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. MONGO 20:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The U.S. state of West Virginia was recently the U.S. Collaboration of the Week and was greatly improved to the status of "Good Article". I believe that with some more hard work through the Article Improvement Drive, the West Virginia article will be given featured article status. --Caponer 18:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh. I'd rather work on getting United States up to Featured Article status first; wouldn't you? Despite being an infinitely more important article and one of the most widely-linked-to-pages (115,788 pages link to United States, making it the 7th-most-widely-linked page and the most widely linked page on Wikipedia other than fair use and various Wikipedia-namespace pages) and widely-visited articles on all of Wikipedia, it's not even up to "Good Article" status yet and has countless deficiencies. In particular, since West Virginia has already recently received a lot of improvement and has risen in status, it's not really necessary to give it even more attention so soon. Rushed FAs are often too unstable. -Silence 19:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate it, and it shall receive my support. youngamerican (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the U.S. page looks pretty good already. It just needs a bit of fine tuning, some in-line references instead of the external links, and a peer review. Has anybody actually tried taking it through for FA? — RJH 19:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austria (10 votes, stays until March 3)[edit]

Nominated February 3, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 3, 2006
Support
  1. Caponer 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wikiacc ( | ∞) 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Juppiter 21:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jhohenzollern 03:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Skurrkrow 06:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 07:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. TwilaStar 08:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SpandX 08:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Rokafela 18:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Gflores Talk 06:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • For a country with such an interesting history and rich culture, it's a wonder why the article for the Republic of Austria isn't already at a featured article status. --Caponer 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florence (10 votes, stays until March 5)[edit]

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 5, 2006
Support
  1. Un sogno modesto 08:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul James Cowie 10:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JoJan 15:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rokafela 18:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Caponer 20:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jhohenzollern 23:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. TwilaStar 23:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wikiacc 21:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ham 20:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sicilianmandolin 02:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed votes
  1. SpandX 08:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A city full of history and culture, the article needs housecleaning. For instance, there's nothing about climate. The article could use better organization and general help. Florence is such an important part of Italian and Western history; I think it deserves much more attention.
  • Definitely general improvements to be made to this influential and popular city. It would also be good to a new article leading off this main article for the History of Florence, if not created already... Paul James Cowie 10:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Bucharest (10 votes, stays until March 5)[edit]

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 5, 2006
Support
  1. Caponer 21:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jhohenzollern 23:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rokafela 04:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. TwilaStar 23:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. *drew 01:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FrancisTyers 16:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wikiacc 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Vir 17:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Lukobe 08:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Zserghei 10:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed votes
  1. SpandX 16:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Bucharest is about to become another major capital city within the European Union and like the above nominated cities, it only requires some minor improvements in order to become a featured article. --Caponer 21:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thessaloniki (8 votes, stays until March 12)[edit]

Nominated February 12, 2006; needs at least 13 votes by March 12, 2006
Support
  1. Caponer 04:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aerobird 16:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vir 03:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lukobe 18:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Valentinian 09:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Hippalus 08:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --71Demon 02:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Nakis 18:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The content of the article itself is in good article condition and it is quite close to featured article status. However, Thessaloniki's article is in need of a trim and clean-up overall and the possible addition of information in sections that are lacking. Thessaloniki is Greece's second largest city, it is a major port on the Aegean Sea, and the capital of the EU region of Macedonia. A lot of its Jewish past is also missing from the article. --Caponer 04:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also an early home of Christianity and the recipient of two letters of the apostle Paul. - Aerobird 16:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marseille (7 votes, stays until March 10)[edit]

Nominated February 17, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 10, 2006
Support
  1. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 19:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lukobe 23:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Juppiter 23:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Poppypetty 05:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Caponer 00:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Un sogno modesto 01:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jdcooper 19:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I saw this: During the Roman times, it was called Massilia. In 1934 Alexander I of Yugoslavia arrived at the port to meet with the French foreign minister Louis Barthou., and realized this important French city was sadly lacking in article content. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 19:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Mais oui, absolument
  • Allez l'OM !!! Poppypetty 05:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less an encyclopaedia article, more a factbook entry of some kind. There is barely any prose here whatsoever. Is it not the busiest port in Europe? Or at least was? Expand! Jdcooper 19:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallahassee, Florida (16 votes, stays until March 10)[edit]

Nominated January 27, 2006; needs at least 18 votes by March 10, 2006
Support
  1. Krashlandon (e) 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Forever young 13:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Jaranda wat's sup 22:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tetraminoe 23:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Aerobird 01:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. *drew 02:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Caponer 22:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jhohenzollern 03:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 07:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Valentino 05:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Bastique 01:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. GlobeTrotter 03:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cooleyez229 09:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Mikereichold 19:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC) (hope I'm not too late.)[reply]
  16. --Revolución hablar ver 17:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Tallahassee is a capital city, and this article is way too short for a city of its importance. Tallahassee is growing, even though it is still has a small town community feeling. I think the article should grow with it, so when Tallahassee starts to rival Orlando, we will have the info to back it up. Krashlandon (e) 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, this town seems to have plenty of information already; it could use expansion, but so could just about every article on Wikipedia. Considering that articles like Rome and Babylon aren't much larger than Tallahassee, Florida (and, in fact, they're arguably in worse shape than the Tallahassee article is, especially Rome), I don't think this justifies an AID effort at this time. There are just way, way too many more important candidates in much worse condition. -Silence 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least, the quality of this article should be comparable to the quality found in the Austin and Sacramento articles (the capitals of the two most populous US States)...or perhaps even more in-depth! So, that's my vote. Valentino 05:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. But you're losing the big picture as well: the qualify of the Austin and Sacramento articles is fifty times better than that of the Rome and Babylon articles. Bring a fairly important article that's at decent-quality up to high-quality is fine, but bringing a vitally important article that's at poor-quality up to high-quality is infinitely more important. You might as well say "We should AID the 'pinky' article because the 'thumb' article is so much better right now and they should be about equal.", to which I'd reply, "What about the 'hand' article, or the 'heart' one?!" -Silence 19:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think, however, that most people these days could care less about ancient cities and civiliations. Wheras they will more likely be looking for information on "modern times". - Aerobird 14:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not strictly the point. Wikipedia's aims should be twofold, firstly to provide the information that the teeming masses are after, and secondly to create an academic resource at least on a par if not far better than any available on Earth right now. Just because "most people these days" aren't necessary interested in Rome and Babylon, doesn't mean that they are not vitally important for our status as an academic resource. They are, and that is why we need to use AID for them. The teeming masses can add their own information to the Talahassee article if they must, that is where the wiki- part comes in. AID takes care of the -pedia. Jdcooper 03:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Bangladesh (2 vote, stays until March 13)[edit]

Nominated March 6, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 13, 2006
Support
  1. Ragib 19:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Heartofgoldfish 21:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Bangladesh is a nation of 150 million people, in one of the most densely populated regions of the world. It is the 7th most populous country in the world. Often ravaged by floods and cyclones, Bangladesh is a secular democracy, achieved via years of struggle. The article needs a lot of improvement to get up to FA status. Thanks. --Ragib 19:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Singapore (5 votes, stays until March 13)[edit]

Nominated February 27, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 13, 2006
Support
  1. Terence Ong 10:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 14:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hong Qi Gong 16:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mkaycomputer 01:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Un sogno modesto 04:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Needs a lot of cleanup, though long and informative.

National emblem of Belarus (6 votes, stays until March 20)[edit]

Nominated March 6, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 20, 2006
Support
  1. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 01:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. mikka (t) 01:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 05:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. User:Irpen --19:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Vote by User:Irpen at [6]. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. RomeoVoid 01:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Brazil (3 votes, stays until March 20)[edit]

Nominated March 13, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 20, 2006
Support
  1. PDXblazers 06:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caponer 18:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Un sogno modesto 07:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Brazil is the largest and arguably most important in South America. This article is pretty close to FA, the biggest issue being lack of references and citations. It appears that most of the references have been placed as "exteral links," but many of these are in Portugese and Spanish. An AID could make this article FA. It is already listed as a Good Article, lets push it over the top!! PDXblazers 06:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japan (9 votes, stays until March 30)[edit]

Nominated March 9, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 30, 2006
Support
  1. Mkaycomputer 23:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 01:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ugur Basak 00:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Un sogno modesto 23:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PDXblazers 03:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tachikoma 13:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fg2 05:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ataricodfish 05:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Good article, but could use a little bit of work and referencing to make an excellent article out of a country with very interesting history and culture.
  • See my comments under Italy nomination. PDXblazers 03:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Paz (5 votes, stays until March 30)[edit]

Nominated March 16, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 30, 2006
Support
  1. Jersey Devil 00:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caponer 19:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Revolución hablar ver 05:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Messhermit 22:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --kingboyk 15:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article is about the capital of Bolivia and yet is very small and not even sectioned into the usual history, demographics, government, etc... section. This definately deserves more and there is so much that can be added into this article. This is the type of article that could become a featured article if worked on enough.--Jersey Devil 00:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that Bolivia has two capitals. If you work on La Paz, you should work on Sucre as well. PDXblazers 06:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, however La Paz is accepted as Bolivia's "capital" in the true sense of the word whilst Sucre is only its "constitutional capital".--Jersey Devil 19:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Caucasus (geographic region) (6 votes, stays until April 18)[edit]

Nominated April 4, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 18, 2006
Support
  1. Jdcooper 23:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sicilianmandolin 08:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kdehl 14:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ka34 08:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 20:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • It should be apparent to anyone who looks at this article that it is by no means full enough, or anywhere close. It is only just beyond a stub. The caucasus is an important region politically and geographically, especially for European and Asian history, and we could really do with at least a better article than this, if not a featured article. Jdcooper 23:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New England (10 votes, stays until April 19)[edit]

Nominated March 29, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by April 19, 2006
Support
  1. Behun 04:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 05:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bayberrylane 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Caponer 05:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Thud495 03:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tom 19:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kipple 10:45 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Markus24 02:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. *drew 11:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. JosephRJustice 22:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Cardiff (9 votes, stays until April 27)[edit]

Nominated April 6, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by April 27, 2006
Support
  1. Wackymacs 20:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caponer 01:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vashti 08:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. HAM 14:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Underneath-it-All 15:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cvene64 08:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Joe D (t) 00:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. JosephRJustice 15:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Needs expansion, more detail, references and more images - Could easily become a featured article with the right amount of content. — Wackymacs 20:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will make a to do list on the talk page. Joe D (t) 00:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I gave a token vote for my home city, but following the principle of "starting at the top" being discussed at the moment in the nomination for Jesus, I wonder whether Wales might be a better candidate for the AID? HAM 10:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


---

Sweden (6 votes, stays until May 11)[edit]

Nominated April 27, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 11, 2006
Support
  1. Daniel 02:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Maurreen 18:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casey14 23:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Caponer 21:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CrnaGora 21:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is a country with a small population, both today and in its long history, but its contributions to mankind in throughout its history and even today are very, very numerous and quite incredible. A fascinating country, culture, and more. It's listed on the most visited articles list near the top, as well as a 'good article' now. I think that it's a very important article to improve further. Daniel 02:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North America (10 votes, stays until May 12)[edit]

Nominated April 21, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by May 12, 2006
Support
  1. Maurreen 04:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steven 21:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PDXblazers 05:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. *drew 05:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Caponer 19:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. CrnaGora 03:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RJH 21:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Jaranda wat's sup 03:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Shortest article of all the continents. Article consists of about 13 paragraphs on geography, a table of nations and other regions, and several pictures.
  • Further to that, IMO, all the continent articles should share a similar layout ... a la countries (Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italy (36 votes, stays until May 17)[edit]

Nominated March 15, 2006; needs at least 40 votes by May 24, 2006
Support
  1. Sicilianmandolin 11:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PDXblazers 03:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 23:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Un sogno modesto 01:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvo (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Scottwiki 02:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Rory096 02:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Gennaro Prota 00:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Rikimaru 12:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 03:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. CloudNine 13:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. GhePeU 11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Maurreen 08:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Wikiragazzo 02:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Cvene64 08:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. tatonzolo 10:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. iceman 13:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Chol X 03:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. JR98664 03:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Neoneo13 21:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. JosephRJustice 21:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. JustUser 22:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. badpazzword 20:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --SγωΩηΣ tαlk 18:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. General Eisenhower 00:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Pippotro 15:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. HAM 22:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. --Manwe 12:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Matterbug 03:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Casey14 01:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. mimmo46 20:57, 11 may 2006 (UYC)
  33. Ledzeppelin321295 18:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Teodorico 23:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. serbiana - talk 01:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Shizane talkcontribs 17:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed votes
  1. 84.68.86.23 15:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 58.170.77.140 04:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article is in desperate need of AID. Italy has been one of the most important and influential countries in the world and there's so much more that can be written about her than this, and as one of the most referenced country articles in Wikipedia, I don't see why there shouldn't be. Sicilianmandolin 11:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Country articles hold some of Wikipedia's greatest potential as a legitimate research tool. Important country articles should be among Wikipedia's best. PDXblazers 03:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely support this. Un sogno modesto 01:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If / when work starts on this article, please leave me a message! I can help with translations between Italian and English for any sources and interwiki references. └ VodkaJazz/talk┐ 23:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely a vivid country as Italy deserves a better article than it currently has now. Italy has a distinct culture with beautiful cities and landscapes, and with a bella language to boot:D Wikiragazzo
  • Just thought I should mention, if this does suceed it may also be worth spending a little time on Military of Italy, which considering the size and influence of their army, its really in rather sad condition. Some of the sub-articles are too bad but it needs improvement. Falphin 22:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Sicilianmandolin -- Shizane talkcontribs 17:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Schizane. Doesn't 36 votes qualify a nomination for AID? Sicilianmandolin 02:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Flanders (2 votes, stays until May 17)[edit]

Nominated May 10, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 17, 2006
Support
  1. 1652186 19:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Felixboy 20:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • As most countries and states have good or even featured articles, I think it's time for the Flemish minded contributors here to do the same for their article. 1652186 19:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nile River (6 votes, stays until May 18)[edit]

Nominated May 4, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 18, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 08:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PDXblazers 05:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ezeu 00:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vanguard 17:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CrnaGora 21:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Okinawadude 16:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Surely deserving of Featured Status on Wikipedia, as both the longest river and one of the most influential rivers in human history - to the present day. Paul James Cowie 08:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest that a move to Nile River as the title of the article should be implemented, in keeping with the vast majority of other major world rivers. What do others think on this score? Paul James Cowie 08:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Moldova (2 vote, stays until May 30)[edit]

Nominated May 23, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 30, 2006
Support
  1. Felixboy 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casey14 19:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • For being a country it does not have an article like most other countries do. Felixboy 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asia (10 votes, stays until June 2)[edit]

Nominated May 12, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by June 2, 2006
Support
  1. Maurreen 03:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Steven 23:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. __earth (Talk) 17:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kimchi.sg 13:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CrnaGora 01:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Walkerma 07:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Skinnyweed 21:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hong Qi Gong 15:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ccson 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Davodd 06:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments


Miami, Florida (1 vote, stays until June 2)[edit]

Nominated May 26, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by June 2, 2006
Support
  1. Jaranda wat's sup 01:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

New York City (31 votes, stays until June 3)[edit]

Nominated April 8, 2006; needs at least 32 votes by June 3, 2006
Support
  1. --Whoshiwoo 14:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. estavisti 17:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steven 17:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Un sogno modesto 21:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Howrealisreal 17:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PDXblazers 05:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Manwe 08:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CloudNine 12:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jdcooper 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 19 April 2006 @ 01:45 UTC
  11. Descent 17:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Fantom 14:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Mkaycomputer 19:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Alexandrewb 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 1652186 19:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Duran 01:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. CrnaGora 03:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. └ VodkaJazz /  02:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Captainktainer * Talk 12:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Flymeoutofhere 13:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. John R Murray 22:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Yauhin 21:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Vanguard 17:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Osbus 16:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Caponer 01:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Terence Ong 10:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Duran 19:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Tothebarricades 06:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Hezzy 23:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Ciraric 19:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Davodd 06:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed votes
  1. Richard the Lion-Hearted 4:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC) (no such user)[reply]


Comments
  • The largest city in the English-speaking world.But in French Wikipedia and German Wikipedia it's more particular than in English Wikipedia.In French and German Wikipedia New York City is featured article, but in English Wikipedia it's not.Is it possble?We MUST improve it!
  • Greatest city ever - needs to be the Greatest article ever! --Descent
  • I think NYC could easily be judged as a good article already, in which case it would go to the other listing. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 02:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be biased, but New York City is one of the most important topics, and one of the easiest to draw a lot of loving attention to.

Cividade de Terroso (1 vote, stays until June 8)[edit]

Nominated June 1, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by June 8, 2006
Support
  1. Pedro 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The article needs native English editors. It is a Castro culture article, a culture from Iberia in Europe that has very poor info on wikipedia.--Pedro 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous[edit]

Survival skills (6 votes, stays until July 24)[edit]

Nominated July 10 2005; needs at least 6 votes by July 24 2005
Reason
The article is in serious need of attention, notably wording and images. Much of it is incomplete, with some portions consisting of headings with no corresponding passages. Furthermore, the subject is not only interesting, but could also be useful in many circumstances (e.g. first aid). I believe that giving this article more publicity can drastically improve it from the current state it is in. Pentawing 18:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support:
  1. Pentawing 18:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 19:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Maurreen 19:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Xperment 18:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ZeWrestler Talk 16:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jacoplane 23:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • The German version is very detailled, if it fails we could put up a translation request at WP:TIE.--Fenice 19:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would need to be made less of a how-to and more encyclopedic. Also, I think a better name would be "Wilerness survival." Maurreen 19:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is to become a "how-to" guide, the topic may be a better fit for Wikibooks. — RJH 18:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia (1 votes, stays until August 23)[edit]

Nominated August 16 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 23 2005
Support:
  1. Wikinerd 03:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This article needs immediate attention to add criticism, remove bias and generally improve it. MediaWiki developer User:Tim Starling said "The Wikimedia Foundation is undemocratic. Its bylaws were determined by one man. Its statement of principles is arbitrary, and does not agree with my own. Elections just give the appearance of democracy, the board will remain stacked regardless of the outcome. This is fake democracy, it is democracy executed without commitment to democratic principles. I don't believe this is a problem which can be fixed in small steps." My edit which added Tim Starling's criticism was removed, and I'm not going to fall into an edit war. Wikinerd 03:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, I don't believe this is where you'd go to resolve conflicts regarding edits. If there is some activity on the article, I'd suggest Talking about it rather than suggesting that it needs improvement because someone reverted one of your edits. If it the conflict in POV is severe, then I'd suggest looking into arbitration as a solution. Syrae Faileas 21:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics (15 votes, stays until August 24)[edit]

Nominated July 13 2005; needs at least 18 votes by August 24 2005
Reason
A very popular topic that deserves a better article, I was surprised to see this as a stub. The article currently only has two short paragraphs, and only one sentence for the History section. It should talk about some of the most popular artists of all time, and maybe explain the different types of graphics in detail and how graphics are used around the world (business, advertisement, education, in work, to symbolize things, etc). I'd love to see this become a featured article because it would be an interesting read.
Support:
  1. Wackymacs 17:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. EKMichigan 18:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Naha|(talk) 18:28, July 13, 2005 (UTC) I've done work on this one! :) Thanks for the nomination, I plan to do more!
  4. Christiant 23:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maurreen 06:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fenice 06:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Eric Forste 01:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kyleca 00:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. the wub "?/!" 08:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Deryck C. 17:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Beland 01:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Conce 02:50, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
  13. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Trevor macinnis 18:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Syrae Faileas 21:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

World Youth Day 2005 (1 vote, stays until August 24)[edit]

Nominated August 17 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 24 2005
Support
  1. Newguineafan 15:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Comments
  • In the News section on the Main Page has a link to this article, but yet the article is amazingly short. If we really want to show how awsome Wikipedia is, we should make this article longer. It is also a current event, which almost entitles it to featured article status because of the high traffic. This article definitly needs to be improved. Newguineafan 15:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


Pilgrims (1 vote, stays until August 26)[edit]

Nominated August 19 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 26, 2005
Reason:

Shockingly short article. Must be expanded. Very important historical topic.

Support:
  1. Osu8907 03:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transport (11 votes, stays until August 27)[edit]

Nominated August 6 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 27 2005
Support:
  1. Maurreen (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 09:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Trevor macinnis 10:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wackymacs 11:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PRueda29 16:46, 8 August 2005
  6. Deryck C. 03:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. shuri 11:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Richy 14:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Laisak 15:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Mackensen (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Needs history and overview of different types of transportation. Maurreen (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important business topic that needs expansion.--Fenice 09:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Pac-Man (11 votes, stays until August 28)[edit]

Nominated July 31 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 28 2005
Support
  1. Toothpaste 08:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Evil Eye 12:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ike9898 16:44, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ZeWrestler Talk 12:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. A Link to the Past 10:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Pedro 10:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 12:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Richy 14:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Locarno 20:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Croat Canuck 02:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Pending tasks for this include incorperating the trivia section into the main body and also expanding the lead. It also, perhaps, needs book references and inline citations. As far as the history of video gaming goes, this is almost as important as Mario, and significantly more important than Wario. Toothpaste 08:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For one, Pac-Man is NOT near Mario's popularity. For another, while Pac-Man once could claim he's more important than Wario, I'd say that Wario has easily surpassed him nowadays. -- A Link to the Past 19:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think pesent popularity should really play any part in deciding which game is more important. Polularity changes as things advance. What I would say shouldn't be in dispute is the greater importance and impact to the world of video games that Pac-Man has had over the years and the greater idenification the general public has with it when compared to Wario. Maybe presnetly in the video game world Wario might be more poular, but wikipedia isn't about cataloguing present trends, but in this instance is about ensure top quality articles for something which has had great influence in a particular area. For this reason I believe that Pac-Man article should improved well before the Wario aricle.(But really it doesn't matter too much which is first, and I took the original comment to mean that seen as Wario is on this list, then surely so should Pac-Man. Evil Eye 08:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Difference is that Mario was more important back then, continued to become even more important, and is still very important, while Pac-Man has pretty much become an after-thought lately. -- A Link to the Past 13:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
          • Isn't this a rather silly argument? Obviously, both of them have significant pop-culture impact, and both articles are far from fan-only subjects of interest. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 12:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assure you that if you asked 100 people, nearly everyone could tell you what Pac-Man is, and hardly anyone could tell you who Wario is. I wont vote for Wario because I don't think it's important and it still has a good article, and I won't vote for Pac-Man because it arleady has a good article and other articles are more in need of attention. Osu8907 17:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wario is much more popular than you think. You play any Mario Party game, he's there. Mario Kart? He's there. Mario Tennis, Golf, Baseball? He's there. People who know Mario just happen to know Wario. And that's just that crowd, there is a very large following of his games. Also, I now support this article - and suggest a Pac-Man products section be implimented, and the Trivia section be removed. -- A Link to the Past 10:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


Casino (5 votes, stays until August 28)[edit]

Nominated August 14 2005; needs at least 8 votes by August 28 2005

Reason: This is still a short article. I think a lot more could be added. More information of the major casinos, the history of the casino, security mechanisms used against cheaters, etc.

Support:
  1. Jacoplane 00:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vegaswikian 00:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wackymacs 08:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ike9898 01:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Comments:

Obesity (9 votes, stays until August 29)[edit]

Nominated August 8 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 29 2005
Support:
  1. JFW | T@lk 20:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Deryck C. 03:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Encephalon | ζ | Σ 08:34:50, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  4. Kpjas 09:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Steve espinola10:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ♥purplefeltangel 23:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mokgand 22:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 03:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Richy 15:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This topic now has a long page, but certain essential points are still missing or too brief: cultural significance of obesity, psychological impact, statistics in various countries and whether they correlate with complications. The policy section needs to be tidied up. JFW | T@lk 20:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

Teenage pregnancy (12 votes, stays until September 1)[edit]

Nominated August 4 2005; needs at least 16 votes by September 1 2005
Reason:

One of the 10 most notable social issues in industrialized countries. The quality of the article is embarrassingly shoddy.

Support:
  1. lots of issues | leave me a message 06:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. tonibella | leave me a message 21:19, 8 August 2005
  3. Fieari 21:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Deryck C. 03:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fenice 05:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Renata3 05:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ZeWrestler Talk 18:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Richy 14:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Syrae Faileas 20:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Howrealisreal 21:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Alr 23:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Public education (21 votes, stays until September 8)[edit]

Nominated July 14 2005; needs at least 24 votes by September 8 2005
Support:
  1. Beland 01:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 05:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Theaterfreak64 20:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jmabel | Talk 18:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Eric Forste 22:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bhuck 11:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Behun 16:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Howrealisreal 16:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sesel 06:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Menchi 21:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Cryoboy 18:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  13. A Link to the Past 18:04, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Richy 14:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. —Encephalon | ζ | Σ 18:19:15, 2005-08-12 (UTC) - One more week for ya.
  16. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Syrae Faileas 20:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. JoanneB 21:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Alr 20:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. naryathegreat | (talk) 19:17, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Silverfish 21:04, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
  • I'm dissapointed with the information we have on this subject, in general; all articles are incomplete, for the most part. This would be a great start. --Theaterfreak64 20:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll give it a try. It's especially interesting when comparing it to the article on Homeschooling. --Bhuck 11:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What this article really needs right now is more information about public education outside the United States. Either that or a name change to Public education in the United States, but that's not the article I voted for in the improvement drive voting. --arkuat (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (6 votes, stays until September 13)[edit]

Nominated August 30 2005; needs at least 8 votes by September 13, 2005
Support:
  1. Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 17:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Zhatt 17:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  3. The Tom 20:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Madison Gray 03:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Luigizanasi 06:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Litefantastic 14:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This article nearly good enough to be an FA, and one of the first things anyone thinks of when they think of Canada. After an improvement drive (if it gets one) I will send it to peer review and FAC. - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs)

United Nations (3 votes, stays until September 15)[edit]

Nominated 8 Sept 2005; needs at least 4 votes by September 15, 2005
Support:
  1. CG 13:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Spawn Man 13:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nik 00:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Highly prominent article.
    • What actually needs improving ? , this article is long and detailed, includes plenty of pictures and information, and looks like it hasn't got POV or grammar problems. — Wackymacs 17:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it isn't a featured article yet. And look at its todo box. CG 18:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
I voted for this (by putting my name on here), but I don't think it's actually worked. Will someone tell me how to on my user talk pleeeeease? Spawn Man 13:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nutmeg (6 votes, stays until September 19)[edit]

Nominated 5 Sept 2005; needs at least 8 votes by September 19, 2005

There is a good amount of info on the page, but no references at all! Myriad cooking uses, eggnog, pumpkin pie, and especially questions surrounding the toxic/hallucinogenic properties of Nutmeg could be fleshed out. Hopefully wouldn't take a ton of work to bring it up to Featured Article status, given what is already there.

Support:
  1. Fxer 22:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  2. JFW | T@lk 00:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC) C'mon, let's to nuts with nutmeg.[reply]
  3. Litefantastic 11:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jdhowens90 18:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. *drew 14:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Richy 18:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Habitat for Humanity International (1 vote, stays until 18 September 2005)[edit]

Nominated 11 September 2005; needs at least 4 votes by September 18, 2005
Support:
  1. MC MasterChef 08:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AlMac|(talk) 02:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • A major international charity approaching its 30th anniversary in 2006; I've attempted to flesh out this article some but I think much more can be said about Habitat and its mission. (I have lots more pictures from my own volunteering experience I could add as well.) --MC MasterChef 08:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Girl (1 vote, stays until 20 September 2005)[edit]

Nominated 13 September 2005; needs at least 4 votes by September 20, 2005
Support:
  1. Djbaniel 02:25, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
  • Made good progress from COTW, and much work is left to be done for such a fundamental topic.

Noise (environmental) (4 votes, stays until October 5, 2005)[edit]

Nominated September 21, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by October 5, 2005
Support:
  1. Whitejay251 15:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 17:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. *drew 03:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. NeoJustin 10:37, October 2, 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
  • It's ironic that an article on environmental noise is getting signal noise from noise music. Beyond fixing that, much more can be said on the effects of noise and methods of noise reduction. Whitejay251 15:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe polish (3 votes, stays until 11 October 2005)[edit]

Nominated 27 September 2005; needs at least 6 votes by 11 October, 2005
Support:
  1. Proto t c 09:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 15:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. C-squared 15:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • I took it to peer review, and had lots of useful comments, and implemented them. But it's still not quite there, and it would be truly awesome if we could get an article on shoe polish to FA status. It is so damn close. Proto t c 09:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Articles which are number one for one word Google searches (1 vote, stays until October 25, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 18, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 25, 2005
Support:
  1. Freiberg 00:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This is an important article, because it shows the popularity of Wikipedia. Deserves more than what it is currently.
  • This isn't an article. --Revolución (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, the Article Improvement Drive should be working every week to improve the overall quality of the Wikipedia, especially through notable topics that are likely to be visited. This is more of a curiosity point (in the Wikipedia namespace, no less) and is not worth a week of AID's time. KingTT 02:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enlightenment (concept) (1 vote, stays until October 27, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 20, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 27, 2005
Support:
  1. Jules LT 16:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Needs reference paragraphs to the various particular cases in precise philosophies (Hinduism, Buddhism, Zen, Yoga), but the general concept is fundamental to most kinds of spirituality, and deserves an article of quality. Jules LT 16:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL (Internet slang) (4 votes, stays until October 30, 2005)[edit]

Nominated October 16, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by October 30, 2005
Support:
  1. Sysys 08:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 17:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Harmil 14:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tarret 13:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • I would say 'LOL' is one of the most used of all internet lingo, and the current page contains very little interesting or sourced information. Currently the only sources are blogs, forum posts, and one remotely related editorial article. About half of the article consists of people listing their favourite 'LOL'-related acronyms. I'm sure this article could be much better. Sysys 08:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been criticisms of the lack of sources for both LOL (Internet slang) and Pwn. If anyone has good sources for those articles, it would be a huge help! -Harmil 14:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not much you could say about "LOL" that isn't already said in this article. --Revolución (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. I beg of potential voters not to encourage the waste of precious man hours on a subject that should be way down the list of anyone's priorities. In fact this is an example of an article that would probably be made miserable the more people add to it, since it's liable to be the addition of lots more obscure variants that people involved only in any one particular newsgroup or forum have ever heard of. --bodnotbod 09:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that's the point, this article is always getting filled up with crap. If we took the time to make it better, people would probably be discouraged from adding stupid things like that. I'm sure with a bit of searching we might be able to track down the history of it, why it's used in so many different languages, etc..Sysys 01:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National Collegiate Athletic Association (2 votes, stays until November 12, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 5, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by November 12, 2005
Support:
  1. ??????t? 00:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Harro5 04:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Pitifully short article on an organization that runs basically all the major collegiate sporting events in the United States. I want to improve it, but I'm not sure where to begin.
  • Needs more on why its so notable and important, especially compared to any other collegiate sporting network around the world. This needs some work, as it really is a parent article for anything about US college activities. Harro5 04:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hells Angels (3 votes, stays until November 19, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 5, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 19, 2005
Support:
  1. bodnotbod 16:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  ALKIVAR™ 21:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Mceder 05:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • It's a mess. --bodnotbod 16:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history is rich and should be fairly well documented, perhaps lots of POV issues to resolve but sounds like a good candidate. --Mceder 05:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen (1 vote, stays until November 26, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 19, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by November 26, 2005
Support:
  1. Waltwe 11:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • A very good article that could be expanded, has a good chance of becoming a FA.

Eagle scout rank (Boy Scouts of America) (7 votes, stays until November 28, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 7, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by November 28, 2005
Support:
  1. ZeWrestler Talk 17:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Harro5 02:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Trevdna 04:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Gadget850 14:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 卫weizhe哲Talk to me! 23:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ike9898 21:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 01:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Rather short article about the highest honor in scouting. Much can be done to improve this article, and because of that, I believe this should be worked on by editors here. --ZeWrestler Talk 17:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concurr. IMHO, length is not the issue, but it does need some organization. --Gadget850 18:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that a vote? if so, sign your name on the support list.--ZeWrestler Talk 03:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Williams (3 votes, stays until December 6, 2005)[edit]

Nominated 29 November 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 6, 2005
Support:
  1. BlankVerse 12:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 03:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Stanley "Tookie" Williams, one of the founders of the Crips street gang is currently in the news because of his pending 13 December 2005 execution date, and the consideration of his clemency appeal to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. That means that many people will be looking at the Wikipedia article to find out more information. The current article is not bad, but I'm sure that it could be much better. Among other items, the handling of citations needs to be upgraded to current Wikipedia standards. BlankVerse 12:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Case-control (2 votes, stays until December 6, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 29, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 6, 2005
Support:
  1. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Pat 17:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This article is currently a bit meandering, but has great potential. The subject itself is very important: the known fact that case-control helped identify the link between smoking and cancer means that a lot of people believe this is a very reliable type of study, when actually most highly-cited studies of this type subsequently turn out to be highly overoptimistic, or even flat wrong. The point about smoking and cancer is that the case-control studies were subsequently confirmed by other, more robust kinds of evidence. As it is, case-control is used to push all kinds of dodgy "remedies" which would never pass a clinical trial. Some doctors even misrepresent case-control as a clinical trial, which it emphatically is not. This is the best kind of article: one which has the potential to extend what is common knowledge among specialists in the area, to a wider population. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm no specialist on this subject. Article could use a better introduction, no? I just skimmed through the article. A little confusing but indeed there is room for turning this into the "best kind of article." --Pat 17:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terra cotta (1 vote, stays until December 7, 2005)[edit]

Nominated November 30, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 7, 2005
Support:
  1. KingTT 05:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Lots more could be written about this significant material. KingTT 05:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Button (5 votes, stays until January 17, 2006)[edit]

Nominated January 3, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 17, 2006
Support
  1. Hahnchen 01:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mgm|(talk) 13:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steven 23:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fenice 18:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Melaen 18:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Buttons have been around for ages, everyone knows what they are so it can probably do quite well for an Improvement Drive candidate. I'm sure this could be extended and improved, at least to the length of Jenson Button's entry. - Hahnchen 01:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, the simplest of things should be covered better. - Mgm|(talk) 13:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • YA buttons!!! I loved buttons when I was a kid, but thats beside the point. The article seems too empty for something so important andso common in day-to-day life. Steven 23:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy (2 votes, stays until 23 January)[edit]

Nominated 11:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC); needs at least 3 votes by 23 January, 2006
Support
  1. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DanielCD 12:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Important philosophical concept with current practical concerns. This important topic should be featured-status. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I agree that privacy is an important topic, I'd say most of the other articles put forward here are in greater need of help. So count that as a half-vote. - Samsara contrib talk 04:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, privacy software is an article that's in a really bad state! - Samsara contrib talk 04:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hillman Avenger, (2 votes, stays until January 24)[edit]

Nominated January 17, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by January 24, 2006'
Support
  1. User:GT-11 IDRIVE --GT-11 IDRIVE 13:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kierant 15:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Many exotic and sporting vehicles have considerable articles; it would be nice to recognise and describe some of the more prosaic models which in fact impacted more people's lives. This kind of article isn't just for "petrol-heads", it also informs research into industrial heritage and social trends. Also, in this specific case, there is a fair bit of info to be linked to regarding the complex history of the manufacturer and its relationship with the British government and trades unions. Kierant 15:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treason (7 votes, stays until February 19)[edit]

Nominated January 29, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 19, 2006
Support
  1. Empty2005 04:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —Wikiacc • • ∞ 22:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Metta Bubble 13:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lbbzman 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SpacemanAfrica 04:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Lukobe 05:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The article needs major work on both copy editing and needs more in depth historical explanation besides it's effect in England, Empty2005 04:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturopathic medicine (4 votes, stays until February 22)[edit]

Nominated February 8, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 22, 2006
Support
  1. Un sogno modesto 06:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vir 17:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lukobe 05:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dodgens 14:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A very important topic in today's world. Naturopathic medicine has been on a steady incline in recent decades, as a result of modern medicine and its many questionable side effects. The article is in awful shape and in need of cleaning.
  • "The healing power of nature"? Yay, more New Age bullshit on AID. -Silence 07:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Child Support Agency (1 vote, stays until February 26)[edit]

Nominated February 19, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by February 26, 2006
Support
  1. MartinRe 00:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Expanded the article myself as best I could on Feb 9, did my best with footnotes and citations, but could really use some help with expanding sections and creating new ones as the amount of referenced material is quite large, and my prose writing skills aren't the best! Also, lots of stats available, but not easy to translate into english! MartinRe 00:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign aid (7 votes, stays until February 28)[edit]

Nominated February 07, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 28, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 19:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SpacemanAfrica 18:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. *drew 01:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vir 17:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Melaen 02:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Catquas 01:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Incredibly short for such an important issue in international relations, development and globalisation. Also, absolutely no treatment given to the political use of foreign aid, whether past or present, whereby a donor country seeks certain advantages within or behaviour from a recipient country..... Could be a very interesting article! Paul James Cowie 19:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is in need of serious maintenance. There is no serious definition. There are no arguments for or against which should not be the case because siences like economics are not exact siences. For example, how can you talk about Aggregate demand and long run aggregate supply without mentioning Keynsian and Neo-Classical models atleast exist. Similar situations exist within this article regarding the function of aid.
  • Essentially the arguments only describes a few types of aid. There is nothing about the eligability of HIPC countries. Sustainability is not fully considered. And so forth. It is an rather important article and argueably should get more attention than homer simpson... which doesnt seem to be the case.
  • The main reason it needs development is because there are a bunch of kinds of aid which are not even dealt with in wikipedia, such as military aid. The development aid page deals with the economic development aspects of aid (although that needs work too).
  • Oppose. Stubs belong on CotW; AID is for fleshing-out and tidying-up full-fledged articles. Nominate it at CotW and I'll strongly support this candidate. -Silence 10:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Free Documentation License (13 votes, stays until March 2)[edit]

Nominated January 26, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by March 2, 2006
Support
  1. Tarret 00:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dijxtra 09:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Gronky 18:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 03:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. UmbrageOfSnow 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SpacemanAfrica 04:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Unterdenlinden 01:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. American Patriot 1776 01:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Vir 17:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Lukobe 05:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Janizary 07:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is what makes the Wikipedia free. This is why this article should be a featured class article.
  • Todo: What it was written to do, the need to work in many continents, the threats it was trying to combat. What has happened to projects that used it? Has it been found, or reasonably accused of being, unenforceable. How has it's practicality been found in practice. Criticisms (but these are pretty well documented alread).
  • Comment I think this would be a good article to make feature quality, along with Wikipedia, PHP, MySQL, Squid cache, and any major distribution of Linux-based or BSD operating systems. 65.94.100.49 05:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War on Drugs (5 votes, stays until March 5)[edit]

Nominated February 19, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 5, 2006
Support
  1. Harris0
  2. Howrealisreal 15:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. siafu 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kaldari 03:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Zath42 04:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided
  1. StrangerInParadise 21:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I don't know if there is a rule against nominating two different articles...if so take this down. This article definitely needs to be expanded though —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harris0 (talk • contribs)
    • Nope, no such rule. Welcome to AID! Lbbzman 00:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just curious, why was this nominated, and what would be the goals of the improvement drive? StrangerInParadise 21:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because in the United States, tens of billions of dollars are spent on it yearly...despite the fact that there is no evidence that it has achieved anything. Besides all that, it influences foreign policy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harris0 (talk • contribs) .
    • The article could definitely use some expansion as it only seems to touch on the main issues of such a large-scale operation (compare, for example, with the War on Terrorism). In terms of the U.S. policy, some more history and information about the demand and supply-side strategies in effect could be added. Furthermore, I may be incorrect, but I think there is a "War on Drugs" policy within the United Nations that is totally absent from the article. --Howrealisreal 23:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is true, though the US is the tail wagging the UN dog here. I don't think the UN is so much an agent as an arena here, or in much of any War-on-Abstraction efforts— the UN doesn't make war. It is reasonable to talk of it as a US-led thing, with far more facets than the present article suggests. StrangerInParadise 22:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure the U.S. is at the controls, I'm not doubting that. I was just wondering to what extent the U.S. policies are played out in the international community via the UN. I bring it up because something such as "War on Drugs" as a term is probably global. Thanks for your comments though, do you have any ideas as how to make the article better? --Howrealisreal 00:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sacred Heart Convent School (Jamshedpur) (4 votes, stays until March 13)[edit]

Nominated February 27, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 13, 2006
Support
  1. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 13:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Victoria Eleanor 14:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 05:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RJH 19:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I think the article could be much better.
  • Oppose Not worth it, looks like another normal school article that needs cleanup to me --Jaranda wat's sup 00:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. All articles could be much better. No rationale for AIDing provided. -Silence 10:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Many more important articles than this. I do not see any significance in this school. Duran 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons above Lukobe 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It looks fine. I don't think it needs our help--SpacemanAfrica 02:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close to FA status. Just needs a little tuning. — RJH 19:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wikipedia has people who vote "keep" for every kindergarten on the planet. Let them improve it. Durova 06:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peanuts (9 votes, stays until March 15)[edit]

Nominated February 15, 2006; needs at least 13 votes by March 15, 2006
Support
  1. Lukobe 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aerobird 02:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Joyous | Talk 02:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mkaycomputer 22:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PDXblazers 04:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Toonmon2005 21:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. HaM 18:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Silence 11:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. JoshuaArgent 05:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • One of, if not the, most important comic strips of all time. Krazy Kat is an FA and it would be great for Peanuts to be too. Lukobe 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wholehearted support. - Aerobird 02:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A true symbol of Americana.

Domestic violence (15 votes, stays until March 16)[edit]

Nominated February 2, 2006; needs at least 19 votes by March 16, 2006
Support
  1. Djbaniel 08:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --DanielCD 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Melaen 12:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Joe Decker 21:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. dafydd 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SpacemanAfrica 04:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Durova 17:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Andrew Levine 21:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Vir 17:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Metta Bubble 14:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Spawn Man 01:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Help! JoshuaArgent 05:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Bertilvidet 15:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Silence 15:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed votes
  1. Durova 15:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC) apologies, forgot that I had voted earlier[reply]
Comments
  • Poorly organized, etc. Djbaniel 08:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An important subject that deserves quality treatment. Article is sloppy and poorly referenced and definitely needs attention. --DanielCD 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is being continually defaced by someone insisting on ladening the article with POV issues. Short of AID, I'm giving up on making any attempt to work on this article, this seems hopeless. --Joe Decker 21:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be one of the very few Wikipedia articles that actually saves lives: a very important subject that deserves attention. Durova 06:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meiji Restoration (7 votes, stays until March 16)[edit]

Nominated February 23, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 16, 2006
Support
  1. Juppiter 05:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Silence 08:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Andrew Levine 03:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moonstone 01:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. LordAmeth 06:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jdcooper 12:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 63.246.218.130 04:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Arguably the most event in shaping modern Japan. Can easily be brought to Featured Article Status
  • Great find. -Silence 09:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll admit I haven't actually read the article yet, so I'm not positive on what is and is not included. Nevertheless, this is a subject that could easily have entire books written on it. Causes, effects, the details of the lead-up and the event itself. Discussion of the issue of whether or not the Emperor was really "restored" to power, being that the Diet or something very much equivalent was established, on a Prussian model of constitutional monarchy and not an absolute monarchic system as had existed centuries before. A discussion of the economic and cultural effects, which by themselves could easily be pages and pages - this is one of the most important and powerful events in shaping modern Japan. Also, we need to discuss the samurai class, and I suppose the class system as a whole which was abolished at this time. The samurai lost a lot of honor and face as well as power and status; but it is important to remember that those fighting on both sides, for and against the Restoration, were samurai. This was not a peasant uprising or a commoner revolution. And that is, in some respects, perhaps one of the most surprising and important elements of this event. Anyway, I think it's great what we have - but a lot more can be done. LordAmeth 06:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gender (7 votes, stays until March 16)[edit]

Nominated February 23, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 16, 2006
Support
  1. Samsara contrib talk 22:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Catamorphism 22:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Joyous | Talk 23:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Quixote go 19:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kaldari 06:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fix it. Now. JoshuaArgent 05:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Vir 19:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Wow, this article needs a lot of improvement, and it's such an important one. Quixote go 19:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War (7 votes, stays until March 16)[edit]

Nominated February 23, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 16, 2006
Support
  1. Silence 00:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RomeoVoid 04:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lbbzman 14:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. RJH 19:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Durova 06:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Can you imagine how sexy it would be to have a Featured Article on this? We should at least have a good one, though; the current article, one of Wikipedia's (and any encyclopedia's) most basic and essential, needs a lot of expansion and clarification. -Silence 00:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It would be very, very difficult to get a NPOV article on this subject, with the 'war is evil, bad, evil, wrong, evil, immoral, and did I mention evil?' attitude too many people have these days. - Aerobird 01:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why we need an AID to bring it up to par; thanks for helping support this nomination with that extra reason to AID it! Many individual editors will surely warp various bits of the article to match their own POV (even if by accident rather than deliberately), but we can hold the article to a consistent standard if we all work together in an organized, focused effort, rather than letting the thing wrack up inconsistencies and POV problems over a long course of time. And that's the perfect task for AID to tackle: NPOVing and expanding a controversial article like this! Then, once it's up to par, all that's left is maintenance, which is no harder (or less necessary) for this article than for any other major topic.
  • A similar line of logic, incidentally, was used for the Cold War article (people argued that it shouldn't be on AID because it would be "too hard" to make it better, operating under the rather strange assumption that most of the attention AID brings will be destructive rather than constructive and will worsen rather than improve POV problems, which I don't see any evidence for; assume good faith, guys). But considering that Cold War is currently this week's AID, obviously people won't be suckered into thinking that just because something's hard (as you said, "very, very difficult"), it shouldn't be even attempted; if anything, the opposite is true, and we need AID for tough, controversial jobs much more than for easy, safe ones! :) -Silence 07:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually this is exactly the sort of basic encyclopedic article that belongs in every encyclopedia. Durova 06:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care Bears (2 vote, stays until March 17)[edit]

Nominated March 10, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 17, 2006
Support
  1. Slgrandson 03:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BlueShirts 10:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • After Avriette recommended I improve this main article to featured status instead of A New Generation, I have just started to work on it, and so we need more than just a few Wikipedians for this effort: Care Bear fans and collectors from all walks of life are welcome too!

However, please note that vandals abuse the page from time to time. So we'll see how this works out.

What needs filling in is information on fan clubs, events, and collectors. Also, we need more references and formatting.

When this is over, surely it will be Wikipedia's first FA on a toy line? Wish me luck, Bears and Cousins! And, Cheer Bear, give me a sweet kiss if I succeed! --Slgrandson 03:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of bitmap graphics editors (1 vote, stays until March 17)[edit]

Nominated March 10, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 17, 2006
Support
  1. --Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 04:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Kurdish language (3 vote, stays until March 18)[edit]

Nominated March 11, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 18, 2006
Support
  1. --Revolución hablar ver 03:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Tom 20:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bertilvidet 22:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Article desperately need of some kind of organization. Too many comparison tables. --Revolución hablar ver 03:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Asian American (12 votes, stays until March 21)[edit]

Nominated February 14, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by March 21, 2006
Support
  1. Lukobe 05:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. *drew 12:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hodori11 15:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jrleighton 11:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 16:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bakphp 21:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Blue Wizard 01:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. HongQiGong 10:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sicilianmandolin 02:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. lethal 12:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Revolución hablar ver 17:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Caponer 04:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A bit sprawling and disorganized, unsourced, etc. --Lukobe 05:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs more thought in its purpose (I wrote the blurb about Asia redefinition and the rest on the articles talk page)--jrleighton 11:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not voting for this right now. This article seems to be the highest-quality "America Ethnicity" page on Wikipedia, in significantly better shape than African American, and vastly better shape than European American. Personally, I'd much rather work on getting a more general article, like Asian, up to shape. I'll vote for this one when there aren't quite so many entire cultures, spanning global regions and thousands of years of history, that have articles which are in terrible shape; painstakingly ethnically subdividing a single country (along rather arbitrary lines, it seems at times; many Europeans have more in common with some Asians than those Asians have with other Asians!), a recent phenomenon, is slightly lower on the to-do list than that. -Silence 23:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More recognition is needed for Asian Americans, as they are often a marginalised group in the US. - HongQiGong 10:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Monsoon (10 votes, stays until March 22)[edit]

Nominated February 22, 2006; needs at least 13 votes by March 22, 2006
Support
  1. Deditos 11:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Joyous | Talk 20:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. lightdarkness (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Aerobird 04:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. cohesion★talk 05:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ugur Basak 00:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Daniel Collins 03:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. William M. Connolley 08:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Currently an empty and confused article, factual errors, North American bias. This is a general and relatively uncontroverisal meteorological topic that affects many people in the world, so with a bit of work could be a very useful reference. (Deditos 11:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • The entry is the 5th hit from a Google search for "monsoon", and is the 1st actually describing what a monsoon is. Daniel Collins 18:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April Fool's Day (1 vote, stays until March 22)[edit]

Nominated March 15, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 22, 2006
Support
  1. Tarret 14:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Were half way through March and I would like it if we improved this article and get it up to FA status so it could possibly be on the main page on April 1st. Tarret 14:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really don't see the need. What's so important about April Fool's Day that we need to inform all our readers about it? What makes this topic more noteworthy than War or Mathematics? And if you're that concerned with synchronity, why don't you nominate Satan or Number of the Beast for AID, considering that both articles are more historically and culturally noteworthy than "April Fool's Day", both need a lot of work to get up to standards, and both also have a much more unusual day this year: June 6th, 2006 will be 6/6/6. If we're gonna base what articles we focus on on random obsessive-compulsive calendar fixations, we might as well focus on articles that are both more important and have an associated day that doesn't come around every single year! (i.e., we could just as easily work on "April Fool's Day" next year) Also, you nominated this waaaay too late for your plans; it would probably take at least a month for this to be the AID of the week unless it got a truly huge number of votes very quickly (which ain't gonna happen), and it would probably take another month or so to get through the Featured Article process (based on my past experience with Rosa Parks, which we barely managed to get featured on the main page on the right day despite starting months ahead of time and already having a much better article when we began). -Silence 15:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really Silence... For example, I nominated Dinosaur in early December, got it featured by late December & on the main page January 1st. But I do have to agree, it would take a little short of a miracle to get it on the main page by April 1st this year. Why not try for next year? Spawn Man 22:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My question was: Why try at all? If people are interested in working on the article, they can go ahead, but it's not like it's an important topic. Thie nomination is a gimmick. -Silence 02:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're always free not to vote. But this is a notable cultural event that has been around for a long, long time. There's no reason why it couldn't brought up to the same quality level as, say, Halloween. :) — RJH 15:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The nomination is not a gimmick. After all, this is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that documents the history of everything. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Food (8 votes, stays until March 23)[edit]

Nominated March 2, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 23, 2006
Support
  1. --Jaranda wat's sup 04:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PDXblazers 04:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Chris (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Gflores Talk 16:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Silence 11:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ike9898 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ugur Basak 00:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Alvin6226 01:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A horrible article on a basic enclypedia article, the first sentence of the article is completely wrong with Food is any substance that can be consumed, so sand can be cosumed is what that line says, and most of the article is lists and non-referenced. This needs some big-time help --Jaranda wat's sup 04:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a terrible article. Meat is the current COTW, and I think that this is even more important. Surely this could be made better. PDXblazers 04:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What they said. Gflores Talk 16:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catapult (9 votes, stays until March 24)[edit]

Nominated March 3, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 24, 2006
Support
  1. Spawn Man 04:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Joe I 05:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LordAmeth 06:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SpacemanAfrica 04:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Durova 02:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ugur Basak 00:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Steven 22:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jazriel 23:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Pointlessness 20:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • For such an interesting & important subject (cliché, I know...) this article should have more to it. There's only one picture, & the information about it is lacking significantly. I hope it gets through, as many wars & many people have been squashed by a catapult... Spawn Man 04:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur completely with SpawnMan here. There's so much that could be said about catapults, given the proper resources. We could have diagrams of their design, and a discussion of the physics involved. The section on Chinese siege warfare is horrific, not that I blame anyone in particular; if I had the resources, which I do not, I would add it myself. LordAmeth 06:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual slavery (2 votes, stays until March 24)[edit]

Nominated March 17, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 24, 2006
Support
  1. Aaronwinborn 02:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ale_Jrb 16:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article touches on an interesting and important subject, but could use some revision and expansion. Specifically, there are some parts that need better references, and some parts seem incomplete (such as the missing but alluded-to sexual slavery in Asia, and the section of historical sexual slavery in the United States). There are a ton of references from external sites on it; much of the information needed could probably be gathered from there. Aaronwinborn 02:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid transit (8 vote, stays until March 25)[edit]

Nominated March 4, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 25, 2006
Support
  1. Foxmulder 03:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Revolución hablar ver 03:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Empty2005 10:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Steven 22:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Un sogno modesto 23:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bjrobinson 22:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. CComMack 22:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. PDXblazers 01:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • It's an interesting subject, and certainly worth having a good article. The current one is good, but kind of choppy. It's very clear where one user's contribution ends and another's begins. Also, everyone seems to want to get in a mention of his or her home city's transit system. With a little work, I think this could become a featured article. Foxmulder 03:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important subject. --Revolución hablar ver 03:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monomyth (1 votes, stays until March 26)[edit]

Nominated March 19, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 26, 2006
Support
  1. Harris0 21:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The monomyth...ie. Joseph Campbell's theory that there is a kind of 'monomyth' that all timeless myths are based on...from the New Testament, to Star Wars, to the Matrix, etc. As far as I can tell from the Talk pg, alot of this work is copied. Either way, it's a mess.
  • Oppose. AID articles need to not only be shitty-quality, but also be of central importance. This article only meets the first of those requirements. If you want to improve the article, your best bet is to just delete 95% of the text. It's almost all unreferenced, fallacious, misleading, original research fanboy-raving anyway. -Silence 16:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. The more snooty you get with the article selection, the fewer people there will be who contribute. "Any and all articles may be nominated". :-) — RJH 15:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did I say I opposed this article being nominated? Nominate away. It encourages a dialogue about topics like these. I oppose this article being the weekly AID, because it would be wasting important Wikipedia resources on a relatively unimportant topic. I'd rather support mythology than monomyth. -Silence 08:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (5 votes, stays until March 27)[edit]

Nominated March 13, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 27, 2006
Support
  1. Harris0 22:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Revolución hablar ver 23:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 18:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kaldari 05:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Vir 17:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Important organization in both the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam anti-war movement. Deserves better.


Weather (25 votes, stays until March 28)[edit]

Nominated January 24, 2006; needs at least 26 votes by March 28, 2006
Support
  1. Donar Reiskoffer 10:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Soo 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Empty2005 23:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ugur Basak 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gflores Talk 00:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Aerobird 16:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Un sogno modesto 19:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. —Wikiacc • 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CG 09:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Doug 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. King of Hearts | (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. vekron 04:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Melaen 02:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Nessuno834 22:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Joyous | Talk 02:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Daniel Collins 03:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. William M. Connolley 08:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Mkaycomputer 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. PDXblazers 03:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Smithfarm 07:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Shyam (T/C) 18:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Fairly short for such a common topic. Should be expanded.--Donar Reiskoffer
  • A weak article that could and should be improved in almost every respect. Soo 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote 90% of this article, so while I don't agree that it's weak, I do think it needs to at least be expanded. However, before this is done I think there needs to be a thorough examination of the whole topic. The differences between Weather, Meteorology and Weather forecasting need to be defined; some sort of topic structure has to be invented. I created the portal as a thin attempt to do this, but I don't have the time or energy to do it all myself. Perhaps a weather project is in order rather than a single article improvement drive. nick 10:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree; indeed, more likely what has to happen is the whole concept has to be fleshed out with interconnected entries. But the main article needs some more meat, and it's a good candidate for collaboration. Doug 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sahih Bukhari (2 vote, stays until March 29)[edit]

Nominated March 22, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 29, 2006
Support
  1. Esquizombi 10:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jonas Liljeström 21:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
Comments
  • A collection of hadith that for Sunni Muslims (85% of the world's muslims) is the most important religious text after the Qur'an. Of significance to the rest of the world's population in that actions guided by it extend beyond those that believe in it. Right now it does not reflect its importance and is in quite poor shape. Should at least be made a good article. Improvement would also help with countering systemic bias. Esquizombi 10:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Mysticism (11 votes, stays until April 2)[edit]

Nominated March 12, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by April 2, 2006
Support
  1. Hgilbert 01:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Juppiter 06:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jacoplane 16:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Caponer 19:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Silence 20:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carabinieri 10:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Esquizombi 11:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. HAM 11:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sicilianmandolin 21:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Osbus 20:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Covington 05:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Unbelievable hash of fictional imagination (Nazis had or have a space station on the Moon and interbred with aliens) with historical fact (occult connections of Nazi leaders).

Hgilbert 01:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Horrible as the movement was, it was fascinating, particularly this aspect. Yes! Juppiter 06:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, it's a very interesting angle that has not been explored in depth. --Caponer 19:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disarmament (4 votes, stays until April 2)[edit]

Nominated March 19, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 2, 2006
Support
  1. James 11:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sicilianmandolin 17:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hestemand 12:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Scottwiki 22:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A very important concept in International Relations, with much less treatement than, for example, Arms Control--James 11:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is already an article on Unilateral disarmament, the two should certainly be interlinked in some way. Do we need both articles? --Richard Clegg 15:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A stub? No links? Plainly, this topic deserves much more than that. (Moreover, the Unilateral disarmament article is currently missing.)
  • Apologies, I misspelled the link. I taken the liberty of correcting it in both of our comments. --Richard Clegg 09:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the correction, Richard. -Scottwiki 18:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening paragraph of Article Improvement Drive indicates that AID is a collaboration to improve "non-stub articles," and that Collaboration of the week is for stub articles. See also the AID Introduction. I therefore believe that the Disarmament nomination should be moved to Collaboration of the week. (I'll move it there myself, if this nomination has fewer than 8 votes by April 2.) -Scottwiki 05:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halo: Combat Evolved (2 votes, stays until April 2)[edit]

Nominated March 26, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 2, 2006
Support
  1. --Zxcvbnm 23:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 04:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • An important article that needs serious improvement.--Zxcvbnm 23:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very important article indeed. Certainly this is just as significant as Ottoman Empire, Rome, Amazon Rainforest, Recycling, Dog, Tree, and Latin America. Lets work on this instead of those! Sarcasm aside, I just think that AID should be for articles that need to be improved to make Wikipedia a better general encyclopedia before we start getting to specific. Not that this article shouldn't be worked on, just not for a collaboration such as this. PDXblazers 04:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd recommend listing this over at Wikipedia:Join in. VegaDark 07:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest (32 votes, stays until April 3)[edit]

Nominated January 16, 2006; needs at least 35 votes by April 3, 2006
Support
  1. JK the unwise 12:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Solar 13:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tothebarricades 13:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sanguinus 14:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ZeWrestler Talk 17:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jmabel | Talk 18:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sjeraj | Talk Sjeraj 14:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. CG 17:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. DelftUser 20:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Caponer 18:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Samsara contrib talk 02:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Jhohenzollern 03:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Skurrkrow 06:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutralitytalk 07:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. TwilaStar 08:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Ehouk1 14:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Osbus 23:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. *drew 12:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Howrealisreal 18:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Spawn Man 01:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. --Revolución hablar ver 17:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. --Francisco Valverde 18:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Bertilvidet 12:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Vir 17:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Aaronwinborn 00:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Ka34 10:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. DanielES15 00:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Rayc 16:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. --Joewithajay 05:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed votes
  1. SpandX 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Article about historic day; biggest and most co-ordinated global day of protests. Important part of articles about the Iraq war. Is not that far from featured status but needs work on presentation and layout of the article, removal of some of the stat's type information into tables and general work on spelling, punctuation, grama etc. Also review to ensure NPOV.--JK the unwise 12:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got my vote. Article could use some corrections as well as expansion in certain areas. Maybe make a few satilite articles. --ZeWrestler Talk 17:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comments on its talk page. I think it is a lot farther from featured status than JK does, but agree that it is a worthy topic.
  • By my count, ten weeks have passed since nomination of this topic. It should have 40 votes to stay on this page. Why is it still here with 32? (I'm reluctant to remove a topic with so many votes, including more than 4 in the past week. Still, according to the rules, it should be removed.)
  • FYI, the move to requiring 4 votes per week was only made recently. Previously only 3 votes were required, so that explains the discrepancy. jacoplane 09:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jacoplane. I was about to correct the vote requirements and "stays until" dates for several nominees. But your explanation has, fortunately, prevented me from doing that.  :-) -Scottwiki 09:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cocoa (5 votes, stays until April 12)[edit]

Nominated March 29, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 12, 2006
Support
  1. --Chino 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 05:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ugur Basak 02:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. UFOPOLI 17:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Silence 17:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Cocoa is a topic which is familiar to a very large portion of people likely to read English Wikipedia. Cocoa has many uses, rich and varied history and interesting chemical composition. It is a very important commodity in the international trade and important to the national economies of many countries. Cultivation of cocoa has ecological implications. In my opinion none of these facts are adequately represented in the article in its current form. --Chino 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • People come here to find out about everyday topics. This is something that will probably interest our readers. --UFOPOLI 17:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dice (4 votes, stays until April 13)[edit]

Nominated March 30, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 13, 2006
Support
  1. Tarret 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Steven 00:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Covington 01:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Clay 03:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A basic part of many games that we play. Without it we wouldn't be able to play those great games like Monopoly. Tarret 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made man (4 votes, stays until April 16)[edit]

Nominated April 2, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 16, 2006
Support
  1. Fxer 03:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sicilianmandolin 20:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CarabinieriTTaallkk 18:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Arthur Holland 11:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • An important component in organized crime, specifically the Mafia. Could add all kinds of info about traditions and rituals, who can be "made", its place in popular culture and on and on...
I agree, it is quite central to the Mafia. It doesn't have to be a featured article, but it's reasonable enough to request that it be improved. Sicilianmandolin 20:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tour de France (9 votes, stays until April 16)[edit]

Nominated March 26, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by April 16, 2006
Support
  1. Yellowspacehopper 18:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 04:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hamster200 06:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. lightdarkness (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jacoplane 14:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Poulsen 20:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Xxxxxxxx 16:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Maitch 21:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • It would be nice to see this up to featured article status by the next race in July. Also it's a featured article in several other languages. Needs some pruning and copy-editing. Some parts very ugly. Lacking real focus, structure or definition, really. -- Yellowspacehopper 18:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, it's a shame it's not featured in English. I'm sure we can change that by July! --lightdarkness (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Polo (9 votes, stays until April 16)[edit]

Nominated March 26, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by April 16, 2006
Support
  1. PoptartKing 23:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. HAM 11:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sicilianmandolin 21:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Richard Clegg 01:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ugur Basak 02:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jaranda wat's sup 15:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GhePeU 11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --G Clark | Talk 01:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Seems extremely imbalanced, one section of questionable relevance; could quickly reach featured status with some work. PoptartKing 23:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Mason University (4 votes, stays until April 20)[edit]

Nominated April 6, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 20, 2006
Support
  1. Bpiereck 05:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DividedByNegativeZero 07:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DocMason 13:40, 11 April 2006 (EST)
  4. SWTrilman 18:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Votes
  1. SeanG 04:36, 8 April 2006 (EST) by Steven on 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (No such user)[reply]
  2. JTiahrt 15:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (No other contributions)[reply]
  3. Jarbitrato 17:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (No other contributions)[reply]
Comments
  • With the recent success of the University in the NCAA championship, the page has gone through multiple edits. It has plenty of information to be a great article on a topic that has come to national prominence - if only momentarily. It suffers from some lack of organization and mixed voice, style and grammar.

Mexican League (1 vote, stays until April 21)[edit]

Nominated April 14, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 21, 2006
Support
  1. Yadin twelve 21:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The entry is partly plagiarized and does not contain sufficient information regarding the topic. This topic is relevant not only for those interested in the culture of Mexico, but also for those interested in the history of professional baseball. Yadin twelve 21:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tree (16 votes, stays until April 29)[edit]

Nominated March 25, 2006; needs at least 20 votes by April 29, 2006
Support
  1. PDXblazers 05:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Carabinieri 13:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sicilianmandolin 21:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PoptartKing 00:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Joyous | Talk 00:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ugur Basak 02:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Daniel Collins 15:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Steven 00:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Rory096 21:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yarnalgo 01:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. GfloresTalk 06:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Salix alba (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Dan1113 20:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. JosephRJustice 22:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is mainly just a list of different trees. The topic is so common, the article could be improved in many ways. Such a basic topic should be of a much better standard.
  • More on evolution and physiology is needed. I'd also like to see expansion of cultural connections to trees.Daniel Collins 15:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evolution and physiology aspects are tricky; there's very little that is actually unique to trees without also applying to shrubs. Such info would be better placed at woody plant (an article in even greater need of expansion!). Cultural aspects yes, though with the length of the tree page and the potential size of this aspect (huge), I'd say this would be better treated in a page of its own (or maybe better done by expanding and re-titling the existing Trees in mythology page). - MPF 09:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, trees are scattered throughout the plant kingdom (you could even say that all flowering plants are decended from trees). I thinki it would be good to expand on the evolutionary aspects. For example how the conifers developed from the tree ferns, how the flowering plants developed from conifers, magnolia should get special mention as I think these were the first flowering plants and are also a tree (or is it shrub). --Salix alba (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingda Ka (6 votes, stays until May 3)[edit]

Nominated April 19, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 3, 2006
Support
  1. Dusso Janladde 07:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Duran 01:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Steven 02:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CrnaGora 03:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • It's definitely Wikipedia's best article on a roller coaster, but it needs a lot of help to get it up to featured article standards. As it is, I've written most of the article (and taken all of the pictures) myself, and it would be great to get more people involved. Dusso Janladde 07:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd love to see better roller coaster coverage here in general. Kingda Ka is a good starting point, but more coverage of other record-setting/innovative rides like Millennium Force and SheiKra would be nice also. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination had two votes by the end of April 26, the initial "stays until" date. Should it be removed? -Scottwiki 06:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy (4 votes, stays until May 10)[edit]

Nominated April 26, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 10, 2006
Support
  1. Smintsaredelicious 13:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Asterion talk to me 07:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BorgQueen 17:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • An increasingly important subject deserves an excellent article explaning legal, historical and philosophical bases. The existing article is poorly organized, lacks cites, and is full of points of view. See a list of issues and a proposed revision at Talk:Privacy. --Smintsaredelicious 13:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English language (23 votes, stays until May 11)[edit]

Nominated March 30, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by May 11, 2006
Support
  1. BorgQueen 01:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tarret 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Silence 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lukobe 01:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Caponer 05:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CloudNine 17:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. darkliighttalk 00:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CG 05:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Khoikhoi 02:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 05:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Already a good article, but if AID'ing this can push it to FA status why not. VegaDark 07:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. St jimmy 10:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Will need a lot of work, it's in really bad shape. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. CarabinieriTTaallkk 18:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Sicilianmandolin 03:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. illuminatiscott 21:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. JosephRJustice 22:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. HAM 16:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Maurreen 17:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Avenue 14:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 @ 01:48 UTC
  23. 4Bs 19:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article was nominated for FA by an anon user in last November and failed. Undoubtedly this is a very basic topic, especially so in our English Wikipedia. It would be appropriate to have it as a FA. --BorgQueen 01:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should not be voted for because this is the English Wikipedia, it should be voted for because English is an important modern language. -Silence 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you have your point. If we reverse the logic used, non-Anglo Saxon topics should be paid less attention in the English Wikipedia? I've striken the first step toward such dangerous rationalization :-D --BorgQueen 06:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I see no problem with the original rationale. Surely each Wikipedia should have a top-quality article about its own language. There's nothing wrong with that. - dcljr (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, every Wikipedia should have a great article on its own language—and on every other language. Cultural bias is to be resisted, not encouraged; uneven coverage is certainly tolerable in the short run (since the only alternatives are stifling article growth or adding filler to articles noone's interested in working on yet), but in the long run, all Wikipedias should deal with all topics based on their general notability, not based on their relevance to the encyclopedia itself (which would be self-referential). To explain, suppose Encyclopedia Britannica produced versions of its entire text in English, Spanish, Arabic, and Russian next year. Would it be a good idea for them to spend more time on their English article in the English translation, their Spanish article in the Spanish translation, their Arabic article in the Arabic translation, and their Russian article in the Russian translation? Of course not, because that would lead to inconsistencies; if something's noteworthy in one language, it should be noteworthy in all, and if it's not noteworthy in other languages, it shouldn't be noteworthy in the one. If the English language was not one of the most noteworthy modern languages in existence at this time (for example, if it was only as noteworthy as the Ateso language, Pangasinan language, or Yi language), I probably wouldn't support this nomination: the fact that a certain language is the one spoken by the encyclopedia's writers just means that the language will be highly subject to cultural bias and will probably get undue attention where much more significant languages are being neglected (like Punjabi language, which is the 10th-most-widely-spoken language in the world, yet has an article that's barely more than a stub), which will make nominating it for AID nothing but worsening the encyclopedia's evenness of coverage yet more. The reason that is not the case here is because English happens to be highly noteworthy completely regardless of the fact that we speak it (though obviously that's part of the reason it was nominated, and Punjabi was not). So in this case, a little more work is actually a good idea to bring this up to standards (and hopefully get the article featured), entirely on the basic of the topic, not of its editors' natural biases. -Silence 21:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "all Wikipedias should deal with all topics based on their general notability" Hmm. Well, there goes exploding whale... Anyway, which is the more "biased" view: supporting a language for AID because it's the language of the wiki or because it's "an important modern language"? Seems to me the latter carries more political baggage than the former. You even go so far as to seemingly denigrate Ateso, Pangasinan and Yi as somehow not "noteworthy"! Wow... (Yi is so non-noteworthy it has its own Wikipedia.) Sorry, but your argument appears to be completely self-contradictory. In any case, you'll notice I haven't actually voted on this nomination, only commented on it. "Zero-sum" editing projects like this make me uneasy. - dcljr (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Interrogation (3 votes, stays until May 15)[edit]

Nominated May 8, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 15, 2006
Support
  1. Felixboy 18:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scottwiki 20:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Okinawadude 16:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Its been around for hundreds of years and hasn’t had an edit in had an edit in about half a year. People are being interrogated every day.

Dungeons & Dragons (27 votes, stays until May 22)[edit]

Nominated April 3, 2006; needs at least 28 votes by May 22, 2006
Support
  1. Covington 08:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lewis 08:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cazcaz 14:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sherool (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. InShaneee 22:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Spenser 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SorryGuy 04:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Colonel Tom 13:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SWTrilman 20:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Fairsing 05:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. George Le Chat 10:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Wackymacs 11:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Genesis 08:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Percy Snoodle 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. JosephRJustice 23:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. mad_cat_42 23:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Хајдук Еру ( Talk || Contributions) 06:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Seahen 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Jonas Karlsson 22:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 02:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrnaGora (talk • contribs) . --SasaStefanovic • 16:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Captainktainer * Talk 11:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Caf3623 02:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Foxjwill 02:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Robbstrd 18:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. BOZ
  26. Wubb 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Deepak 04:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Invalid Votes
  1. 129.21.113.162 23:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC) <-- Thank you for your interest. Unfortunately, the rules state that one must be a registered user to vote. If you could register and re-vote, that would be great. (^'-')^ Covington[reply]
Comments
  • Great start for a game that was the precursor to many video- and role-playing games in use today. A very popular game in its own right. Needs 1) general cleanup, 2) fix criticism - organize, reference, and add a section about criticism within the DnD community i.e. "powergaming", and 3) breaking down (or not, please discuss). With a more work, we can make this a featured article. Covington 08:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • <sings> "Gary Gygax was my mentor, now I could teach him tricks; I've an armour class of over +10 and a mental age of 6" - kidding, of course. The article's not bad, but it would be nice to see it as a featured article. Colonel Tom 13:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


University of Coimbra (4 votes, stays until May 24)[edit]

Nominated May 10, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 24, 2006
Support
  1. Page Up 12:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gameiro 13:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Teodorico 23:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Asterion talk to me 22:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC), maybe a matter of translating from the Portuguese wiki[reply]
Comments
  • It is one of the oldest universities in Europe (the oldest in Portugal) and one of Portugal's most important higher education and research institutions. The current article is already a reasonable effort, but should be improved. Page Up 12:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 Hours of Le Mans (1 vote, stays until June 4)[edit]

Nominated May 28, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by June 4, 2006
Support
  1. --Hezzy 05:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Article in dire need of help.--Hezzy 22:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of world records (1 vote, stays until June 5)[edit]

Nominated May 29, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by June 5, 2006
Support
  1. Chino 05:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • It is time for Wikipedia to do to Guinnes Book of Records what we have already done for Encyclopedia Britannica! Furthermore, this kind of information is something that most people are interested in and also something that they are likely to look for in encyclopedias and other sources. The article represents interesting challanges as to the organisation of the material as well for the creation of more spesific lists when the main article grows too large. I'm sure these problems can be solved if we work diligently! --Chino 05:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanol fuel (19 votes, stays until June 12)[edit]

Nominated May 8, 2006; needs at least 20 votes by June 12, 2006
Support
  1. Scottwiki 03:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Un sogno modesto 09:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Daniel 23:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BorgQueen 05:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Steven 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CrnaGora 21:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Okinawadude 16:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Asterion talk to me 12:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. __earth (Talk) 17:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Howrealisreal 18:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Anlace 19:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. (^'-')^ Covington 21:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Duran 19:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Lord Eru 03:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. RJH 18:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. LeoTrottier 07:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. the Dannycas 15:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)-useful[reply]
  19. --Victor.P.Das 19:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Votes
  1. Rlrhx5 23:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC) by Pruneau plum 23:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC) (no other contributions)[reply]
Comments
  • Ethanol fuel was a subject of 60 Minutes[7] and Dateline NBC[8] on May 7 in the US -- rising gasoline prices make this a hot topic. The article needs significant improvement, as suggested by the cleanup tags currently at the top of it. (I haven't co-nominated Ethanol fuel in the US only because it is a more limited topic; but it certainly needs work too. E85, while better, is also far from ideal.) -Scottwiki 03:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good choice. (^'-')^ Covington 21:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ethanol debate has just fired up again since Canada's PM Harper brought it to the forefront of Canadian politics. Wikipedia has been an ideal setting for the fair and accurate treatment of these kinds of debates ... LeoTrottier 07:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs much work. The economics part has to be more detailed explaining how the price can be calculated from the feedstocks to the production stage. The External links have to be worked on. As a whole the article lacks a central focus and flow. --Victor.P.Das 19:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Collaboration_and_Improvement_Drive/Removed/Archive1&oldid=1131531059"