Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2005

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polish September Campaign[edit]

File:WWII Poland Invasion 1939-09-01.jpg
German soldiers destroying Polish border checkpoint on 1st September. Second World War begins.

The begining of Second World War. The birth of Blitzkrieg. The fall of the first Ally. The Hitler-Stalin alliance. Hopefully, my 10th FA :) Your comments, as always, much appreciated. Btw, I am adding the pic to this nomination, I hope you like it - perhaps all our future FACs should have a pic? Discuss the pic pros and cons it in talk, though, not here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object - Very good, but: Overwhelming TOC. Stub sections, such as ==Names of the campaign==, ==Order of battle==, and the first === Economic base===. These should be merged into other sections, IMO. Causes of World War II is rather short to be the 'main article' to anything and the == Prelude to the campaign == section in this article goes into a comparable amount of detail as the 'main article'. So, given the existence of Causes of World War II, much of the common detail should be there so other articles can call upon it directly and interested readers here can zoom to that level of detail if they want. A more compact treatment in this article is needed to keep most other readers focused on the main topic covered here (the prelude is a sub-topic and should be treated as such). The ==Opposing forces== section also goes into more detail than needed for this article. Since it is about the equipment and tactics used (subtopics), not directly the campaign itself, that detail should be moved to equipment and tactics used in the Polish September Campaign (or something similar) and a summary left here (as I suggested in peer review). In short, almost everything but the meat of the article in ==Details of the campaign== should be condensed to get this article back to a more manageable size that can serve many different reader types (not everybody has the time or patience to read through so much text to get to the meat of the article). Also, where are the inline citations? Again, great work but it is still at the director's cut stage. A more compact treatment is needed for mass consumption. This is all part of good writing. Oh, and just give the word and I'll help you summarize - I'm pretty good at that. :) --mav 03:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By all means, do try summarizing. The names and order sections can be merged, but I don't see how economy ones can be merged into others. I don't think this article it too long - we have longer FAs then this - but if you have a vision, do try to help :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will do that. :) If you could first add inline citations (noting work and page number) via something simple and easily transportable like the inote system, then the text I move will also be correctly cited. I know it will be a pain to add the inline cites after the fact (it took me several hours to do that to an article half this size), but doing so will greatly increase the verifiability of this article. Please tell me when you are done and I'll get to work summarizing per above. --mav 16:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I merged 'names of the campaign' into lead. I can't think of a way to merge 'order of battle' anywhere, and 'German economic base' needs expantion, not merger. 'Causes of...' article is not well developed, but I think it is a logical main article for the 'prelude...' section. The TOC is large, but not overwhelming I think - do we have any rule for its lenght/number of sections? I still think that the current amount of information in the article is exactly what it needst to be. As for inline citatins, I will use them when I am sure I got a hang of them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • ==Opposing forces== section now a much more managable size and the detial has been moved to Opposing forces in the Polish September Campaign (with a little work that can easily be your 11th FA :). The == Prelude to the campaign == section is still too long by half, IMO, and later this weekend I'll see about some summarizing there. Getting close. --mav 02:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • == Prelude to the campaign == section is still too detailed for this article, but I'm willing to see it expanded some more before it is summarized and the detail spun off. So I'm changing my vote to neutral. --mav 19:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the one hand, I think the article is great and comprehensive and I'd like to support, but I'm a little concerned about the Polish nationalist perspective and the presentation of the USSR in the article. It's not so overt that I want to oppose outright, but it also gives me reservations about supporting, so I'll just call my vote neutral. Everyking 08:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to mention which words/sentences/etc. look POVed, and I will try to NPOV them. Or go into any details - how and where is the article POVed? Or is it a 'general feeling'? I can hardly work on such a general feeling comment, though :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is filled with a remarkable number of pictures. While I know that people on the english wiki (in contrast to German wiki) are more lenient and less formal with copyrights with regards to pictures, I would nevertheless want to point out that the majority of the pictures lack traceable sources and merely state they stand in either public domain or are within the limits of fair use. Just a couple of examples with doubtful copyrights: a.the Image "German Soviet" refers to the US Memorial Holocaust Museum and 2 lines under the picture there is a copyright tag declaring that the copyright belongs to - well - the US Memorial Holocaust Museum (no-where is stated that an US-government employee has made the foto or that it was released into public domain). b.the claim of fairuse of the map "Ac.corridor" is rather doubtful, because this map isn't just a thumbnail and no link or source is cited. c.the photo "German troops in Warshaw" states that it was made by Leni Riefenstahl, however goes on to cite the US Government as a source (and presumably therefore it is labelled to be public domain). However only fotographs made by US employees for the US government published on a US government website are released into the public domain. These are just 3 examples, there are a couple of other pics that have a doubtful copyright status. In terms of the article itself, I do not find that this article is generally POVed like suggested above - it is well-researched and well-written. Themanwithoutapast 23:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I am sure there are relevant procedures to go through (fixing the tag or deleting the image as a copyvio). I am not a specialist with images copyrights though - could you give me a detailed list of the ones you find objectionable, point to the relevant policy or perhaps help me deal with them? It would be a shame if a few non-essential images would stop this from being FA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Object on the same grounds as themanwithoutapast. Minor points: the infobox contains two slightly different names, neither of which is the same as that of the article; the first sentence mentions several names for the war, but not the Russian one- is there a Russian one?; the statement that Soviet occupation, while shorter, also resulted in millions of deaths raises the question of how many millions. Mark1 08:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have changed the infobox so it uses the most common term 'Polish September Campaign'. I have not yet found a Russian name, perhaps one of our Russian speaking Wikipedians can help with that? I will contact the ones I know. I have adjusted the 'millions' with a specific figure based on Polish areas annexed by the Soviet Union, tnx for pointing that one out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The issues of copyright violations (missing sources and explanations) I have commented on have been addressed. As I stated above, the article is well-researched and also otherwise fulfills the FA criteria. I want to point out again, that I am not considering myself a copyright paranoid - on the contrary, I believe that the fair use-doctrine (and other legal possibilities for illustration of images) should be used to its limits, however as a rule of thumb an image should at least include a source and an explanation for its copyright status (especially if it is a FA). Themanwithoutapast 13:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support though the article exceeds the Wikipedia 32k size limit. Andries 18:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - can we have a brief description of what an "Order of battle" is? Perhaps turning that section into prose would be good. With regards to the sentence "The government of the United Kingdom pledged to defend Poland in the event of a German attack, and Romania in case of other threats.", why is "other threats" italicised? Why is "early autumn" italicised in "In addition, a military credit was granted and armament was to reach Polish or Romanian ports in early autumn."? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Perhaps the header is too long and might be shortened, but I like the article. Halibutt 17:09, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

The Brothers Karamazov[edit]

This is a self nomination. I think there is an absence on wikipedia of featured articles regarding classic novels and so I am hoping this article can contribute in some way. It has been peer reviewed for about a month now and I have addressed most of the concerns raised there. So I look forward to input. Thanks Jonesboy1983 00:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Support: A lot of work has gone into this, I particularly like the brief but comprehensive summaries in the synopsis. The page covers a vast work in an encyclopedic and concise fashion. Giano | talk 09:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Overall it's a great article and is not just the boring crap usually found in an article on a classic text... but at the same time I think some of it should be NPOV-erised. For example, the "it has been acclaimed all over the world as a masterpiece of literature and one of the greatest novels ever written" comment needs some sort of reference directly after it (even if its just a link to the "The novel's influence" section), because when it's just that comment on its own it screams POV. Also, this image needs to be cleaned up and trimmed. plattopustalk 12:50, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unfortunately, as I have not read the book, I will not be reading the entire article so as not to learn the plot, and as a result, I will not be able to support. However, I noticed a couple things that might be improved. The lead looks short—it could be expanded to include more about the origin of the book and the influence of the novel. Don't add too much about the plot of the book, as people like me still want to read the book without being told the ending :). Also, why the project gutenburg link to "The Grand Inquisitor" [1]? That e-text weighs in at a mere 69k, so it can't possibly be the same thing—I think that Brothers Karamazov is on the same level as War and Peace in total length (i.e. megabytes). That's what I see right now; sorry I can't be more helpful. I need to get started on reading that book... --Spangineer ∞ 12:58, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • The Grand Inquisitor is but one chapter of the novel. It is probably linked because it is also arguably the most famous one. Phils 14:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is one of those books I read decades ago in college. I seem to remember that Grubshenka's name has a relevant meaning in German; & the image of the Troika in in the closing remarks of the Trial still remains with me -- but the passage about the "Grand Inquisitor" is often studied apart from the rest of the novel. Other than this, I think the best improvement would be to provide the names of the critics (& their citations) who prefer the Pevear and Volokhonksky translation to the Garnett one; that way you are reporting opinions, not stating them. -- llywrch 02:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this much-improved article. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:25, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I remember wanting to look somehting up about this book about six months ago for a philosophy essay. The page then was poor - little info, no synposis, nothing about the characters. Now it is truly an encyclopaedic page. Also, it is shorter than (I think) the average FA, and that is a good thing. A mix of lengths, topics and styles is good. Whoever did the work on this page, it has my vote. Batmanand 08:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments...I fixed the image that had issues and added a couple sources for the lines that were bringing up NPOV concerns. Jonesboy1983 00:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article looks great! Good luck with it--Hypo 08:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I loved this book and very much enjoyed reading the article. --Laura Scudder | Talk 23:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fascinating and incisive description. --Theo (Talk) 12:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gbe languages[edit]

The most comprehensive online resource on the Gbe languages. Has benefited very much from thorough peer reviews by Taxman, Peter Isotalo and Bishonen (see archived request). Self-nomination. — mark ✎ 21:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support - I would have considered it to meet the criteria weeks ago. - Mustafaa 21:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All (reasonable) demands have certainly been met, and then some! / Peter Isotalo 21:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Enthusiastic Support. And I was hoping to be the first to support, but I had to take a phone call :). But he gives too much credit (to me at least). He has done tremendous research on this article and it shows, but is also well written and interesting. It is also a great example of what can happen in an effective peer review process as he did a great job implementing suggestions, and explaining his reasoning on those he didn't agree with. - Taxman 21:50, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support — This article takes me beyond Ewe to see the broader picture. It is well researched and well written. There is no doubt on reading this that it is of the supreme encyclopaedic standard. --Gareth Hughes 22:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it makes an excellent FA. --nixie 05:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice. Phils 05:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 10:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - An excellent piece of work. Congrats to Mark and all involved. OpenToppedBus 13:25, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but some minor quabbles.
  1. I would move the map image to the top and give it a more prominent place.
  2. Some of the letters in the linguistic features section don't show up. Please add a link to this font in near the table.
  3. Where did the name Gbe languages came from? Mgm|(talk) 20:50, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • (1) Moving the map has been tried [2]; it made the article look cluttered. I thought the whitespace right of the TOC was the nicest place. (2) There is a known problem with Internet Explorer not displaying some vowel symbols with tone marks on them (it was also discussed on the PR request). I'm afraid it can't be solved, though I'll try a thing or two. (3) In Gbe languages#Naming it says that Gbe is the word for 'language' in all Gbe varieties. Perhaps too off-hand? — mark ✎ 22:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent piece of work and very informative. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 07:23, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments. Certainly worthy of high praise. I love the map. One thing I'm wondering is if it would be possible to obtain a sound sample from (one of) the language(s) as a .ogg file? A reading of a part of the gospel text shown or (as I would prefer) some native text. I think audio files are one aspect where Wikipedia can really outshine traditional paper encyclopedias. As for the gospel text I have something of a personal bias against using translated bible texts as text samples for different languages. To me it smacks of the old missionary attitude that the only reason to study a language and produce an orthography for it is to bring the scripture to a new people. I would much prefer some other text as a sample here, a native one or something like the frequently used "North Wind and the Sun". A personal and relatively small complaint, to be sure. The gospel text sample is certainly preferable to no text sample. All in all, congratulations on a work well done. Haukurth 01:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably modern linguists don't like to use bible translations as samples? I've always assumed that the big reason they do is that these translations are usually the earliest, and sometimes the only, samples available. (And that the small reason is they can be compared with one another.) Bishonen | talk 06:29, 28 May 2005(UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Haukurth. I would love to add sound samples — the only problem is that it is a little difficult to get them. I promise that I'll add them as soon as I've laid my hands upon some recordings.
I can understand what you mean with regard to bible texts as samples. As Bishonen says, sometimes it's the only text source available. In this case it isn't, though — there are loads of literature in Ewe, and also a reasonable amount in Fon (though less so in any of the Phla-Pherá dialects). Anyway, I picked this one mainly because the translation is easy to look up for most readers. I fully agree that a native text would be better, so I'm on the lookout for a suitable one including a translation. —
Support. Good luck finding recordings and text samples :) Haukurth

mark ✎ 21:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, yet another tour de force by Mark. Bishonen | talk 06:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myxobolus cerebralis (Whirling Disease)[edit]

Self-nom, though I couldn't have done this without Anilocra and Nixie. I think this overview of the parasite is one of the best you'll find anywhere online. The Whirling Disease Initiative called it an "excellent resource" (personal communication). I'd be happy to implement any suggestions you have. Dave (talk) 22:01, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Great article with excellent pictures. the wub (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Obviously a very thorough article, and one on a topic that many would be happy to see represented on FA as an example of wonderful obscurity. Harro5 10:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Incredible. The finest FAC in quite a while. Simply amazing. Phils 10:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The only thing I saw is the appendix and the links back to the relevant section is kind of odd. It would be much more standard Wikipedia style to just move the appendix to Salmonid susceptibility to whirling disease and add a See also: link to the end of the Susceptibility section. That's all I could see though. Great work. - Taxman 13:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point. I'll do that now. Dave (talk) 16:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very good, support, my only question is whether the disease this parasite causes should be covered entirely in the article on the parasite, or whether it should have its own article? But either way I think it's good enough to be an FA. Everyking 14:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the current version is probably best. Anyone interested in the parasite would be interested in the disease it causes and vice-versa. Splitting it into two articles would require flipping between the two pages to find everything out. Dave (talk) 16:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC) PS I bolded your "support" above to make it easier to tabulate. I hope you don't mind.
    • Comment Just to support Dave's comments, this is a discussion we've had elsewhere (e.g. Talk:Anisakis). My gut feeling is that this would be appropriate for the "major" parasites and diseases, such as Malaria vs. Plasmodium falciparum, but less so for the "lesser" (and it sticks in my throat to say that!) parasites and diseases. Anilocra 22:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment, it's a bit of a problem with diseases, viruses, genetic disorders and parasites, do you right about the disease or the organism (gene) or both? Keeping them seperate often leads to two sortish articles that would be better together, the black death/Yersinia pestis and HIV/AIDS are some more notable exceptions. When the organism only causes one type of pathology, I think it's often best to combine the two and it's done well in this article.--nixie 23:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I learned something new. It had nice images and it was clear and comprehensive. Mgm|(talk) 20:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good. We need more like this. — mark ✎ 15:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • YAS - "Yet Another Support"  ALKIVAR™ 07:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do fish have allies? - Bryan is Bantman 21:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • You're right that the conventional meaning of "allies" makes no sense there. Biologists talk about a species having "allies" if there are related groups. For example, primates could be described as "apes, monkeys, and allies." It's not great terminology (it conjures up an image of related species banding together against a common threat) but it is commonly used. We could change it to "salmon, trout, and related groups" if you think it's confusing. Dave (talk) 05:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • Since it only affects Salmonidae the text in the brackets could be shortened to (salmon and trout), or delete it all toghther. --nixie 06:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil people[edit]

Overall, this is a great read. It is also informing, visually rich and it's news to most people. It performs very well when confronted with the Featured Article Candidates requirements. Subramanian talk 00:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why list a "Main article" if it's just going to be a redlink? For example, in the Culture section there is "Main article: Tamil culture", and in Visual arts and architecture there is "Main article: Tamil visual arts", but both of these are red links. If it's going to be split, do the split and resolve the red links. slambo 10:56, May 19, 2005 (UTC) (Fixed. Subramanian talk 13:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks. I had read the lead section and skimmed the rest. Now to read it in more detail and vote... slambo 15:54, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. User:Vadakkan has done a wonderful job that has been well supported by others. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 07:25, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Very informative article, and much more significant subject than many other FACs MvR 08:26, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Support. I learned a lot. But I have one Comment: I don't think the labels "classical," "medieavel," etc. really have much meaning outside of Europe. Is there a better way of describing these periods, e.g. "predynastic," "early dynastic," or something? Dave (talk)
  • Support. Ditto MvR. Beautiful and informative. Per Dave's comment: Actually the terms classical and mediaeval are very well established in Indian historiography. Classical refers roughly to the Sangam period of Tamil literature in South India, and to the golden age of Sanskrit and Prakrit in North India (from the rise of Magadha and the Maurya Empire to the Gupta Empire). In fact, Sanskrit and Tamil are officially recognized by the Indian government as classical languages. As for mediaeval, that's perhaps a less precise term (particularly in South India); but canonically, mediaeval in India means the era from the Delhi Sultanate to the Mughal Empire, when Muslim rulers established themselves in most places of the Subcontinent. QuartierLatin1968 17:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We worked quite hard on expanding this article, and as far as I can see it is currently the only comprehensive NPOV encyclopaedia-style article about the Tamil people available on the web. On MvR's comment: "classical" is an established label for that period in Tamil history. "mediaeval" is also commonly used, but I take QuartierLatin1968's point about it being less precise in South India. I've changed it to "imperial and post-imperial periods". Arvind 11:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Comprehensive article  =Nichalp (Talk)= 14:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. But what about the food/cuisine? Is it no different than neighboring ethnic groups? How has it evolved/stayed traditional over the timeframe in the article? - Taxman 17:09, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Taxman, it's good that you brought this up. Will try to add some info soon. Thanks. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 04:08, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Grunge music[edit]

Self nomination. I have researched this subject extensively and have fine-tuned this article into what I think is one of the best overviews of grunge out there. -- LGagnon 16:30, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support тəzєті 16:59, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like a solid over-all summary of the genre. Support. Edeans 17:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily an objection, but… the article is a frequent magnet for dubious additions of non-notable bands. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:03, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Your concern is understood, but we have removed these bands from the article and we haven't had such additions in quite some time. -- LGagnon 01:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • minor object/comment - please change over to template based footnotes (for example autonumbered notes. This makes it easier to locate and update articles with footnotes in future. Mozzerati 21:10, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
    • I've changed them to reflect your suggestion. -- LGagnon 21:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object, like I said in peer review, I would like to see some more info on the bands rather than just a list of names, as is, there is no indication of how grunge has endured, a basic table listing year of formation and year of break-up/last album (most of the bands have broken up) and biggest selling album can easily be compiled from the relevant band articles--nixie 03:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read your original suggestion, and I thought it was unneeded. If you want info on individual bands, you can check their articles. And info on which album sold best is not available in the individual articles, nor can we use chart places to determine it; for instance, both Nirvana's Nevermind and In Utero were #1 on the charts. What you are asking for is more of a nicety than an actually required detail. -- LGagnon 14:18, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • I disagree, part of being a featured article is being comprehensive, a list is not comprehensive as it provides next to no information--nixie 05:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is supposed to be comprehensive on the subject matter, not on related subject matter. You are asking for relatively minor details to be added in, details which pertain not to grunge as a whole but to specific grunge bands. There is no need to review the careers of each grunge band for the article to be comprehensive. -- LGagnon 15:31, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting and apparently comprehensive. Minor quibble: is it not our convention to call the "Footnotes" section "Notes"? --Theo (Talk) 23:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have changed it to "Notes" now, though I personally think "Footnotes" is a better name for the section. -- LGagnon 00:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Habsburg Spain[edit]

In the previous nomination of this article, it was described by some as a "tour de force" and one of the "best pages" on Wikipedia. Consensus was not reached however. In evaluating the article now, I find that either 1) some objections previously raised were bogus; or 2) legit objections have certainly been reasonably accounted for. --DanielNuyu 08:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Habsburg Spain/archive1 is the old FACfailed discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a nice overview, but I think it may be a bit picture-heavy. All those pictures don't have to be crammed into a single article. Everyking 13:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Everyking, especially since this article is not an article about art; all these pictures, while most are aesthetically pleasing, do not really add to the article. Please select a few a put the others somewhere else (or on Commons if you can't find an article to put them in). Otherwise, excellent article.Phils 18:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't yet been able to find a Wikipedia policy on images (as far as quantity goes), but I feel that the pictures in this article add to its readability. I think that the pictures help retain the interest of people who might otherwise have only a passing curiosity for the subject, which might be a problem when talking about continental European history in the seventeenth century to an Anglo-American audience. Thinking about newsmagazines and (for instance) many current textbooks for schoolchildren, where keeping the reader's interest is at a premium, it seems clear to me that the editors view a lot of color as a means to that end. I did take one image out because it made for uncomfortable formatting, though, and I would be fine taking out others if that's the consensus. I was the crackpot who put them there in the first place. :) Adam Faanes 20:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC
      • I respect your opinion, but I personally feel the large number of pictures to be distracting, not to mention it probably dramatically increases load time for people with slower connections. Phils 22:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with Phils. --mav 23:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to like the pics and I agree that they make for a much more readable article, though I also concur that if I didn't have Broadband, I'm sure my loading time would be miserable. I would keep most of the portraits (especially if they're not located anywhere else on Wikipedia) but do away with the majority of the battle and other scenes leaving maybe one or two of the better ones, as the most of them are harder to make out as thumbnails. I must say though, Phillip IV and Charles II of Spain were certainly good looking! My word! Hot! Hot! Hot! :-) Ganymead 03:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about the download time, and it occurred to me that it might not be as big of a problem as we might think that it is; most browsers tend to load the text first, display that, and then put up the images as they come. Even if the images take a while to come, they can bide their time reading the text (as we should hope) and still keep their attention with the color that the images add to the page, when they come. And, personally, I think that even the battle images add something to the page, if only color. (The only really unclear image, I think, is the Battle of Pavia image; the rest of the images, particularly those in the later sections, tend to have more vibrant colors). And have a look at this picture of the Count of Olivares for a stunning example of male beauty in the seventeenth century. Adam Faanes 16:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiki is not paper. The pics are nice. I would like for all the pics to stay - their abundance is nice, and cetainly it doesn't constitute any official reason for objection. I'd like to receive a reply on article's talk page about the relevance of characters I mention there, though, before I support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See talk page. Adam Faanes 16:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor object. After looking through the article, I see some problems with internal links and disambiguation: while some mentioned rulers are not ilinked, others are linked to disambigs. I fixed Ferdinan II references in text, and before I remove my object - and likely support this otherwise good article - I'd like to hear from the author that he has went over all names, linked them and/or fixed disambigs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The objections about picture-heaviness are valid. There's no need to debate the details of official policy to see that this article is too burdened by an abundance of pictures. The paintings of monarchs, battles and high nobility should also be much balanced against those of peasant life by Pieter Brueghel the Elder and the likes. / Peter Isotalo 14:13, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect, if there isn't an official policy then we are discussing style. It seems that, of the people who have commented so far, that it's at least an open question as to whether or not there are presently too many pictures. I would be more than happy to remove the pictures myself if there were such a consensus or such a standing policy. Adam Faanes 16:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is an official policy on this at Wikipedia:Image use policy. But even without that, objections on the overuse of images are still valid. Making almost all the images the default thumb width will help. Some other images will need to be removed or at least turned into (see image) inline links. See below for an example why (at standard resolution of 800x600).--mav 17:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
File:Maveric149-temp.PNG
This is too crowded
Aha - I see what you mean. It looks a bit different on 800x600. I tried reformatting some of the pictures so that they would look better on lower resolutions. Adam Faanes 19:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I must also point out that out of the 33 pictures in the article right now, there is not a single historical map of Habsburg Spain or its colonies.
Peter Isotalo 21:31, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I've copyedited large portions of the article and inserted comments on several issues that should be adressed. Judging from what I've seen so far, the text seems to be good, but there are many minor errors, inconsistencies and slightly illogical sentences that need to be proof-read. Peter Isotalo 15:59, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. One of the most attractive aspects of Spanish history during this period is the pageantry of the age, which included some of the greatest artists of all time. We should try to capture the reader's attention and try to engross him or her in that pageantry, even if it distracts them a bit from the text. The reader will get to that in his/her own time - the important thing is to capture his/her attention first and get them interested. I can't say for certain, but I feel that when people said that this article was a "tour de force" they were saying that not only out of respect for the prose, but also because the article captures some of the majesty, color, and emotion of the era in ways that only Velazquez could. That's what I was trying for when I put these images in to begin with. Adam Faanes 16:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comment is not an objection, just a comment. However, I'd like to remind you that this is an encyclopedia: our first goal is to provide people with the information they were looking for when they typed "Habsburg Spain" in the search box, not to have them wait 30 seconds to be "captivated" by an enourmous amount of picture. If someone wants to look at pretty pictures, they have Wikimedia Commons to do that. Speaking of Velazquez, look at the article about him, it's less crowded with pictures, yet it is only about him, a painter (whereas Habsburg Spain was an epoch/country). Notice how there is a link to a picture gallery of his works at the bottom of the page. Again, this is not an objection, it's just a comment. I will read the article in more detail when I have time - I happen to know a bit on the subject- before I vote. Phils 19:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Though some inline citations for important points would be even better. - Taxman 17:40, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • support very nice pics!!!! (except the one of charles II) -Pedro 01:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
File:Habsp.JPG
It looks fine to me.
    • Of course it looks fine - that is at 1024x768 not the 800x600 (standard res). --mav 03:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 800x600 every article looks terrible. I admit we should remove one or two pics (priority to Charles II!!!!) eheheh -Pedro 13:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of Charles II image would increase the quality of the article, people will stop reading the article if they see it. LOL. BTW, ending the voting, this image that I've created can be deleted, it is useless. -Pedro 02:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor object, the lack of a map is quite an oversight, as is the lack of explanation for why it is called the Age of Expansion (I only know it is because of the series box). I agree that the amount of pics is a little overwhelming, especially on a small monitor (but I'm not objecting on this point), perhaps some could be moved to specific articles on a person etc. Support--nixie 03:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • the Portuguese Empire and the spanish one were separated (obviously controled by the same people), I never saw one with them together. The Portuguese continued to settled and explore Brazil, Africa and southest asia, and Spain central and south America, along with the philipines. The articles explains what was the Empire of the H. Spain, if you read it you wouldnt complain "it lacks a map". Besides the map would be probably innacurate in colonial aspects and desnecessary. Maybe an Europe's map would be easier. I think the picture of Charles II should go. lol. it would reduce the amount of pictures and the article will continue a candy to the eyes. Besides, it will lokk better, because when a person sees that pictures after seing so many beautiful paitings will jumb from the chair if they see that. -Pedro 10:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing some concerns: Piotr, nixie, see the new map that has now been included; As far as the issue of the pictures go, I have taken the liberty of removing some. They include: the second picture of Olivares, one of the king of Portugal, one of the Battle of Pavia, and Ricci's auto de fe. At all times, keeping proper format of the article was my goal. Although I am for the inclusion of these pictures, the current reduction is in an attempt to form a compromise with those who think the article contains too many. Please continue this dialogue—those who thought there were too many pictures, consider how the article appears now. --DanielNuyu 23:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks much better now, though two pictures per section seems like reasonable layout to me. A lot of them still have three, and most of those are still of a lot of royalty and nobility (they will seem dull to a lot of readers). There are also some pictures that I really think the article could do without:
The Vision of Teresa Avila
The allegory of Charles V - He's already depicted at the top of the article; it seems excessive to have two paintings.
Jakob Fugger - Though obviously a fairly important figure he is not mentioned in the article and is moreover Dutch.
Las Meninas by Velázquez - The picture is bigger than the section art and culture, which really doesn't look good at all. Consider expanding the section, though not adding more pictures. ;-)
And one thing that really strikes me as way too distracting is the huge picture of "The Glory of Spain" in the History of Spain article series template. Article series templates, when having pictures at all, should keep them to the size of the links in the template.
Peter Isotalo 07:50, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

New edits to address objections:

  • Peter Isotalo
    • Each of the four images aforementioned has been removed in accordance with your suggestion
    • Two paintings by Pieter Brueghel the Elder now appear, even as I believe that the same logic used to remove Fugger from this article could apply against including Brueghel's work
    • I completely agree with you about The Glory of Spain in the template, and a smaller (but still essentially comprehensible) rendition appears now
    • A few sentences were added to the Art/Culture section, but I don't want to keep going with it and make it look like a rehash of the Golden Age article it already suggests to link to
      • Eeexcellent! If you could just add one final paragraph with some information on the most famous painters of the period and I'll be satisfied. Objection withdrawn. Peter Isotalo 21:23, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • nixie
    • See the map
    • That the Habsburg period was an "Age of Expansion" is a somewhat implicit consideration throughout the article, but an explicit mention now appears in the lead section

--DanielNuyu 04:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and removed about half the images (mostly ones that were only peripherally related), and right alinged almost all the rest. It should look good on big and small resolutions. →Raul654 20:11, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Looks good without all the pics! Very nice article! Support. Ganymead 22:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looking good indeed. Peter Isotalo 22:51, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hero of Belarus[edit]

Self-nom. I believe the article should be FA for various reasons. Though there has only been five people who have been decorated with the title, their heroism and service to their country serves as an example of the people who make Belarus a great country. Though I do agree this award is no where near recognized as the Hero of the Soviet Union thoughout our culture, an amazing article with great photos and drawings (from me) is a shining example of what can be done with a stub, Babelfish and those who are knowledge of the local language. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I think it's quite good. It's also good that we have such a quality and neutral article on a topic associated with a country that is often unfairly maligned in the West. Everyking 04:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I do agree that we, the United States, bash Belarus because of voting issues, human rights abuses and also due to President Lukashenko's rule. We have even accused Belarus of providing passports and refuge to Saddam Hussein and his deceaed sons, though we have found them elsewhere (BTW, we never apologized for those, either). I also sadly think that this might be one of very few articles about Belarus-topics that mighe become featured. I state that since I find little Belarussian topics online, and most of it is from the government and in Russian. I admit that I had to use Babelfish on this page, and I know some translations and spellings are a bit spotty. But thanks for your support and I will wait and see what others have to say on it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object (Resolved). There is almost no information about the heroes or why they got the reward. For example: "for the valiant service to the state and the society." is the only information we are given, leaving the reader with more questions than answers. The hero and reasons for the reward should be fleshed out if not bulked up to be FA level. Stbalbach 05:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not much information on the heroes can be found. I managed to find a small bio on few of them, but I just need to put it down. There are some people who I cannot find information on, so I will see if people who know the language can locate something. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I lied. I found more information on all of the heroes. It will be good for this article, since I mainly want to discuss the title. If people want to start their own articles on each hero, then of course, we need more. However, I do have links to bios/obits/stuff about each hero. Checking the images can also give you some information on each hero. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • After looking at the article, it looks to me like this objection has been resolved. →Raul654 19:51, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. It looks rather short to me - from lead to main, which composes of many sections that would normaly be called stub sections. A good article, on a little known subject, but not not something I would judge as a FA quality. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason why the lead section is short is that there is only so much you can cover with a medal in the introduction. I tried to match my article to a FA that dealt with a medal subject: Medal of Honor. I know their lead was short, but it conveyed nearly the entire article in those two lines. I was wondering what other sections do you find short? Zscout370

(Sound Off) 14:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      • I expanded the lead a bit, but I think the lead is fine now. As mentioned above, the bios have been beefed up, photos for all of the heroes have been located. Once again, I do agree this is a little known subject, but I want to have a good article about Belarus. Though, if anyone wants to move this to the Russian or Belarussian Wikipedia, let me know and I will give you all that you need to pull it off. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A well thought out article and it compares nicely to Medal of Honor and Order of the Bath, two other featured article medals. -Husnock 00:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with caveat. Looks good, and you've got my support so long as you manage to get better translations! The Babelfishiness of those translations is pretty obvious. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is my biggest concern is the translations. I know some words might be off, but I think everything should be clear now. Mainly, only exact quotes from law sources and the decrees have been translated. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • James, which sections do you think sound a bit Babelfishish to you? I am trying to change some of the words now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (answered on Zach's talk page) Grutness...wha?
  • Much better (although you missed the Vladimir Karvat bit!). Assuming that's done, the caveat goes and you have full support Grutness...wha? 07:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC) (thinks... how did he write that bit about waiting for his girlfriend to get offline while she was online?)[reply]
    • She was off doing something else, so I was able to drop in a quick line. I fixed up the Karvat line, so I went ahead and crossed out the caveat statement. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as expanded - much better. It may be worth starting articles on the individual recipients, as discussed above. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can do that. Since this is a version many like, I can create a few stub articles about each hero. Once I do that, I will tag it with {{Belarus-stub}} so it can be expanded later on. Thanks for the support ALoan. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks good! --Angr/comhrá 05:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The voting period is now over, and the article was promoted to Featured Article Status on 24 May, 2005. I thank everyone for voting and raising any concerns, I could not make this article Featured without your help. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 12:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Puerto Rico[edit]

I'm resubmitting this article after doing additional work. I believe I've covered the main objections on the fisrt nomination. I enjoy history and I wrote the article because I was unable to find one on the topic in the internet. I hope you all enjoy it. Tony the Marine (23:45, May 19, 2005)

  • Comment: former nomination is here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor object. Half of my previous objections not adressed: lead is still to short. While references are split from external links, they are still not formatted (i.e. no 'last acessed on...', no ISBN). External link still in mainbody - use some note variant to remove it. I will support after those changes - a good article despite those few minor faults.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm helping out with this article. It looks real good so far and I think I can help bring it to FA standard. Great job Tony! :) --mav 02:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. After mav polished the article, I went over it, looking for details. I could only find nitpicky details to fix. This one has been polished to a high shine. SWAdair | Talk 10:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good article. – ugen64 16:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; excellent job. Fascinating reading, and I didn't know a lot of this stuff. Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; Antonio Reckless Life Martin 00:01 AM, 22 May 2005 (MST)
  • Support - a wealth of information about a subject which I was previously largely uninformed about. I have two minor caveats, though. One - nitpickingly - is a technically incorrect sentence - under "War on terrorism" it states Among these were the first two Puerto Rican women to die in a combat zone. I would prefer that to read ...the first two female members of the Puerto Rican military to die..., as I suspect Puerto Rican women were among the casualties during the 1790s when much of the island could have been considered a combat zone. The other problem is a little more difficult, and is addressed by Piotrus, above. The lead-in section is quite perfunctory and reads "telegraphically". I'm not asking you to waffle, but a slightly more leisurely approach might be better. Even without a change to this, though, there is still enough there for me to give this the thumbs up. Grutness...wha? 08:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a fascinating article which reads really well. Ideally I would like the lead section to be a little longer, maybe another paragraph or two, but I do not see this as a reason to oppose this otherwise fine article. Rje 12:38, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good stuff from Tony and co. Andre (talk) 15:11, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work overall, Tony. This article seems comprehensive, detailed and informative. MusiCitizen 16:12, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good job. –Hajor 16:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Well done! Can't find anything wrong with it. Linuxbeak | Desk 17:22, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent job on a rather obscure subject, but that is very interesting. I as a Puerto Rican didn't know many of the facts that the article gives. Good job! <<Coburn_Pharr>> 22:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I don't want to be a pain, but there really should be some kind of in-line referencing system (footnotes, parentheticals, i-note, textual attributions). It's important that we make the article as easily verifiable as possible. Examples of things that badly need references are statistics (like numbers of people) and details of the various battles. I hope this is fixed so the article can get the featured status it clearly deserves. Dave (talk) 01:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment, stats are the only thing that I think really need referencing for historcial and overview type of articles--nixie 05:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I heartily disagree. I can see lots that need it, and stats might be the last thing. The best guideline I can think of is to prioritize the facts in the article from the standpoint of most important, and most contentious. This article may not have many contentious facts, but what are the top 15-20 most important facts, that if removed, the article would be much weaker? Those need citations to their source. Or pick the 2 most important facts in each section or subsection and cite those. Think critically - what could someone that does not trust this article take issue with, and what source would back up what is here? So lack of inline citations and the fact that the references section is still not properly formatted leads me to object for now. Article looks good though, so if this is fixed, I'd love to support. - Taxman 14:15, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • I have added the inline references but I need some help in making soem of them "invisible", please help out, anybody. Tony the Marine NEVER MIND I SOLVED THE PROBLEM.
  • Support Everyking 03:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article is comprehensive, well-presented, significant, and a very interesting read. Acegikmo1 05:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over 28 Puerto Ricans have died in the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq." reads awkwardly, could this be changed to the exact number (as of some date), or at least changed to "over (some round number)". In either case, a reference would be appropriate for this fact. Thanks. Pcb21| Pete 08:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great, great article with copious information. I see nothing to fix. --Lst27 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive and informative. utcursch | talk 10:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Whale song[edit]

This was nominated a few weeks ago by someone else and got some supporters but also some valid objections (see the previous FAC). I've now had chance to work on these (diff showing my changes) and got the approval of the user who made the specific objections last time here.

So I thought I should open myself up to comment again here. This time it's a self-nomination. Pcb21| Pete 15:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - great. -Pedro 18:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - could do with a lead image: the spectrogram and the humpback whale look good. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well done, Pete. Phils 22:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the article covers all the basics now--nixie 23:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good article. I'd also like to see a lead image. CDThieme 04:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Much improved. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:06, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Danny 23:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written and interesting topic. Deserves its recognition. Harro5 04:13, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good job! Neutralitytalk 04:28, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting subject. Covered the topic. I was happy to see some sound files of the song included too. A minor quabble, though:
One researcher characterized listening to such a school as like listening to a group of children at a playground. This is weasel wording. My first reaction was: "which researcher?". Mgm|(talk) 11:29, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support MvR 08:01, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Support. Congrats Pcb21 - a great article and a soon-to-be featured one. Harro5 10:09, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hmm it looks really good, and I'd like to support, but the structure is a bit confused, and parts of the article are not even about the topic. I'll start with the second part first. The 'Toothed whale sound production' section starts with a sentence saying the sounds they make are not considered whale songs, so why is that section six times longer than the section on 'Baleen whale sound production'? So that section there then a later whole section on the Humpback whale song later is confusing structure wise. What is this article about? Whale songs or whale sounds? In fact I can't see anywhere in the article that it tells me the Humpback is baleen at all, so the prior distinction between baleen sounds and toothed whale sounds is even more disjointed. The other sections don't seem to flow in a logical order either. Further, do only males produce whale songs? - Taxman 14:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

WGA screenwriting credit system[edit]

Self-nom. An article on the convoluted process by the Writers Guild of America which determines who "wrote" a film. Comprehensive article and bibliography. Was on peer review here a couple months back and as a FAC here where the objection was to its US-centric title. No, there's no picture. I don't know how anyone would illustrate it, short of a screen capture of the relevant title cards. I don't have the ability to add such captures. PedanticallySpeaking 17:23, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Phils 19:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have added a screenshot of the credits from A Christmas Story. I think that this is fair use. --Theo (Talk) 11:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment although some of your references state which film they cover, and so it is easy to work out which area they cover, others are more general. Some inline references, such as footnotes or invisible notes would really help with the verification of the article. Mozzerati 21:07, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Support. Neutralitytalk 03:05, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well written. →Raul654 05:06, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Papal Tiara[edit]

self nom When I started this article in February 2003 I did not expect that it would grow as it did or contain as much information as it did. I knew next to nothing about this topic when I started it but was curious. I discovered recently that during the papal conclave a journalist colleague had been using wikipedia as a sourcebook for papal information. Had Benedict XVI been crowned he intended to use this article for his newspaper article on papal crowns. So I guess this article has been a success, largely thanks to the work of so many wikipedians over two years. I think it should be showcased as an example of how Wikipedia can take an obscure topic and produce what is probably the most thorough article on this topic anywhere. FearÉIREANN 03:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support-powerful article. The amount of information is incredible, as well as the structure and organization. A worthy article to be featured. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 05:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A very good article on a somewhat obscure topic, just what Wikipedia is all about. Rje 13:06, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Nice article indeed, but lead section needs to be longer, a ==References== section must be added and many more inline citations should be included. --mav 16:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks to me like all of these objections have been addressed - the lead is now 4 hefty paragraphs, and it has 20 footnotes. →Raul654 16:25, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. It's always great to see a well-researched articles like this (judging from the number of publications given at the end), but the references require some polishing. If the publications in the "Additional Reading" section were used as sources or to fact-check, the section should be renamed "References". Some of the documents lack a name for the publisher (only the name of the city is included).
    • That is because many old texts either used long out of existence publishing houses or in many cases (God knows why!) used to use city of publication. In other cases, the information can from books that quoted from older texts but only gave place of publication. I used the reference to the older book.FearÉIREANN 00:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is v. poor technique, especially on a controversial subject. Use Inter-Library Loan, cite only the modern source, or indicate which books have not been seen. (See comment on Bibliography for dangers involved.) Septentrionalis 04:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mav above says, it would be useful to add footnotes to make it clearer where in the source documents some of the facts in the article come from (ex.: on what data is the average tiara weight that is given in the article based?). The "Symbolism of the Triple Tiara" strikes me as particularly weak in that area. Formulations like Some have linked [the tiara] to..., Others have given a spiritual interpretation..., Yet another theory..., and Other theories suggest... do not have their place in featured articles, unless they are backed with names and quotes for the advocates of the different theories. Also, is there not an inconsistency about the "papier mâché" tiara. In the section dedicated to it, the author(s) write(s) It is rumoured to have been worn by one later pope, Pius IX, sometime between 1870 and his death in 1878., yet in "Weight of the tiara", a few sections earlier, on can read Because of the weight of the older tiaras, some elderly popes, notably Pius IX and Leo XIII, though they had been given many tiaras during their reign, opted where possible to wear the papier-mâché tiara in their final years.. Was Pius IX the only pope to wear that tiara after Pius VI or not? (commented coninuted below)
    • No. But it was never stated that they wore it (it would be an admission that their health was failing.) It was just recorded in old diaries of people in the papal court that they were doing so, and hoping no-one would get close enough to notice which one it was, as a lot of the tiaras look the same from afar. FearÉIREANN 00:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not made clear in the text. Phils 16:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another section that would need closer examination is "The Papal Tiara and the 666 controversy". What are the four definitive sources that Protestants sometimes give, and Which Protestants claim they are definitive? Is Uriah Smith (author the publication cited in the 4th footnote) the source of all these claims? If so, he should be named, not Protestants in general. This is exactly the kind of statement that needs to be sourced with footnotes. I think the article should clearly enumerate the four objections, explain why these four are considered (and by whom) definitive, and if necessary, mention the Catholic counter-arguments, instead of pretending However none of the sources seem to stand up to detailed examination and proceeding to counter the "Adventists' claims" in a most vague and sometimes incomprehensible manner (In fact the tiara some Seventh-day Adventists has the words was actually manufactured decades after the supposed sighting of the words on the tiara supposedly seen at Mass. - I understand a word was ommitted after 'Adventists', but when was the tiara manufactured, and when was it supposedly sighted?). This just to confirm that mav's objection is justified. Apart from needing better referencing, a quick copy-edit would be a good thing (some commas missing, etc.) I know I ask for this quite often and could possibly do it myself, but we have enough skilled copyeditors around, so that we don't need a non-native English speaker to do it. Phils 18:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 666 claim did originally feature in the article in detail but another user thought it overlapped on a specific article on the topic and reduced it to a summary. I'll re-insert the original detail. (The supposed sighting, BTW, was in 1834. Yet the Seventh-day Adventists then claimed that the tiara in question is the one used to crown Pius XII. That tiara was actually made in 1877! Their reliability on this issue is of that scale. Lol. Re the meaning of the triple tiaras, the problem is that many different theories are espoused as no-one really knows. What I did was pull together the most widely mentioned ones, but the mentions are often in obscure documents. But I'll retrace the research. FearÉIREANN 19:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still don't like the formulation "Four definitive sources are sometimes given" (and all the other some-s in that section), but I'm probably overly picky, but you've already done a lot to improve the article. Phils 16:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This website, http://www.truecatholic.org/nop/p6tiara.htm, is probably one of the sources that were supposed to be used in the article. I have no clue on where this website got it's information, but this group claims that when the Pope ditched the Tiara, he "told the world that he is not the Pope of the Catholic church." Zscout370 (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not yet of feature quality. Has recurrent POV problems, which may have provided the impetus for the article, but are unsuitable for a FAC.Septentrionalis 04:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What POV problems do you see? Unless the authors know what they are, they can't be fixed. Therefore your objection may not be actionable. - Taxman 21:14, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • There have been recurrent efforts to use the article as a POV, exaggerating the (quite real) sufferings of Pius VI and Pius VII to make Napoleon and Pius IX look bad. See talk page for some of the issues. I would regard this as largely (but not entirely) solved by the present text, if the same assertions did not keep reappearing. Septentrionalis 22:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is also the question of whether the bibliography in fact represents books that any Wikipedian has actually seen, on which this page (above) and the talk page disagree. It certainly used to include one book which said nothing about tiaras or the subject matter of the article at all. If this is the case where I have checked, how is the rest of it? Septentrionalis 22:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Historians regularly mention books they have used in understand underlying trends that may have shaped their ideas. Hugh's book on the French Revolution was informative in contextualising the growing movement that saw a break in the concept of the alliance of 'throne and altar' of mediaval times to one based on the rights of man. The papacy in that period and for a century afterwards continued to be attracted to the concept of 'throne and altar' and opposed to the principles of the 'rights of man'. Indeed some of the principles of the French Revolution were only accepted as late as Vatican II. Understanding the changing conceptionalisation of monarchy and its symbols in the nineteenth century is an inherent part of this article and that book formed a useful source for understanding the changing secular world versus the world of traditional Catholicism. Using references is not about looking through indices to see if the word tiara exists in them. But as you seem to have a problem with the standard method of using references, to keep you happy in your non-historical understanding of using references I removed the book. (BTW a book I am reading on mediaval concepts of family uses as one of its references an article about 1940s Northern Ireland social traditions. And Scandal and Betrayal, an acclaimed account of the theft of the Irish Crown Jewels includes in its biography An Encylopaedia of British Literature, Art and Culture as well as The Real World of Sherlock Holmes. I suppose you disapprove of these two and want those books condemned because the books mentioned in the references don't actually mention mediaeval families or the Irish crown jewels?) FearÉIREANN(talk) 23:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I need to look at this article more to see if it does fit the FA status. To Jtdirl: Though many of the sources might be in PD, still list the sources in the references. I would also pay attention to the Pope Benedict XVI article, since we are not sure about the status of the arms of Benedict XVI either will ditch the tiara in favor of the mitre or the tiara will be restored. I would also try to clear up any copyvios, if at all. I still thank Jtdirl for pointing this out on my talk page, but I still need to comb though this. Zscout370 (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is beautiful! But lead section can be improved, which is not going to be a big deal. muriel@pt 08:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ok, I looked at the article and I believe, with a little work, the article can be FA status. Zscout370 (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Awesome article. Bratschetalk random 03:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Very interesting Giano | talk 08:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: most images have incomplete source information (there is a good argument for fair use here, I think, but that's no excuse for a lack of proper attribution). —Steven G. Johnson 05:26, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Right now, I am trying to find photos of the various crowns. For Paul VI, I found [3]. This was cropped, then used on Wikipedia, but was replaced. The photo being used now was taken from [4]. Most of the photos used for the articled at loctaed at http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/claims.htm. I do not know what copyright status every picture holds, but at least we are getting somewhere. Zscout370 (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another image of the papal tiara on Pope John XXIII: http://pirate.shu.edu/~wisterro/cdi/John%20XXIII%20-%20tiara.jpg. Zscout370 (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The tiara of Pope Pius IX: http://www.nd.edu/~bshweb/pics/tiara.gif. Zscout370 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object POV mainly on anti-pope thing! -Pedro 00:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same as above and what do you mean by "on anti-pope thing"? What POV problems do you see? Unless the authors know what they are, they can't be fixed. Therefore your objection may not be actionable. - Taxman 21:14, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry??? Not actionable?! this Pope Gregory XVII thing is surely intended to offend catholics and redicularizes the article. What that has to do with the article? is to make him noticeable? Did he died? I didnt knew that he had born. And I dont live that faar from Seville. I completly disapprove an article with such a biased info. I'm very faar from being a fundamentalist catholic. it is POV. This and Sealand are some of the articles that make wikipedia seem ridiculous. And passing this to a featured article?!?! I'm not offending the author that surelly has edited the article in good faith.object object object-Pedro 18:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How the heck can the so-called Pope Gregory XVII thing be intended to offend Catholics? That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Firsty it doesn't mention a Pope Gregory XVI at all. It mentions someone who claimed he was Pope Gregory XVII. Secondly that mention is patently NPOV. It points out that the papal tiara is such a powerful symbol of the papacy that a wannabe pope felt it necessary to wear his own one. That is a fact. You may not like the fact, but is is a fact and an NPOV article cannot ignore such a fact. FearÉIREANN(talk) 20:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is a non-important person, the image is very ridiculous. I've also a tiara at home, do you want to talk about it also? It is so powerful that people that dont go no more to the church (except on marriages and baptisms) have it at home. That would be a fact if I really had it at home. Did really the catholic church said that man was the anti-pope? Probably they've never heard of him. I think the article is going to controversial issues, with unknown people, trying to make them famous. -Pedro 02:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rules for the FAC say you have to object with specificity, which, in all his commentary, Pedro has not done. His objection is therefore inactionable. →Raul654 16:28, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • your comment is the confirmation that this "feature article candidates" became a facade. The articles you (admins) dont like you dont say nothing, create the most mirabulous objections, or remove them quickly from voting, but if you like you withdraw other peoples arguments, I was pretty well specific. I'm not saying to remove the info on anti-popes, we should touch it with a simple paragraph, not refering to ANY supposed anti-pope, unless he is famous, giving the status that it has in the article, it is POV. -Pedro 01:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Interesting and informative article.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 17:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • this one you approve, but in Goa you were commenting on blog content issues... this one also has.--Pedro 18:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And which blog were you referring to in this article?  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:55, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • supposed.anti.pope.that.no.body.knows.and.cares.about.blog.com -Pedro 02:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 12:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Gorgeous article. Well written, and with excellent visual references. Kudos. --JohnDBuell 17:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. I had no idea there was so much to be known about papal crowns. Good job. Support. Edeans 20:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clear language and solid research. --Theo (Talk) 10:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now. I hate breaking a string of supports, but I'm going to have to complain about the incredibly short section on Tiara envy. Could that section be renamed and include its current info (only better developed) plus something about Pope Gregory XVII? It seems strange to have just a picture of him and nothing in the text. Maybe the "The triple tiara in Tarot" section could be added too - name the section "Non-catholic tiaras" or "Papal tiara spinoffs" or something. Another thing that annoyed me is the seemingly random wikilinking of years. Is there a reason for that? Or can I/someone go through and wikilink all of them? Also, is there a reason that american units (pounds) are preferred over metric units (kilograms) for a european subject? --Spangineer ∞ 00:01, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • 'Gregory XVII' is not mentioned in detail because it wasn't a real pope, just a diluded priest who fanatised that Christ had appeared to him and told him that he was going to be pope and would then be crucified in Jerusalem!!! (He actually died in his bed in Spain!) He isn't in himself relevant to the article, though there is an article on wikipedia on him. The only relevance was that he showed the symbolic power of the papal tiara by having one in his own 'coronation.'
    • As to the wikifying of dates, go ahead. Bits were added in but not fully wikified.
    • Re tiara envy and the tarot - it is simply a matter of space. The article already exceeds the 32k advised maximum size recommended to make the article friendly to all browsers. There simply wasn't space, and while they are relevant in giving a cultural link to papal tiaras, they are a bit off message. One couldn't really drop bits about the actual papal tiara to make room for an interesting but overall side issue, though if more information becomes available, a linked article might be an option.
    • As to the use of pounds: actually they aren't American units. They can be called American Units or Imperial Units and are still used in some parts of Europe. (Ireland is officially metric, yet don't ask me what my height is in metres - I only know it in feet and inches. Ditto with my weight. Most people I know think in miles, drink in pints, etc. In fact we use a strange combination of both metric and imperial.) They were written in lbs because that was the weights quoted in my sources and, as a longterm user of the Imperial System, I still think in them and couldn't be bothered trying to change them into units I don't use. (To be honest I couldn't even remember how to do it.) I don't think it is accurate to presume that European topics should use metric and American topics imperial. I know Americans who use metric and Europeans who use imperial. FearÉIREANN(talk) 00:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could the image at least be moved up to the place in the article where he is talked about? Are both images of Paul VI necessary? The current image placement makes it look like adding the image was an afterthought. Spangineer ∞ 11:03, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
        • I would have thought the reason for the two Pope Paul images are obvious. One shows a clear image of Paul's unique tiara, which is worth seeing. The other shows its usage at the moment he was crowned, again an important image to feature. As to image placement, it is standard in layout for images to be placed in articles (in newspapers, magazines, encylopaediae, etc) based on the need of the overall visual nature of the page, and not necessarily to be placed beside the point where the image is being discussed. If images were placed next to where they are being discussed, one would have an absolute mess, with some parts jammed with images, other large-sections imageless. That is not how professional layouts are designed. FearÉIREANN(talk) 20:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 32k limit is often exceeded for featured article candidates, and some of them go as high as 60k or even higher. In my opinion, adding 0.5-1k to a 39k article is worth it in this case. However, if you do think that it is merely a side issue, then just move the sections to their own articles and add links to them somewhere else in the article. I don't really care either way, but I strongly believe that a featured article should not have two underdeveloped sections, especially one that is a mere two sentences long. Spangineer ∞ 11:03, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
        • If they are that large they shouldn't. A warning appears on the screen pointing out that articles should not go much above 32K, for a range of reasons: technical, layout, browser, etc. Articles of that size are being broken up to bring them to manageable proportions. Re the supposed 'underdeveloped sections' they are not sections. They are simply minor by the ways at the end of the page. They are worth mentioning but in this article they just about warrant a line or two, certainly not a section. They simply are interesting titbits, nothing more. Articles often have a line or two about interesting titbits, without the need to blow them out of all proportion. Many articles have some such 'sections' running to only one line. FearÉIREANN(talk) 20:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Take the weight and divide it by 2.2. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a major concern of mine – I was just curious. The convention of which type of English spelling to use (British or American) generally is influenced by the location of the subject of the article, so I generally think the same should apply to units. But I was unaware that so many people around the world use the same stupid units as americans like me :). Spangineer ∞ 11:03, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
        • I maintain my support on this article receiving FA status, but how much of a distraction would it be to include both metric and imperial measurements when necessary? --JohnDBuell 00:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They are in. I just left the pleasure of the calculation to someone else. I decided not to write the whole thing myself and to let others contribute! :-) FearÉIREANN(talk) 00:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The whole world uses mertic execept my strange country that I call home. Man, in my opinion, we should all go metric. It math and science classes really easy. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson's Creek[edit]

Self nom. Article on The WB's show which ran 1998-2003. I nominated this in December (see here) and its been worked on quite a bit since then. It has pictures, references, prose instead of some of the lists, and a longer lead. PedanticallySpeaking 17:05, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Everyking 20:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, if you can tell me what "teenaged" in the caption "Main teenaged cast of Dawson's Creek." Oh, and perhaps fix the references to be more like cite your sources. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've done some edits to it, but PedanticallySpeaking has certainly done all the 'heavy lifting on this article; most was lite touch-up like I've done on quite a few FAs and FACs. The last time it was an FAC I summarized some of PS' later detailed info to beef up the intro, added another ref or two, and made a few other tweaks suggested by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. PS has turned many lists into prose since then. I have since added a couple images, and helped start stubs for quite a number of the redlinks it had last time around (User:Niteowlneils/new_articles#Dawson.27s_Creek) (and yes, it should probably be either "teenage cast" or "teen-aged" cast). Niteowlneils 01:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Whale[edit]

Comment: There's no source given for the size comparison chart. / Peter Isotalo 17:57, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

    • I thought this had originated from a PD US-Gov site, but can't confirm, will turn over to the image sleuthing guys, but this article should be judged with the possibility that this image may be removed. Pcb21| Pete 10:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now – there are a few problems that I noted on my first read through: first, there's a reference to Carolus Linnaeus without explanation, second, there aren't any inline citations (see Template talk:Inote and example at welding), and third, there are several very short paragraphs near the top of the article. I'm also not sure that this article is comprehensive, but that's not an objection until I think of something the article needs. Good work with this! --Spangineer ∞ 02:34, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, there seems to be some conflict on the spelling convention used, whether british or american. That should be resolved. The preferred system of units seems to vary as well. --Spangineer ∞ 02:38, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for your comments. Taking your points in order:
    • Linneaus: Good point. I have explained him.
    • Citations: There are some inline citations where I felt it appropriate to use them - see e.g. "Aranson and Gullberg (1983)" and so forth. However FAs must be meet the standards on various policy pages. Here the relevant policy page is Wikipedia:Cite sources which makes clear that we allow substantial leeway in the presentation of references (because different article types suit different styles). The important thing is the references are there to aid verfiability. If you use the references I cite (all with page numbers so the task is easy) you will verify everything. That I don't do so using Inote is not important I don't think.
    • Re paragraph length: There is one just conspicously short paragraph - the very first one and a provision for that is made explicit at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. I think all the others match the "one idea, one paragraph" basic rule.
    • Comprehensiveness: I am confident all important points are covered, but if you do think of an actionable objection let me know.
    • The one American spelling has been changed to British.
    • I have made sure that we use consistently use the "metric (imperial)" style throughout the article.
    • Thus I think I have covered everything actionable. Are you able to support? Pcb21| Pete 10:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isn't "ton" an American spelling, and "tonne" the corresponding British spelling? I know very little about British spelling, so I could be wrong, but since "Metric ton" redirects to "Tonne", I think references to "ton" should be "tonne" if British spelling is to be the standard. Also, as for units, there were a couple of instances where short tons were mentioned first, with metric tons in parenthesis. I think they're all taken care of now. Regarding references, I see now that most of your info comes from short sections of books, so it makes sense that inotes would be unnecessary. As for comprehensiveness, I think that perhaps whale song could be mentioned and described in the physical description section, either where traveling in groups is discussed, or in the life cycle section (as it relates to mating). That's up to you, however; once the ton/tonne thing is worked out I think I'll support. --Spangineer ∞ 18:52, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
        • Heh, I don't think I appreciated that was an Am/Br difference. Anyway fixed now. I've also added a section on vocalization and topped up specific references. Raul has added a nice set of sounds too. Pcb21| Pete 22:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks great. Good work on this article; I now support. --Spangineer ∞ 21:09, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ton is non-metric everywhere that imperial units are used. Tonne is metric (i.e., 1000 kg - about 2204.8 pounds), everywhere where metrics are used. Britain officially uses tonnes, but unofficially a lot of people still use tons. But a British ton ("long ton") and an American ton ("short ton") are different weights. Not to be confused with tuns, of course :) (see ton for full, confusing, detail). Grutness...wha? 10:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That explains my confusion! Thanks. Pcb21| Pete 11:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with a question, do blue whales beach themselves? If so a mention of the behaviour should be added. If the chart is not PD it should be pretty easy to knock one together with PD pics from the NOAA and Navy--nixie 00:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rarely, but it has happened. Weird trick quiz question? What is the largest mammal ever to have been found on the British mainland? Answer, a blue whale that beached itself in northern Scotland in the early 20th century! (oh - support, BTW). Grutness...wha? 10:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Going to add a bit about this little titbit to the talk page, and then to the article. Pcb21| Pete 11:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • support very nice. I dindt knew that they can live all accross the word. Nice pics. -Pedro 01:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Mark1 09:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Okay, I know the citation thing is covered above, but I personally have some issues with it. The references noted are good, but there are facts presented without saying which reference covers it:

  • "The longest recorded study of a single individual is thirty-four years in the northeast Pacific." Which study? When?
  • "Studies have shown that as many as 25% of mature Blue Whales have scars resulting from the attack of an Orca." Which study?
  • "The longest recorded [dive] is thirty-six minutes." Recorded by whom?
  • "The largest Blue Whale accurately weighted by scientists to date is a female that weighed 177 tonnes (196 short tons)." Who measured her?

If these are covered by the references listed, how are we to know if there is nothing pointing to the references, or if the references do not say as much.

  • Well all these things are possible if you really want them. It is almost a question of philosophy. Traditional encyclopedias do not reference. We already do more than that, but do we want to go as far as explicitly referencing every fact? It is tantamount to saying "we are completely untrustyworthy, do not trust anything unless it is attached to someone else". Even academic papers are allowed a certain leeway to make statements. Writing a highly-annotated academic survey paper is of course possible for such a scientific topic as a whale species, but this going to be very hard to do for our article on say, American Idol. Pcb21| Pete 06:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A (largely anonymously written) wiki is completely untrustworthy. ;) The more specific references the better, but that's an argument for improving our referencing standards across the encyclopedia, not an argument against this article as an FA. Mark1 06:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Mark that standards do need improving. However, I was by no means arguing against inclusion for this article, just saying that the references needed improvement and that I'd proffer my vote once done. We must always strive for improvement even if an article is "perfect." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 22:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what its worth, I've adding specific references for these four cases. Pcb21| Pete 20:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in regards to the size comparison chart, a human on it would definitely be helpful. Obviously someone would have to pohotoshop one in, but putting a person on there would really drive home the scale of the whale, especially if one is unfamilliar with the benchmarks listed (personally, I haven't been near any Dugongs, um, ever, to try to form a comparison in my mind). Better yet, putting more animals than just whales and sharks (elephants, for instance), but that probably means creating a scale from scratch.

  • I agree this would be a useful addition. It is a question of having the skill with the relevant graphics programmes to create a good-looking diagram. If anyone has that skill, and just needs the raw data to do the scaling, I am more than happy to provide it. Pcb21| Pete 06:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, other than that, this is actually a really great article. For now I give a conditional No Vote while leaning towards Support of the nomination. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 21:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • As my concerns (as noted immidiately above) have been met, I change my vote to one of SUPPORT for featured article status. Great article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 22:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What is the life expectancy of a blue whale? I feel that this should be here somewhere. --Theo (Talk) 17:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the article: "Scientists estimate that Blue Whales can live for at least eighty years; however, individual records do not date back into the whaling era so this will not be known with certainty for many years yet." Pcb21| Pete 18:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Of course ... now I must go and learn to read ... --Theo (Talk) 22:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imagism[edit]

Mainly self-nom, although I did not create the page and many others have contributed. This is part of planned set of (hopefully) featured articles including Modernist poetry in English, H.D., The Cantos, Samuel Beckett, James Joyce and more to come. I feel it gives a good historical overview of an important literary movement. Improvements suggested on WP:PR have been implemented to the best of my ability. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:43, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Support: I sometimes wonder if Filiocht is not a very famous writer and critic writing incognito, which then means I must be even more clever and literary to have spotted him and his brilliant articles. Giano | talk 22:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I often ask myself the same question; the answer is always no, sadly. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Support. This article is well researched, provides good context (important for lay people like me), makes easy reading, and looks pretty. Give us more of this! — mark ✎ 11:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. What could've been a quagmire of literary confusion is an easily-read, informative, and comprehensive description of an influential artistic movement. --Jacj 21:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support unreservedly. Beautiful work. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very well-written. --DanielNuyu 08:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great article --nixie 00:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This is one of those places where our coverage far exceeds anything a reader could find on any other site on the Internet. It truly does represent the finest writing and research on Wikipedia. Geogre 11:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Comes close to perfect. Themanwithoutapast 14:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lovely lucid prose and informative material that answered questions I did not know I had. --Theo (Talk) 15:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Grand Canyon area[edit]

"Foot of Toroweap Looking East" by William H. Holmes (1882). Artwork such as this was used to popularize the Grand Canyon area.

Self nom. Been on peer review for a few weeks with all comments acted upon. Geology of the Grand Canyon area is already featured as well as my older stab at writing about the history of a national park, history of the Yosemite area. Note that this article covers a part of American history that is very poorly represented in Wikipedia (that's why there are so many red links). So, what else needs to be done to make this article FA? -- mav 02:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a vote, but there are quite a few one-sentence "paragraphs" which could do with being joined-up. Mark1 03:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were exactly two such paragraphs. Now fixed. --mav 16:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great stuff. - Taxman 21:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • A few comments/questions – first, before the land was given to the US in 1848, was Mexico using it? Were there mexicans living there? Or was the place deserted except for the indigenous people living there? It seems strange that all those years passed from 1540 to 1848 with nothing really happening. Also, in the last paragraph of the Americans section, you mention that prospectors came in the 1870s and 1880s came to do some mining, but that they didn't stay. So why was it so tough for congress to pass the National Park designation? Why was there so much opposition as late as the 1910s? Finally, is there a date estimate on that split-twig figurine that you have an image of? That would be helpful too. --Spangineer ∞ 02:54, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • None of the references I used to write this article mentioned any use after the late 18th century by Whites. Nor have I ever come across such information anywhere. In fact the most complete reference I used specifically said there was none at all. I imagine there were some undocumented cases of Whites passing through near the rim, but since those were not documented we don’t know about them. :-) I dunno why it was so hard to pass the legislation, but that would be an interesting to include if a source can be found. I will look for such a source. The figurine shown did not come with an age estimate, but other figurines have been dated and that information is already in the article. --mav 17:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Opponents such as land and mining claim holders" added. --mav 00:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing – is it not in the scope of this article to talk about the theories regarding the formation of the canyon in the first place? I know the geology article talks about that quite a bit, but let me know what you think about adding something here. --Spangineer ∞ 03:06, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

    • A paragraph on that may be useful but this article is about the human history. --mav 17:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps a clarification of that distinction would be helpful in the lead? Would it be approriate to put a link to the geology article and a sentence on to the effect of "the geology article covers the history of the area before the arrival of humans"? --Spangineer ∞ 01:01, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • Hm. I now see what you are talking about. But I think that the first sentence; "The known history of the Grand Canyon area stretches back 10,500 years when the first evidence for human presence in the area started." establishes that the meaning of history used in this article is the human history. There is also already a link to geology of the Grand Canyon area in the lead's second paragraph. I'd prefer this implied approach instead of a more jarring parenthetical one. --mav 00:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll defer to your judgment on that. Thanks for considering my suggestions. Support. --Spangineer ∞ 01:14, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, detailed and readable historical article that meets the FAC criteria, support --nixie 00:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor quibbles: I'm uncomfortable with the heading "Caucasian exploration", since the race of the explorers doesn't seem to have much to do with their explorations. Also if Garcia Lopez de Cardenas thought the river was ten feet wide, it hardly qualifies as a 'great western river'. Mark1 03:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caucasian exploration = to differentiate the pre-historic exploration by Native Americans. They were searching for the 'great western river' and having estimated it was only 10 feet wide were not very impressed (it is in fact much wider ; the great distance to the river makes it look smaller). --mav 04:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since the article doesn't mention exploration by the natives, I don't see the need to distinguish them; nor do I see the need to group the Spanish and Americans together. The way I read the river part, it seems to imply that the reason they descended into the canyon was because they thought this was a 'great western river'. If not, that could perhaps be clarified. Mark1 04:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. I'll see what I can do. --mav 17:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • 'Great western river' bit nixed. Only one of the sources I used had that info so it is suspect. I kept the exploration section as is since that is a logical way to organize this article. 'Caucasian' was nixed in favor of 'Historic'. Hopefully that does not make things confusing. --mav 01:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Mark1 03:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Great article. Please could you address the following?
    1. I would like the article to describe (albeit briefly) the evidence of human presence in the period 8500-2000 BCE.
    2. The Activities section opens "New hiking trails, along old Indian trails, were established during this time as well." I am unclear as to which time is being cited here. And, as a style note, I think it is important for sections to be relatively self-contained.
    --Theo (Talk) 15:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welding[edit]

This is a self-nom – I've been working on this article for almost 2 months now, and it has come a long way. It went through peer review for a couple weeks and I got a few good suggestions. I think that this article is close to featured status, so here's the nomination. I'm planning to be around pretty much this week, so give me suggestions for improvement and I'll see what I can do. Thanks. --Spangineer ∞ 12:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

The peer review page is here, and here you can see how the article has improved since March. --Spangineer ∞ 12:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Great introduction, comprehensive coverage of the subject, and a good number of external links and references for additional information. Ben Babcock 12:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now ; Overwhelming TOC and misuse of the 'main article' format (stub sections). Main article summaries in survey article sections should be at least twice the size of the corresponding lead section in the linked-to main article (meaning that they are almost always inappropriate for sub-sections). Thus simple inline links within larger sections are fine at this level. A separate types of welding article would be interesting once that part of this article gets expanded enough (the ==Second level== sections in such an article could then each be long enough to have the main article format for each type). Also, where are the inline citations? --mav 16:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has a standard and easy to use inline citations method been developed? I looked around a number of weeks ago but didn't really find anything that looked easy to implement. I'm not too excited about going through and having to renumber all my references when I add something to the top of the article. Also, just to make sure I understand what you're saying, a types of welding article would have several paragraphs on each of the individual processes, but wouldn't have all the general welding stuff (costs, safety, weldability, etc.). And in that case, a better format for the welding article might be:
==Welding methods==
===Arc welding===
Several paragraphs on different arc welding processes here
===Gas welding===
A paragraph on gas welding here
===Resistance welding===
Several paragraphs on different resistance welding processes here
etc, etc.
--Spangineer ∞ 21:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Footnote3 does automatic numbering (you just have to add your new reference in order, no renumbering). Please verify if that is appropriate for your needs. If not, there are other options such as invisible notes. Mozzerati 22:30, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
    • That looks awesome – I'll get to work. --Spangineer ∞ 02:59, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Template:Inote is even easier. See the edit page of history of the Grand Canyon area. --mav 16:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • yes, it is easier and doesnt destroy the article like the footnotes. Plus, it has a big advantage, people start not to argue at you because they dont agree, in their ignorance, in controversial issues. It is in fact a good idea!!! I'm using it! I hope it will be used in other wikis, if not i'll comment it on the Port. lang one. -Pedro 20:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I made some major revisions to the history section, adding info from a new source and putting in footnotes. Please take a look at the notes section and let me know what you think of the format. I wasn't sure if I should do it like a normal paper (which would just eliminate the references section and put all the info in the footnotes) or like the way I did it. Any suggestions, let me know. Are there any examples of articles that use a "proper" footnote layout? --Spangineer ∞ 04:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Personally I think that the way you have done it is the best way. It's much better to only give the reference once and the page numbers in a short form. Mozzerati
I think I'm going to go with the inotes, because otherwise there's going to be a note section with more than a hundred references by the time I'm done. If you think any specific piece of info needs a real footnote, I'd be happy to set it up that way, but for now I'm just going to set everything up using inotes and go from there. --Spangineer ∞ 16:47, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK folks, I finished the inotes, did some rewriting, condensed the sections, and removed the main article stuff. Any more problems? --Spangineer ∞ 23:20, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Object — A very good article, but it has too many subsections. I agree with Mav on the misuse of the headings and the main articles. Will support once mav's objections are taken care of.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 09:03, May 10, 2005 (UTC) Comments: I feel that the headings can be shuffled around, with the promotion of the lower sections such as =types of welding= and demotion of =history= and =safety issues=. This would get the reader directly into the core of the topic.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 05:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • When I was adding subsections, I put them in that order because I felt like the background should go first, and then the specifics on the processes should come afterwards. So I sort of think that things like the welding history, geometry and quality sections should stay at the top. Moving safety issues, costs, trends, and unusual conditions to the bottom would be fine with me. What do you think? --Spangineer ∞ 12:58, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
      I think the sections need to go to the bottom. Its better to get into the core of the topic by introducing only the essential parts beforehand. Safety issues, geometry and quality should come later. (Just like in a movie, you wouldn't want the hero to make an appearance midway).  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:43, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • What would you (and others) think about the following order – History, Welding processes, Geometry, Quality, Unusual conditions, Safety issues, Costs, and Trends. --Spangineer ∞ 00:58, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • I just reorganized the article according to the above order, and I integrated the shorter costs and trends sections into one larger section. --Spangineer ∞ 02:08, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry I couldn't reply earlier as I was ill. Yes, I think its better now. Good work.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 20:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Query: In the last sentence of the introduction, does "both" refer to soldering and brazing, in which case in should read "these processes", or to all three processes, since you show that welding sometimes adds a filler? Sfahey 22:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The filler used in welding is not what provides the bond, but in brazing and soldering, it is. "Both" here refers to brazing and soldering, but I see your point – it has been switched to "These". --Spangineer ∞ 23:14, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - lead section needs to be expanded a bit. The first 'paragraph' is a single sentence and the third paragraph is rather short. A sentence or two on the different types of welding along with links to those articles is needed, IMO. A few more sentences on the history would also be good to have in the lead (esp when it was first used, the traditional use, and how that differs from today). Remember that the lead section should be treated as a concise encyclopedia article in its own right. More comments later as I read more. --mav 16:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead has been rewritten, including more history and using that as a base to include links to individual processes. I also added a few sentences here and there that refer to different sections in the document, such as =unusual conditions= and =safety=. Other suggestions? --Spangineer ∞ 20:24, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Great job. Support. --mav 01:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great article. Maybe a few more nice illustrations would improve it. ike9898 01:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I haven't had much luck finding other good PD welding images. Some clear diagrams would be helpful too, but my drawing skills aren't that great yet. I'll keep working on it though. --Spangineer ∞ 03:56, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
The article is now well illustrated. Great job, whoever added these pics!ike9898 14:01, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Support, one of the best articles on a practical technology on Wikipedia --nixie 02:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC) Support. A thourough and accessable introduction to the subject. --Theo (Talk) 11:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Open cluster[edit]

This is another astronomy article that I felt deserved a better article than it had a week or so ago, and I think now it covers all the major aspects of these interesting objects, so I'm putting it forward for your consideration for featured status. Worldtraveller 02:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object, doesn't appear to be comprehensive. Everyking 08:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? What's missing? Worldtraveller 08:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What, I have to be an astronomer to object? It looks short compared to the ordinary FA. Is this indeed everything you could reasonably write on the subject? Everyking 09:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Course not - we're writing for the general reader, so any objection from a general reader is fine, of course. But if you want it to be more comprehensive, I really need to know what else to add - what else you, as a general reader, would like to see. Worldtraveller 09:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know what you can add. That's why I asked you, is this everything you know of to write? That "general reader" stuff has just got me even more worried. Everyking 10:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I wouldn't have nominated it if I thought it wasn't comprehensive! But reading it again I realised I'd not really mentioned much about determining distances to open clusters, so I've added a section on that. What worries you about the phrase 'general reader'? Worldtraveller 12:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • You have all the right to object Everyking. But objections need to be actionable. If you don't tell him how to expand, your objection can't be acted upon. Mgm|(talk) 20:24, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I believe that this article is satisfactory! So what if it's "shorter than the average FA"? I think it's comprehensive and concise. As an amateur astronomer myself, I think this article is great for those who aren't as in to it as us. Linuxbeak 10:36, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks very good. Two things you could add: (1) Why are they called "open" clusters? What other kinds of clusters are there? (2) Something about the history of discovery and understanding of open clusters? In particular, who first identified them as a distinct class of objects and when? Gdr 13:03, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for those comments - I've added a section about the history of their observations, including why they're called open, which I am sure now also addresses any concerns about comprehensiveness. Worldtraveller
      • The additions are very clear, thank you. Gdr 15:34, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Support. Though it really needs inline citations for all of the most important and/or contentious facts. great thanks - Taxman 13:54, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I woudn't mind to see it expanded, but it does seem nicely written, ilinked, references and - as far as a amateur (me) can tell - comprehensive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • object sort of in support of Everyking. I can believe that the article is comprehensive, but I can't verify it easily. The references seem excellent, but would take a long time to check, could we please a) have a description of what that reference is useful for b) for each important section and for important, controversial or surprising points information about which reference to look them up in and where in that reference to look (ideally page, at least chapter) c) if possible some references which are internet linked. In my opinion the best way would be to add Footnotes and descriptions to the references, however any method which has similar effects would be fine. Mozzerati 19:34, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
    • I've added cite points for the references. The titles of the references are all fairly clear about what the reference covers, and they're all journal papers, so usually no more than about 20 pages long, and interested readers can get the most important facts from the abstract. Page numbers are given for all of them. Does that cover your objection? Worldtraveller 01:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Almost thanks - would it be possible to give a general text which you think gives a good overview of the topic? E.g. an undergraduate text book or maybe even lower level. Of the internet references only SEDS seems to be general and even that seems very non-comprehensive, at least compared to your article :-) . What are the maximum distances for which the open cluster method of distance measurment is valid, both directly and indirectly? Is it possible to exceed thousands of light years? Tens of thousands? Mozzerati 08:17, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
        • Thanks for these very helpful comments. I've added a couple of undergrad (but very readable and non-technical) texts in a further reading section, and a couple more general links. Also added a bit more about distances. What do you think? Worldtraveller 16:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It answers the questions I have about the subject and it seems complete and it's got nice images and references. I don't think footnotes are particularly necessary. But I'll leave that up to the nominator. Mgm|(talk) 21:00, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • support now, looks good and verifiable. Some comments still on the talk page, but the verifiability is now much better than many other successful FAs. Mozzerati 16:34, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
  • Support, comprehensive enough, looks good. JYolkowski // talk 23:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • support very good. -Pedro 00:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; particularly, this article looks beautiful. --DanielNuyu 06:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism[edit]

Self-nom, though others put in a lot of work, too. All suggestions on peer review were implemented. I think it's nonbiased and comprehensive, with lots of sub-articles to keep this page a reasonable length. Any criticism would be appreciated; I think the article is ready for FA, but if you don't, I'll be happy to make the article even better. Dave (talk) 19:40, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Note: I have to go for a few days. I won't be able to address any new objections until I get back. I would appreciate an opportunity to address any new objections that may arise once I get back. For the record, the article has been here for six days and all objections have been met. Thanks, Dave (talk) 04:19, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Object for now. A very good artcle overall, but two problems. First of all ,the discussion on the environment (in "Rights and the Law") is notably unclear. It says that they oppose environmental damage as an infringement of individual rights, and has the quote saying they 'would not allow anyone to [do so]', but provides no specifics or discussion. I'd like to see criticism of libertarianism and the environment addressed a little more specifically. Secondly, the section on criticisms has a few problems. It inserts a vague quote from Jeffrey Friedman saying that libertarianism is based on "unproved assumptions", but doesn't say what those assumptions are. In addition, the criticism section doesn't address the question of public goods, which I'd think would be dealt with there, if not elsewhere in the article. Very good effort, needs polishing .Meelar (talk) 20:05, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • I hope [these edits] address the pollution and "unproved assumptions" issue. I agree public goods would be a good thing to put in, but I'm not sure about the best way to do it. Any other "polishing?" Dave (talk) 20:19, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • I've added in a quick bit about public goods, so that's at least halfway covered now. The section about the environment could use more elaboration of the criticisms of the libertarian model on the environment (e.g. hard to put a value on, etc.), but that's OK for now. However, the final issue--you write that "critics claim it rests on unproven assumptions about human nature and free markets"--it begs the question of what those assumptions are. Fix that, and I'll support. Best, Meelar (talk) 21:09, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'll confess I didn't read the whole Friedman article (it's 60 pages) but I think after a few attempts, I specified some assumptions correctly. I tweaked the wording of the public goods issue and put it in the footnote format of the rest of the article. Thanks for your advice and contributions. Dave (talk)
  • Support. This article seems worthy of being a featured article. Not to mention Libertarianism is an interesting subject. --Kross 09:48, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow, I'm sure it could be improved somewhere, but that's great. More sources and citation if anything I guess. Are Milton Friedman's views themselves important? - Taxman 04:13, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm glad you like it. What specifically needs sources? What more do you think we should say about Milton Friedman? Dave (talk) 14:52, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well any statements that could be considered opinion would ideally be cited to a source. Especially the most important or potentially contentious statements. The article already has many, its just more is better. I don't know much specifically about Friedman and libertarianism, wondered what his importance in relation to the subject was. I figured if he was mentioned at all, there may be something more. - Taxman 14:44, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'll look through and try to find things that need sources, but if you've already found some, letting me know where they are would be helpful. Milton Friedman is a fairly important figure, so I'll see where I can add more about him. Dave (talk) 14:52, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. No mention of John Stuart Mill? This article seems to suggest that libertarianism is purely American... --Oldak Quill 08:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a bit on Mill, and I think we should probably add a bit on Locke, too. I think that while the article focuses on the US, it mentions important European thinkers like Hayek and talks about other countries' movements a bit. If you know anything about libertarianism in other countries, it would make a valuable contribution. Dave (talk) 17:16, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • SupportRJII
  • Comment How many votes for do we need? --Kross 22:06, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't a vote, and there's no set number of supporters. If an article meets the criteria, deals with all objections at WP:FAC, and has several supporters then it is featured. If it fails to deal with significant objections then it won't be featured even if the supporters are in a majority. Gdr 15:44, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

British monarchy[edit]

Self-nomination. I apologise for the length of the article, but, as the topic is relatively significant, I think that the current size is not entirely excessive. I have already made some reductions in the history section and elsewhere. -- Emsworth 23:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks nice (I didn't have a chance to read all of it). The history section could be split off into a seperate article or at least some sub-sections should be added to make it easier to read. BrokenSegue 01:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree about the history. A longish summary of the moved text would still be needed here though. --mav 04:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In my view the history section is about the right length as a summary - I put in some subsections I hope not too clumsily. Then each subsection spins out to their own main article about each house (we already have fine articles on these). Pcb21| Pete 11:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the subsections; I think that the length of each is appropriate. -- Emsworth 11:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Subarticles would be nice to provide room for future expansion, but 50KB seems reasonable for such a significant topic. Support. Everyking 19:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Phils 19:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - The image of the £5 Bank of England note is a copyvio. (or just plan illegal) that I'm challenging now. Apart from that, Support. - KTC 20:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) Neutral, see comment about Scottish monarchy history below. -- KTC 00:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image has been removed. -- Emsworth 21:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - It isn't too long, and there are a lot of wiki links to additional information on each subject, such as the monarchs themselves. Well done. Ben Babcock 21:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Considering there is around one thousand years of history, the length is certainly not excessive. Rje 00:55, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - It strikes me that the majority of the article is about the English monarchy. Shouldn't the pre-1603 Monarchs of Scotland be mentioned too? I would like to see a sub-section on this. - Grinner 16:19, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • support disagree with above. Everybody knows what is the use of the article. Monarchs of Scotland should have their own article and not a missplaced section. -Pedro 22:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess the problem is, while this is an article about the British monarchy, which the majority of the article does talk about, there is a history section (and a resonably size one at that) at the start. Up to and including section 1.3 (the history before 1603), only the English monarchy was mentioned. People seems to forget that the current British monarchy traces its root back to the Scottish one before the English one! Just because the current monarchy official residence is in England doesn't mean the Scottish part of its history have nothing to do with it. So having a sub-section that talk about the Scottish monarchy and then link to a main article on it (like all the other history sub-section) seems reasonable to me. -- KTC 00:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's my point really, but you made it much more clearly than I, so cheers. Grinner 07:54, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh.... OK. I didnt knew that. changed to object (hiding important info). Needs info about ancient Scottish kings. -Pedro 12:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Needs lots of work to be a featured article:
    • Obviously a section on the Scottish lineage and the crowns unified under James (as mentioned above). I'm English; but they are British monarchs, not English.
    • An explanation for the claims of being royalty for Wales and Ireland, i.e. conquest. How it lost France, Normandy etc.
      • This is considered in various parts of the history section. -- Emsworth 10:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Upon reflection the loss of France and Normandy is reasonably handled given it is a summary. However, the conquest of Wales and Ireland are not even mentioned in the historical sections; nor the stuggle to keep control of them. The section on the Scottish kings could should cover the struggle by England to conquer Scotland. :ChrisG
          • The Scottish history section has been added. -- Emsworth 21:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Role in the British Empire and how that role evolved into the Commonwealth.
      • The Commonwealth role, if added, would cause a significant increase in the article size. I did explain the Statute of Westminster, etc., but I left details to Commonwealth realm. -- Emsworth 10:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I needn't be a significant increase. It only requires 2-3 paragraphs. Not mentioning means the article is not comprehensive. :ChrisG
    • How it gradually lost power and became a constitutional monarchy.
      • That is already covered under the history sections from British_monarchy#Stuarts_and_the_Commonwealth onwards as it should be. (Long gradual changes involving multiple Houses) -- KTC 02:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no mention of the rise of democracy and thus the increase in the legitimacy of the parliament versus monarchy. Parliament was not one thing it evolved, the article does not explore that evolution. :ChrisG
          • The article now briefly discusses the effect of the Reform Act; however, extensive details on the rise of the Commons would not be relevant to the article. -- Emsworth 21:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current popularity or perhaps lack of it. :ChrisG 02:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is covered in the last part of the history section. -- Emsworth 10:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think a paragraph on the modern monarchy can be called comprehensive. It surely deserves a few paragraphs in the scheme of things, including the forming of the Commonwealth. Also there is no mention of the future and the possible ascension of Charles and his marriage to Camilla Parker-Bowles.:ChrisG
          • I think that several paragraphs on the popularity of the modern monarchy would be excessive. -- Emsworth 21:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportLooks complete to me Giano | talk 08:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I will soon be adding a few sections on the Scottish monarchy (one for each dynasty). This will, however, increase the size of the article. I hope that there will be no objections on the grounds of the greater size. -- Emsworth 10:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I expect there will, but not from me! Giano | talk 17:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have to admit I've been waiting for this one. And a little more length would be alright in my book. +sj + 07:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Looks good, but if external links are in references (and they are) they should be formatted accordingly (i.e. last accessed on...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on the Scottish monarchy has been added. -- Emsworth 00:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent addition, I now support. Grinner 08:33, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Support KTC 09:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Pedro 00:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My remaining significant objection is that the conquest of Wales and Ireland is not even mentioned in the early historical sections; nor the stuggle to keep control of them, barring the independence of Ireland in 1922. The heir after all is the Prince of Wales.:ChrisG 19:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This information has been added. -- Emsworth 22:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. James F. (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Quatermass Experiment[edit]

Self-nomination. I know there is already a Quatermass serial in featured articles, but there are many other examples of lots featured articles on similar subjects, so I didn't see the harm in giving this one a go. Therefore here it is - it spent two weeks on peer review and attracted only one comment, the suggestions in which which I have addressed. Angmering 11:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Sorry for taking so long to answer this FAC nomination. Great article. Two things, though: In the Cast and crew section, the author(s) mention Rudolph Cartier became "something of a legend in the television industry", yet they do not name any greater projects he worked on after The Quatermass Experiment, like they do for the other crew members. Remember to "show, not tell". It might also be a good idea to replace the claim he became a legend with a quote from someone else praising him, for the sake of NPOV. Next, in the 2005 remake section, the article mentions "Actor Jason Flemyng played Quatermass, with Mark Gatiss as Paterson and David Tennant as Briscoe." Neither Paterson nor Briscoe are named in the rest of the article, so there is no way for readers to know what their role in the plot was; this needs clarification. Otherwise, as I said, this is great. I especially appreciate the small details the author(s) collected about the broadcasts (over-/underrun times, air times). Excellent. Phils 08:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks for these excellent comments - I have tried to address them as best I can. I have added details of a few of Cartier's important later productions (there are further details in his individual page), and I have expanded the 'Plot' section a little to include mentions of the original Paterson and Briscoe. Angmering 12:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've now also added a quote praising Cartier rather than simply saying that he was highly regarded, as requested. Angmering 11:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Air Patrol[edit]

This article is a self-nomination. I believe that after working towards making this article a Featured Article candidate, I can honestly say that this is the best single source of information concerning the Civil Air Patrol. I myself am a Civil Air Patrol member, and I think the organization's existance is not known to a greater part of the United States. This article clearly explains in detail CAP's history, missions, and contributions to society. After working on this article for over a month and a half, I am proud to say that this article is an example of Wikipedia's finest work. Linuxbeak 23:17, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Current status: 7 Support, 0 Object, 0 Neutral.

  • Support - Other than the need to format the References section, which I mentioned over IRC that is an extremely extensive article. The introduction is thorough but concise, and you seem to have included a comprehensive range of information. Ben Babcock 23:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is a current article improvement drive collaboration!" I don't get this nomination. If that banner is correct, then this article is still under development. Object based on that along with not having a long enough lead section, and apparently no (or at least very few) inline citations. --mav 00:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much better. I'm changing my vote to a minor object until those inline citations are added. I use template:Inote since that is the easiest. See technetium for an example (you can only see the inline cites in edit mode). --mav 03:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • More are needed. But a nice start nontheless. Objection removed. --mav 08:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Joao Campos 23:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, bordering on a minor object - Very nice work, but some things that could be improved:
  1. Overall: Overuse of 'however', parenthetically give metric equivalents to U.S. standard units (make sure the precision is kept the same though), overuse of 'today' (find and use other alternatives to shake things up a bit), link every date so those with date prefs can get the format they want, overlinking (only link to a term at most once per section), a pet peeve of mine are stub sections (please find ways to logically combine short subsections into larger (sub)sections), more inline cites
  2. Lead section: A photo to fill the massive amount of white space that is right of the TOC, terms like 'benevolent entity' and 'admirably' are a bit POV, link directly to Attack on Pearl Harbor, overall each paragraph of the lead could use another expansion (think of the lead as a concise version of the whole article)
  3. History section: flowery prose "opening chapters of", Who was the New Jersey governor?, would like to know about those other similar groups that were organized (AOPA Civil Air Guard and the Florida Defense Force), 'monumental achievement' and 'astonishing' = POV (show, don't tell), "In the southwestern United States, the wolf population had grown to dangerous levels." and "wolf problem" is very POV (in fact it was encroachment of ranchers into wolf habitat that caused the conflicts), "stellar wartime record" = POV (again, show don't tell), ASIDE: with a bit of expansion the history section could be spun into history of the Civil Air Patrol, allowing for a more compact treatment of the history at Civil Air Patrol#History (a bit over half the current length of that section would be ideal in that case)
  4. Missions section: Unclear what 'Award' refers to in the boxes unless one reads the whole section
  5. Members section: "dues are US$76 per year" as of what year?, inline cites needed here as well
--mav 08:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Most of the above concerns have been addressed. --mav 01:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although the topic isn't too interesting to me, the article itself is well-written and informative. It's a little long and I'm not sure if the rank insignia are needed, but despite those shortcomings it's worthy of being a featured article in my opinion. AngryParsley 03:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written article, maybe a little too long but, the information contained in the article makes it requires that the article be that long. User:Marine 69-71
  • Support. Obviously a labor of love, which cuts both ways, but I think Linuxbeak has been sensitive to NPOV issues and has successfully dealt with them. This is a type of subject that Wikipedia needs to cover better, and the article seems to me to be a model of its kind (with the caveat that I'm as distant from being an expert as is well possible). Disclosure: I've done some general, and superficial, copyediting. --Bishonen | talk 13:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent article worthy of being a FA. Brings back memories when I was in the cadet program so many years ago.... Petersam 20:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

    • References have now been reformatted to correct style. Linuxbeak 23:44, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's of my own opinion that just because the article is under the article improvement drive it doesn't mean this article isn't ready for Featured status. The article is complete, and the article improvement drive will bring that: improvements. Remember, featured articles aren't perfect, either. Second, the lead section sums up CAP... what else do you want? That's what the article's for. Finally, why do I need inline citations when I've already given credit to the sources that I pulled information from? Linuxbeak 00:42, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay. AID tag removed. I'll try to lengthen the lead, but it might be tough... it's pretty concise as it is. Linuxbeak 00:54, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • Done. Lead has been extended to three paragraphs. Linuxbeak 01:12, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
          • Done. They're chiefly in the history section, but I've added 'em. Linuxbeak 10:56, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
          • Even more done. I added about four or five more. Linuxbeak 22:23, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Dues have been fixed (should be $35, not $75) and inote added. Will attempt to address others later. Linuxbeak 11:47, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Although this might be splitting hairs, the term "benevolent" is used in its literal definition (organized for the purpose of doing good) [5]. Agreed some other parts are on occasion POV; will address. Linuxbeak 11:52, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • Most POV issues dealt with, including wolf section. Linuxbeak 00:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Reduced usage of the word "however" from 12 to 6. Added metric equivalents. Linuxbeak 00:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • I've stricken the points you've fixed so far. One new thing introduced that needs to be fixed is the precision given in the metric equivalents. Things like '500 feet' are almost always imprecise numbers. So it is very wrong to give an exact metric equivalent of that (in this case 152.4 meters) since that adds an excessive amount of precision that was very likely not intended by the original info. In this case (150 m) should have been added after the 500 ft. --mav 01:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Issue numbers 4 and 5 completely dealt with now. Please note that Public Law 476 specifically states that CAP is a benevolent entity, so this is in no way POV. Linuxbeak 03:05, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
          • So you are saying that the 79th U.S. Congress was an inherently neutral body? If they used that wording then say so. But just throwing around the wording they used without attributing that wording to them, is a violation of our NPOV policy. --mav 16:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Much better. --mav 01:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added photo to fill void. Linuxbeak 03:28, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'm not at all read on the AOPA Civil Air Guard or the Florida Defense Force. I mention those only because I know (and have researched) that they were precursors to CAP. I will leave the wikilinks there in case anyone who knows more than me wants to create articles about them. Linuxbeak 10:46, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Task 1 addressed. Task 2 addressed. "flowerly prose" addressed. Linuxbeak 22:05, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Rebecca Clarke[edit]

Self-nom. This isn't a novel-length article, but I think it's a good size relative to her importance. Has been on peer review and also looked over for accuracy by Liane Curtis, author of most of the material in the References section. I believe it meets the featured article criteria. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - A well-written, stable article with a good set of headings. Ben Babcock 20:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Wow! Short, concise and to the point. This should be a FA.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 01:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; accurate, well-written. I know her music pretty well, having tutored a doctoral student on it once, and this article really gets to the point. Nice job. Antandrus 04:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Relatively short for a featured article, but I can think of no real reason it shouldn't become one. Phils 10:52, 2 May 2005
  • Support Very nice article and makes for good reading User:Marine 69-71

(UTC)

  • Support (and I don't think the length is an issue either as there are shorter featured articles) Rossrs 13:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Very good writing overall. I wish I could write that well. Some observations that concern me though: 1) The section on the contests notes reporters feeling that she could not have written the piece herself, but never presents any evidence supporting the fact that she did. 2) No inline citations make it hard to find what sources support what material. 3) It is truly fantastic that a knowledgeable person like Curtis has reviewed the material, but that also creates a worry. As founder of the Rebecca Clark society could she not be seen as a very biased source? Are there no other sources to draw material from? I see three, but they seem quite limited. The article has relatively few POV statements about Clarke, so it is just the subtle POV I worry about. 4) The part about her relationship with John Goss could use something helping to identify the timing of the relationship. Was it before she married or during her marriage? 5) What happened to the Strativarius she was willed? (Just curious, since it was mentioned). - Taxman 20:20, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments! 1) Hm. What sort of evidence are you looking for? No one else has ever made a claim to have written the work; the only reason the reporters had for doubting her authorship was that she was a female composer in the early 1900s; I'll see if I can make that clearer. 2) I am of the school who thinks inline citations in a non-controversial article are overkill. (Also difficult, both in terms of figuring out how to footnote sentences that contain material from several different sources of and my lack of layout-fu.) If insisted upon I can do them, but truthfully it's not on my to-do list. 3) The material of Curtis' I've read contains substantively the same information I saw in other reference works I consulted (but did not cite, as I merely skimmed them mining for additional details); I've attempted to maintain NPOV as much as possible but I admit this is difficult, as I am biased toward her music myself. Not many complete sources that I could find; scattered mini-bios and mentions in journal articles, some blurbs in biographical dictionaries of composers and such, but I used the most complete ones I had. 4) Ah, thanks, that could be clearer (it is before her marriage, incidentally). 5) I actually haven't read anything about its current whereabouts; I'll make an attempt to track that down, as now I am myself curious! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem, hope it helps. 1) I dunno, just whatever there is. The article just seemed to highlight that there were people saying she didn't write it, without anything other than stating that she did. 2) I know they are not fun, but the criteria do call for them. The more the better, but at least start with a) the most important facts then b) any potential contentious facts. For example "Viola Sonata... is a particular example, with its pentatonic opening theme, thick harmonies, emotionally intense nature, and dense, rhythmically complex texture." is an opinion; you or I may feel differently upon hearing it. That should be attributed to someone. 3) Well try to dig for more from those other sources, or if they have nothing new and don't contradict anything, add them as another reference to balance the piece out. Critical reviews of her work or playing might help with balance too. 5) No big deal, but since they are worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars in many cases, it was likely her most valuable asset. Perhaps her estate was probated, if so, her will is on record with the local authorities and could be looked up. Reminds me, who are her hiers. Did she have any children? - Taxman 16:05, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • OK. 1) I think it's clearer now with the addition of an explanatory sentence. 2) It didn't seem that they were explicitly called for, but I suppose my reading of that is wrong; that'll take a bit more time to do, as will 3)—have to get into the music library again. 5) will as well; I'll see what I can find out. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Side note: many other references I've found—even not very old ones—are out-of-date enough to be worse than useless; I would be hesitant even to suggest them as further reading much less cite them.
  • Comments (all stylistic and picky). In spite of the exhortation to be bold, I don't want to edit such an impressive article which is a FAC. From the top… Do the names of her parents tell us anything or are they superfluous? Lionel Tertis was considered the greatest performer of his day on the viola. "…nearly unheard-of in the day" would be better "…then nearly unheard of". Would "…really creative period" be better than "…real creative period"? What is "low grade" depression? Superfluous "as such". "…views on the her role, and the role of women in general as composers…" is unclear; would simplifying this to one clause "…views on the [social?] role of women…" be better? "She never wrote a symphony" - neither did I :-) Did she start one? Did she express a wish to write one? "…in recent years", "…recently-published", "…just coming to light" are time sensitive phrases; specify when. Two uses of "pseudonym" too close together. The string quartets were recorded just after what? Are the names of the current board of directors of the RC society encyclopedic? Selected works - can we have a reference to a more complete list? I tend to agree with the above comment that the citations need to be linked in the text, particularly when one of the references is "personal correspondence". Am I being too pedantic? Conditional support. --RobertG | (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should be bold and edit it, FAC or no! These *are* picky and stylistic comments, most of them, and if you like your suggestions better, change it. I've made a couple picky changes, and you're right, I should go back and look for exact publication dates for the time-sensitive references. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very well written article about a subject that many people (me included) would know nothing of, but surely would leave the article feeling they have full knowledge of the subject. Good work. --Anderal 00:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good start on a biography, with traces of deep detail; but Oppose for now. Needs a fair bit of writing work, as well as a clearer explanation of Clarke's works and significance. Aspects of the article which could use clarification or improvement:
    1. Overwikification. "abusive" "psalm" "heirs" "patron" "printed" "recital" ...
      • That's the oddest objection I've heard in a while. The only overwikification I could think of is if so many words are links or redlinks that it makes the page distracting to read. Those you have mentioned are important concepts in their own right, and are therefore important to link to. Saying we shouldn't link to them is like saying we shouldn't have articles on them. - Taxman 12:56, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
        It's not useful to wikify a word if it links to an article that is unrelated to its context. Visit "abuse" or "patron" or "recital" or "printing" for instance. Linking "psalm" many times, or "role" to gender role twice, is overlinking of a different sort. I didn't choose those 6 quoted terms randomly from among the links in the article. +sj +
        • This one is between the two of you (Taxman and sj) to address, I believe; one of you wants them in and the other wants them out.
    2. NPOV. The article is in places more sympathetic than descriptive. "pulled out"... "greatest violist of the day"... "abusive father"... speculation on why she wrote little... these are all interesting notes or paraphrases from sources; but they could be presented in a more NPOV fashion.
      • These are indeed paraphrases, which I hope is clearer with the inline references. Can you point out specific examples? "greatest violist of the day" is a direct quote from the encyclopedic referecne work I cite; "abusive" I think is well-justified by the description which states that he beat her. The speculation has also now been attributed to the source from which it came.
    3. Writing needs a fair bit of work. There are dozens of places where the writing is unclear, or needs proofreading. "unheard-of" and "well-received" are only hyphenated when preceding the noun they modify, not at the end of a clause; use of commas and internal clauses should be improved throughout; many sentences could be made clearer (ex: "The vast majority of Clarke's work was in short forms." -- what? what are short forms? The following sentence is even harder to parse.)
      Ah, I always forget that point about hyphenation. "Short forms" was clarified by a sentence since removed -- "she never wrote a symphony" -- and that paragraph has since mutated; I'll try to spell it out further (though it's not usually ambiguous). Further clarification without the particular trouble spots pointed out I just can't do, lacking perspective; if I thought other points were unclear I wouldn't have written them that way.
    4. Many important threads and questions are left hanging. Why is Clarke important? This is never really clarified, and should be the focus of the article. None of her works, presumably what she is famous for, is discussed in any detail, or linked-to, either as an image of the music itself, or as a brief article about a particular famous piece.
      I've tried to add further detail that states her importance, though being second to Bloch and a pioneering female composer and musician is no mean feat itself. (Being a female composer at all in the early part of the 20th century is worthy of mention; being a prizewinning one more so yet.) I'd think detail about her work wouldn't belong in the main biographical article, actually, but rather in a split-off article about the works themselves. (The Viola Sonata at least deserves an article of its own.) I note, incidentally, that this article gives more detail about the character of Clarke's work than any encyclopedic resource I've referred to other than Grove. The main difficulty in discussing works is not engaging in original research; I can pull out the score and talk about it, but that belongs in my own papers rather than Wikipedia, while finding resources that detail what I want to talk about is more difficult. :-)
      Who really was her teacher's first female student? "(Clarke herself mistakenly claimed to be the first.)"
      I haven't found mention of this anywhere, as the reference works mostly state that she was indeed first; I'll have to ask, as the source for this was personal correspondence that also says this is fairly recent information.
      There is a Society devoted to promoting her work, "including several world premiere performances and recordings of unpublished material as well as numerous journal publications." Include details! Which performances by whom where, which recordings of what material, what publications in which journals on what subjects?
      I'll go through and add detail on that further.
      She wrote an entire memoir. The only section of it deemed worth mentioning in her article is a sentence about "her early life, marked by frequent beatings from her father and strained family relations." Why? Please at least clarify what makes that line relevant.
      I don't know what's in the memoir other than what has been summarized in other sources; it is currently still unpublished. Line explained a bit further.
    I made a couple small edits to give a sense of what I mean. +sj + 08:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that any better? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A great article. Gave me some insight on this famous violist, who, I am shamed to say, I had never heard of until now. Bratschetalk random 02:39, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Featured without my points of opposition above being responded to... I trust that they will be responded to, but am just noting that consensus was not reached. +sj +

Dalek[edit]

I stumbled across this article, but found it extremely comprehensive and factual. I feel as if it deserves a little more attention - and since the Dalek has recently been re-born on the television series, there may be a new spark of interest.Joewithajay 13:17, 2005 May 1st (GMT)

  • Man, that's really good. Support. Everyking 18:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nick 20:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A good Doctor Who article that perhaps spark more attention to the series and WikiProject Doctor Who in general. Ben Babcock 20:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Excellent, but not quite FA yet. The lead section is too short for an article of this size, and the article is insufficiently referenced. The introduction should at least mention the first appearance of the Daleks, with a date, and establish their notability. As for the references, two sources is a bit thin for an article of this size. If these really cover all the material in the article (which they certainly do not, as the most recent source is dated from 2003, while the article mentions episodes produced in 2005), then it should be made clear using footnotes which sections of the reference works were used for what parts of the article. As such, strong/dubiousb statements should be annotated, and the corresponding footnote should indicate the paragraph in the source confirming them ("[Dalek]Operators were often able to eavesdrop on private conversations between people who thought the casings were empty, but the top sections were too heavy to move from inside, which meant that the operators could be trapped in them if the stagehands forgot to let them out."). The "Merchandising" section is also somewhat weak compared to the wonderfully detailed "History" section. I feel it could be rewritten with more detail (name manufacturers of these toys, currently only one is mentionned, do more exhaustive research on the -rather enourmous- impact of the Daleks on video gaming -"A few computer games were made..." doesn't cut it for a FA). Finally, someone should copyedit the article. There are some minor mistakes/repetitions. As I said, however, the exquisitely exhaustive "History within the show" section redeems the article a thousand times. Phils 21:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I now support this FAC. Phils 19:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the case of the 'Merchandising' section, I feel that mentioning more then one toy manufacturer is really quite unnecessary - it wouldn't serve much purpose in my opinion (not that more shouldn't be added at a later date, but I don't see it as grounds for an objection). Also, it mentions several games that have been based on the dareks, and even mentions a modification for another game which includes elements of it - this seems like more then enough? I agree the references could be improved, though. --Joewithajay 21:31, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Let me quote the article A few computer games have featured the Daleks, notably the 1992 game "Dalek Attack". There are also other online games (not authorized by the BBC) that include them [...]. This clearly implies that there were more than one commercial computer titles featuring the Daleks; the unauthorized online games being another genre. Also, I only object article based on quality precedents set by previous FAs. I have faith that at some point someone might add more information to this article, but I'm objecting based on what I see now. Phils 05:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've expanded it a bit, but am hesitant to mention any more games as it's bothering on trivia - the Daleks have not had as enormous an impact on video gaming as you mention. Certainly, aside from the smaller roles I cite in games whose titles most people would not even recognise or take note of (for the ZX Spectrum, Amiga, Atari), "Dalek Attack" is the only notable one with the as a central adversary. --khaosworks 07:03, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • I admit I was a little picky there. What you have there now is perfect. My concern about the references still stands, though. The comments about the operators eavesdropping on conversations from other set members, as well as some other claims might be mistaken for jokes if they are not properly sourced. Same goes for the interviews about where Nation supposedly got the name for Dalek. (Dal-Lek). Phils 10:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've already removed that eavesdropping comment, and the DAL-LEK story is well known and is mentioned in one of the secondary sources I list below. Next? :) --khaosworks 16:26, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
            • Next? I'll tell you what happens next: this article will be made a FA. Great work. Phils 19:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to add a comment as to references: When this hit the FAC status, I knew that would be the main objection, so I tried to add the reference books I did have which I knew contained some of the information. Unfortunately a lot of this is fan lore passed down or scattered over magazine articles I can't really track down now. Someone does need to track down better in-print references, but sadly I am unable to provide them beyond what I have done. The more recent information - especially that in the History section which I take the rap for rewriting and expanding - comes straight from the television programme, though, so there's no print reference as such - do we put those in as well? I would welcome suggestions as to how to improve the other sections. --khaosworks 22:30, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. All of the images are fair use, though I appreciate that this article does relate mainly to a TV show. CheekyMonkey 21:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed some of the tags to be more specific - most promotional shots released for publicity purposes. --khaosworks 17:04, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the introduction should make some reference to the fact that the Daleks transcended Dr. Who somewhat and entered the national psyche. They are iconic in a way which no other sci-fi monsters are, at least none that I can think of. I think the intro should mention that "Dalek" is in the OED, maybe mention the John Birt thing too. At the moment the intro makes the Daleks sound like just another sci-fi alien, which devalues them somewhat. Rje 00:51, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I Support this article's candidacy now, good work Khaoswerks. Although I would suggest looking at Image:Dalekattack.jpg, I think it is too dark and not very clear. Although this might be my bad eyesight. Rje 18:01, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've upped the brightness and contrast levels a bit to make it look brighter, but can't push it much further without making it looked washed out. Hopefully this will look better. --khaosworks 18:37, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's much clearer, thanks very much. Rje 20:23, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • More Dalek history and trivia than I knew existed. Rather well prefaced, sectioned, and covered. Needs some work (see below) but certainly qualifies as good prose; good cross-referencing and cultural context; comprehensive. Tentative support. +sj + 08:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggested improvements:
    1. There is overwikification (it's not necessary or even good style to link every year, certainly not the 2d and 3rd time it appears; don't link terms like "Earth" more than once; do you need to link "stairs" and "dictionary"? If you're going to link phrases like "The Mirror", get the link write (make sure it's not to a dab page) : The_Daily_Mirror)
    2. sectioning could use some work ("costume details" shoudl be a subsection of some top-level section).
    3. "The word "Dalek" has entered the English dictionary," -- really? this should be thoroughly sourced. Which dictionary? What is the full definition?
    4. Clarify in the introduction the fact that the Dalek history is self-contradictory. Try to describe what they are more cleanly in the first paragraph.
    I have removed some of the excess links from the article. I also named the dictionary in which "Dalek" appears, the OED is probably the pre-eminent dictionary of British English. Unfortunatly I could not source this, I only have access to the online edition which most people cannot access. Rje 20:01, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
    I've put "costume details" under "physical characteristics. In "External links", I placed a link to http://www.jessesword.com/sf/view/1647, which provides the OED definition. As for the first paragraph, I attempted a rewrite. As for Dalek history, I think that the discussion about self-contradiction is adequately provided for at the preface to the history section and doesn't need to be prominently displayed in an opening paragraph. In any case, there's a lot of fan debate about whether it is contradictory, depending on what chronological sequence you place the stories in. --khaosworks 20:30, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
    The full definition is "A type of robot appearing in ‘Dr. Who’, a B.B.C. Television science-fiction programme; hence used allusively. Also attrib. and Comb.". The fact that the word is used allusively is the reason for its inclusion, a minor point but one worth making. Rje 00:07, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Three Laws of Robotics[edit]

Partial self-nomination; I've done a fair amount of work on this article, but much of it was several months ago and has since been worked over by many other people. I believe it is now fairly comprehensive, including references to the most germane reference material elsewhere. Besides, if we're really "the encyclopedia that Slashdot built", we might as well live up to the reputation, no? Anville 18:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. I didn't read the whole article in-depth, but on first glance it could use a copyedit (for example, "Robots were created and destroyed their creator" - shouldn't that be "by their creator"? It's in a quote, so if it was in the actual book, (sic) should be used.)

plattopustalk 18:36, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

The phrase in question is a direct quote from The Rest of the Robots (as it turns out, Gunn quotes it in his article, too). Inserting "by" into the sentence would corrupt the meaning: the essence of the "Frankenstein complex" is that creating any sort of artificial intelligence is an act of hubris—tampering in God's domain, as the old sci-fi flicks would say. The act of creation dooms the creator. Anville 23:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Robots were created and destroyed their creator" means that the creator makes the robots, and the robots inevitably destroy their creator. To insert "by" would change the meaning.-gadfium 08:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The meaning of the quote is clearer if you imagine a pause between the words "created" and "and". --Arcadian 14:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The lead is way too short, it should at least establish the notability of the "Three Laws" (that they later referenced by/inspired other authors). When and in which of his works did Asimov introduce them should be included in the lead. I also see a lot of unsourced/dubious/extremely broad statements (... "the majority of "artificial intelligences" in fiction followed the Frankenstein pattern"). These should be referenced using footnotes. The article should also be POV-checked ("Later events make Asimov's negative reaction both understandable and illuminating.") Certainly there are people who think Pollock's cut of Metropolis is good? Reading the article, it seems like it's self-evident that the original cut was better. Finally, the article needs copyediting and rewriting in some places; there are some confusing sentences ("He once wondered how he could create so many stories in the sixty-one words that made up these Laws.") and the frontier between Asimov's fiction and reality is not always made clear ("Several NS-2 robots (Nestor robots) were created with only part of the First Law. It read: 1. A robot may not harm a human being. " - Which book do the NS-2 appear in? or "Twice in his fiction-writing career, Asimov portrayed robots which disregard the Three-Law value system entirely, unlike Daneel and Giskard" - Are Daneel and Giskard authors or ficitional characters?, or even "Asimov stated that they were an inalienable part of the mathematical foundation underlying the positronic brain, and that it would therefore be very difficult to create intelligent robots without these laws." - Science fiction or AI research?). Otherwise, the article is not bad: the author(s) are obviously knowledgeable. Nice research work. Just needs some polishing and better referencing. Phils 18:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Just looked at the page again; sorry for not doing so earlier. The article is great now. Support, under condition that Piotrus' comments below are addressed. Phils 14:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Minor object: split references and external links section. Also, add some picture, preferably a screenshot from I, Robot. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've split the references section (good idea, thanks!), and I found a reasonably appropriate fair use picture for the introduction. Anville 17:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, good stuff. A fine example of sci-fi cruft. Everyking 18:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technetium[edit]

Co-nom with WikiProject Elements.

Self nom; been on peer review for a while. Kinda short, but there really isn't much to say about this element in the first place and everything significant to say is already included, IMO. So I think the length is very appropriate. I'm responsible for the original de-stubbing of this article, and recently significantly expanded it. Since then, others have expanded my expansion and fixed many issues (such as some unclear writing on my part and some outdated data from one of my sources). This is therefore one of the more collaborative articles I've submitted to FAC. --mav 02:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. The article sure doesn't seem inadequate. Femto 15:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Jan van Male 17:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Several sections of the article (notably "notable characteristics" and portions of "occurence") are gramatically one sentence paragraphs that have been strung together into meaningless paragraphs. The text should be reorganized within these sections, and ideally subsectioned. In general, the writing is competent but not "" or "brilliant" - the FA criteria for meeting the "well-written" requirement. The "applications" section is overly bulleted. The "isotopes" section is probably better titled "isotopes and isomers". As I recall, there was lots of excitement and controversy over the apparent absence of element 43 before technetium's discovery; I'd like to see more discussion of that. I would also like to see how ammonia pertechnate and potassium pertechnate is a useful anticorrosive in steel on a chemical/physical level, and in what specific applications it is used as such (for example, it's hard to imagine a useful application where submersion of mild carbon steel in a dilute KTcO4 solution is the best anticorrosion solution to an engineering problem). Without too much detail, it'd be good to cover why it is chemically similar to Manganese and Rhenium. Also, it occurs to me that because of Technetium's half-life and method of production, it's conceivably possible to estimate how much Technetium there is in the world, on the order of magnitude of (probably) tens or hundreds of thousands of kilograms (and if it's possible, I imagine somebody's tried it!). That kind of factoid - "the entire world supply of Technetium can fit in your living room" - is always fun to include if available. - Bryan is fat prick 17:43, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


    1. The 'notable characteristics', 'applications' and 'occurrence' sections of all element articles will have some difficulty as you describe. This is due to the nature of the type of information covered there; many different things are touched on, and each of those those things often only merit a single sentence. This is particularly true for the applications section. Thus the standard Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format for that section is to have a single paragraph that covers the most important uses and then have an 'other uses' list. Typically, each bullet point will have a sentence or two about one use. This is to specifically avoid having paragraphs made of sentences that have little to due with each other (organizing by property used may be tempting, but too many uses depend on more than one property). The names of the different sections are also set by Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. The FA criteria specifically say that FAs should follow WikiProject guidelines. So the lists and the section titles stay and those parts of your objection are not actionable since they directly contradict an explicit FA criteria.
I've looked over the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements and the associated talk pages and do not see the "standard format" you refer to on those pages; however, you are clearly much more familiar with them so if you could point me to the spot you're referring to I'd be appreciative. Nonetheless, I reject the concept that we should ignore the guidelines for "well written" because of specifications of a project -- a project's specifications may be appropriate to a class of articles, but not for Featured Articles. I might mention that the "notable characteristics" section has improved since this morning; it is now almost resolved into sectionable paragraphs - something like "reactivity" and "electromagnetic characteristics".
Beryllium was used as test case to set the general format. The applications section from the start was a list, and the whole format was accepted. Also, things like RC Comment Thread #6 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 1 talked in general about when to use lists. Then by converting and expanding 70 element articles, I started to add the major uses paragraph. Other people who filled out the other element articles did very similar things. At one point lithium became the reference article, then the FA titanium, now the standard-bearer is the newly re-FAd helium. So this is a defacto standard and absent a specific FA criteria (such as having a lead section or references), those standards go. Either way, I still insist that the two small lists used are perfectly fine even without the WikiProject standard. The headings are in the template table on the project page. --mav
In my opinion, there is no reason that lists should be used in the way they currently are in the technetium article. (Frankly, they shouldn't be used in helium either -- a little creativity and cogent articles could be created discussing helium's uses categorized by the properties of helium they are exploiting -- but I digress.) The first list in technetium applications is entirely composed of various ways it can be used as a radioactive tracer in medical tests. That could easily be rewritten into a nice paragraph or two, which I believe is preferable. A couple items from the second list in the section should probably be moved up. The other two items don't make much of a list, and should just be written out in a couple sentences. Regardless of comparable articles within the project, even those that have been FA'd, I will continue to hold that this article does not meet the "well written" criterion in its current form, and therefore I will continue to object on those grounds. Obviously "well written" is subjective, so I acknowledge that others may disagree with me, but I feel my position is valid and defensible. - Bryan is Bantman 18:31, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
The listed points have been expanded to the point where they can stand alone as their own paragraphs. Note that this will not normally be practical for most elements. --mav
    1. If you want to change WikiProject Elements guidelines, then try to convince other members of that WikiProject to do so (almost all element articles are formated per those guidelines, so you are going to have a hill to climb). Besides, a great many writing guides I've seen suggest using lists here and there to improve readability (reason: it helps to break up text and focus the reader's attention). It would be different if that section were just one big list - it is not. In fact it has far more prose in paragraphs than almost all other elements. Even without the WikiProject guidelines, I'd say this article uses lists appropriately.
I'm not foolish enough to pick a fight that big. I just don't believe that project conformity is enough to overrule other FA requirements, and I don't believe that this article meets the "well written" requirement, as discussed above. I do think that it is possible to get to "well written" within the guidelines of the Elements project, although it complicates matters. (Notwithstanding that as mentioned above I couldn't find the guidelines you are referring to.)
See above. Lists improve readability and this section is not just one big list or set of lists. Prose and the appropriate use of lists are employed. --mav
    1. The manganese vs rhenium (elements are lowercased, btw) bit is already covered in the peer review. In short, the statement sounds more interesting than it is and endlessly saying each property is intermediate between those other two elements would be trying on the reader (and boring). Saying it once is enough. But I'll take a close look at the properties of all three elements and see if there is anything interesting to report. I don't expect there will, however.
I'm not suggesting a run-through of various properties or compounds; I'm suggesting that if the article makes that statement, it should be backed up with a sentence or two on the general rule of element's similarity in behavior with adjacent elements in the periodic table, and a note that technetium follows that rule in most respects.
OK - I'll do that. --mav
Done "Its position in the periodic table is between rhenium and manganese and as predicted by periodic law its properties are intermediate between those two elements." --mav
    1. Your statement about the 'notable characteristics' section being made of artificial paragraphs is valid but subsectioning either is not appropriate, IMO, due to a lack of text to work with (an expanded history section may need to be subsectioned, but so far no section looks long enough for that). It looks like Jan van Male has done a good job reorganizing/rewriting both sections to deal with the 'artificial paragraph' part of your objection. The paragraphs seem to have themes now, and are thus valid.
As I said, improved but not yet great. You suggest there is not enough text to work with -- I agree. Adding a sentence on why a few characteristics listed are indeed notable, is an easy way to bulk up the section with useful information.
Another copyedit is in order. I can do that. --mav
Done. --mav
    1. Things like Tc-97m and Tc-99 are both isotopes, and are treated as such in every element reference I've seen, so I don't see your point there. The meta states are just special kinds of isotopes.
It appears I misunderstood; stet.
    1. More information on the search for element 43 would be interesting. So I'll look for that and write about it as well.
That would be super.
Done. --mav
    1. A not-too-technical explanation of why certain forms of Tc compounds are anticorrosive and how they are used would be interesting. I'll look for that info and add it if/when I find it, but I consider that above and beyond FA criteria (have you seen the Britannica, Encarta, and Columbia articles on this element? Each of the three is only marginally better than this article's lead section).
There is a problem with this info and it was removed. Only one primary source mentions it. --mav
Strike that. Aarchiba just readded the info along with the known possible reason why the effect works. --mav
Comparing WP's article to Britannica's, Encarata's, and Columbia's as a means to gain points on FAC is specious. WP's article must stand on its own, meet FA requirements, and truly be the peer of other FA articles, to pass an FAC vote. Some topics can never be FA quality because there is just not much to write about them; I don't believe that is the case here but if it is, so be it .
A comparison to other similar reference works is perfectly valid. An FA criteria is that an FA should 'Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.' Encarta, Britannica, and Columbia are all valid things to compare to in this regard. Are you aware of any treatment of this subject on the Internet that is better than the Wikipedia version presented here? --mav
"The best on the internet" is not nearly enough for FA-ship. (I wrote Wars of Castro, think it's a nice little article and probably the best info on the internet, but would never dream of nominating it as an FA because it just doesn't meet the standards we have established for FAs.) A proper discussion of what has been made into a significant statement of fact in the article is absolutely necessary. Arguing that the information is not available in a few encyclopedias, and therefore should be considred "above and beyond", does not make that information unnecessary or uninteresting. Again, "represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet" is only one of several guidelines. While it may already be met (I am not aware of any better articles, although I haven't really looked), that does not exempt the article from meeting all other requirements. - Bryan is Bantman 18:31, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Best in the world then. I've yet to see any single print source better than this article either. Those 'few encyclopedias' also include a specilized encyclopedia on the elements. --mav
Regarding the anticorrosive explanation, I don't think it needs to be technical; for example, chromium works as an anticorrosive by forming a thin, hard, transparent layer of chromium oxide when exposed to air... no need to get more technical than that. Given the somewhat bizarre description of use as an anticorrosive already described in the article, I'm sure that somewhere someone has written about actual applications of the technique.
See above. --mav
    1. Estimating how much technetium there is in the world would be original research unless a reference can be found for it. I'll look for such a reference.
    • --mav 00:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree re: original research. While that comment was more of a sidenote, I should use this opportunity to mention that the article lacks any "hook" that makes it a particularly interesting read. There is no reason that it shouldn't have one; certainly its whole history as the "missing element" is more than enough material to write a compelling story. It just doesn't have one yet.
Thanks for your attention to my comments; I look forward to voting for the article when my concerns are addressed. - Bryan is Bantman 01:38, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Having a 'hook' is not an FA requirement. If all the significant details are there and the topic is still not interesting for you, then that is not an actionable objection. But the total amount ever produced is now in the article. --mav
Bryan, thanks for your constructive criticism! It appears we have been concentrating more on the facts than the prose. I'm not withdrawing my support, instead I am confident that your concerns can be addressed. Regarding the total amount of Tc produced: I found a reference and added the info to the article. Jan van Male 09:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support All element articles should be as concise as this, well done --PopUpPirate 00:18, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Extensive detail about one of the most interesting elements that people don't know enough about. There's no meaningless digression here; it's fact-packed. However, I strongly suggest that the History section be moved to the top, right below the intro, because this is the most interesting section to laymen (the "hook" mentioned above). It might also be helpful to provide more summarization and context, where applicable ("main idea" sentences and summary paragraphs). My only other comment (about all the element articles) is that I'd like to see a colour diagram of the spectral lines. Deco 03:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The order of the sections has been preset by Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Besides, moving the history section would not leave room for the photos there (one of my favorite parts of the article). The history item and the subsects of that item in the TOC along with the photos and their captions in that section will attract the eye of the layman very well, me thinks. Sentence structure could be improved - I'll see about how best to deal with that. But I'm not sure what you mean by 'summary paragraphs.' We do have a concept of summary sections whereby a section summarized a subtopic that is dealt with in more detail in a 'main article' on that subtopic (see wikipedia:Summary style). The only other summary like that is the lead section (the 'intro'), which could be expanded a bit since it is supposed to act as a concise encyclopedia article in its own right. And yes, spectral line diagrams are badly needed. Know of any libre/gratis source? --mav 03:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made an attempt to strike out my comments that have been addressed. I think that the article is still in need of a minor copyedit, which I intend to do when I have a few moments, but by and large my concerns have all been addressed. Therefore I will withdraw my objection and offer my support. - Bryan is Bantman 19:37, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Note that it has expanded drastically since it was nominated. I think it now answers the questions people are likely to wonder about: what's it good for? where does it come from? why aren't there any stable isotopes? how was it discovered? --Andrew 15:44, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Elagabalus[edit]

This is largely a self nom as I rewrote and expanded the article in late March from an existing version. It has relevant pictures, references, external links and well divided sections and subsections. It has been stable since it was rewritten in March. -JCarriker 06:49, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • It seems OK. I'm neutral, wish it had more detail. I went through and did some minor copyediting here and there. Everyking 13:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • May I ask what sort of details you would like to see? Perhaps I can try to improve what you think is missing, though I think you'd be hard pressed to find a more detailed account that doesn't make heavy use of the Historia Augusta as absolute truth. Please also keep in mind that this is a rather obscure historical figure whose memory was intentionally blackened and suffered a decree of Damnatio memoriae. -JCarriker 14:50, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Just because you say the Historia Augusta says something doesn't mean you need to treat it as absolute truth. A thoroughly comprehensive article here would mention all the known details of his life, all the uncertain things from the sources, and also discuss the various historical views of him up to the present day. Everyking 14:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • There are quotes that do that, however I disagree that all the known or alleged details of his life should be included. Only the most important and relevant inforation should be included in the main article, detail is wonderful to have-- but you can have to much of a good thing). Perhaps a subarticle could be created to provide the controversies surrounding him in greater detail. I believe the current article provides a good thorough, but concise bio. I do appreciate your opinion though. Thanks. -JCarriker 15:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, I certainly wouldn't object if it were in a subarticle, but I wouldn't worry about a subarticle until the main article grows to a certain point. Everyking 15:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: I like this version very much. I remembering a time when i thought that this article was a mess beyhond any salvation. I was wrong! muriel@pt 14:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Somewhere in this article there should be a derivations/explanations for the names "Elagabalus" and "Heliogabalus", presumably consistent with Elagabalus Sol Invictus. Paul August ☎ 14:43, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you mean. There is an derivations/explanations under the section Origin of his name. Please elaborate. -JCarriker 14:50, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • OK sorry I missed that. Perhaps something could be said about it in the lead? Paul August ☎ 15:05, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • That's fine with me. Perhaps as an adendum to where the derivation of the god's name is described such as which is also from were his name is derived. -JCarriker 15:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very interesting read. Acegikmo1 16:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, although now that I have the time I would like to add some details to the historiography of Elagabalus:
The Historia Augusta has been argued to be of uneven reliability, the earlier articles being based on the now-lost work of Marius Maximus (which is reliable), & the later on the author's idiosyncratic imagination; so to say that the entire work is "unreliable" is an oversimplification. The section on Elagabalus is a mixure of the two, according to a 1970 article by T.D. Barnes, where he is said to have marked the parts based on Marius.
Anthony Birley has translated the section of the Historia Augusta for Penguin, & supplied useful notes for this & the rest of the book. It deserves to be mentioned in the sources.
I think it's the right thing to first ask to make important changes like these at this point, rather than to be bold & edit. -- llywrch 18:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please feel free to make the changes. -JCarriker 00:09, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • object for most of your references it's not clear how they were used and it's not clear which sections should be looked up in which references. Please could you add some inline references. I made the one external link into a link with full bibliographic information. Mozzerati 06:51, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
    • I don't think I have the syntax expertise to do so personally and I don't think I'd enjoy doing it either. I can help you crate them by providing the information. For what parts would you like to see inline refs? -JCarriker 20:28, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • In line references are neither mandatory nor a specific obligation of FACs. They are also, in my opinion, pedantic in the context of wikipedia. muriel@pt 10:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually that's incorrect. Direct from the criteria: "Include references, arranged in a ==References== section and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations.". They are important for the reasons Mozzerati mentions, and just to support the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. "Appropriate" is open to interpretation, but certainly means some, not none. The general consensus seems to be that important and potentially contentious points should be cited to a reliable source. JCarriker, I'll help with the syntax if you like, but you can use Template talk:Inote or something like Wikipedia:Footnote3 to make it easier on you. Oh yeah, I do see one. More like that would be fine. - Taxman 20:43, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • Inline references Taxman, of course i'm not questioning the presence of a Reference section. muriel@pt 13:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a rather good reference section in the article. The only material that is truly controversial to scholars is the transexual ref. The other informationis widely accepted and well known as far as scholarship in relation to Elagabalus goes. The quotes are properly attributed, and to give them inline refs would be redundant. If you have something specifically in mind for one, I'll be happy to give you the source so you can make an inlineref. -JCarriker 19:43, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Comment as of 16:26, May 3, 2005 (UTC) 19:43, May 5, 2005 (UTC) this is the vote tally correct?

  • Support.- JCarriker
  • Neutral.- Everyking
  • Support.- muriel
  • Comment.- Paul August
  • Support.- Acegikmo1
  • Support.- Llywrch
  • Object.- Mozzerati
  • Support.- Pedro

Just checking. -JCarriker 16:26, May 3, 2005 (UTC) 19:43, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • support how interresting! This goes with something that I'm reading at the moment (The Roman Empire during Octavius rule), in which people married and diversorded has they changed their underware.The controversial area has already a proper reference, although I think it is really unnecessary. -Pedro 14:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia[edit]

Not suitable for the Main Page, self-nomination. Previous FAC: 1, 2. Previous PR: 1, 2. 119 07:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm sure I've seen some controversy over what licence we use (GFDL vs. Creative Commons or others)--should this be mentioned in the article? Sorry I can't be more specific. Anyway, support. Meelar (talk) 09:00, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • This article recently failed FAC. Address the concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wikipedia/2 and the first FAC first. --mav 12:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I think I have. Your history objection was the only one remaining, and having been ignored when I asked you to clarify in what way the history section is "inadequate", I can only say I've done what I can and any valid objection must from the new version (and actionable). 119 14:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have added more links to other Wikipedias with the aid of this excellent tool. See my comments on Dorset, above.--194.73.130.132 14:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wikipedia is already on the Main Page introduction. -- Tony Jin | (talk) 23:23, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • "Main Page" being the "Today's featured article" above. 119 00:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems excellent. Support. Andre (talk) 21:06, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Supprt 68.105.113.143 05:22, 28 Apr 2005 [6]
  • Support. Fredrik | talk 16:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • SVPPORT. I think it is an interresting article (excess of references, but ok). -Pedro 21:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Shanes 06:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-referenced and fair. Mark1 07:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • it has an excess of references, and 'excess' is not a good thing, I believe. Maybe to a book, or a paper. But not an article. I think the language edition numbers should be updated to May. -Pedro 22:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not understand the concept of an excess of references. Mark1 01:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont see the point It's not real, so why should it be FA? Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 02:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • occupies 1/3 of the article. What kind of article where a major part of it is references? it justifies to much. And has my Management teacher once told me: "people dont believe in those that justify to much." It is a defensive behaviour, besides excess is not a good thing in any field. It is close to justify every word that is written in the article! excess? try to drink water (aka article) with 1/3 of the glass with sugar (aka references). Even if sugar tastes good, it will be impleasant in that quantity. -Pedro 22:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • References can be ignored if you wish. Everything I can reference I do, and as a result you may check much of of this article's accuracy easily. I think that is more trustworthy than giving a good impression through rhetorical skills. 119 03:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There is no such thing as too many references, and it really exemplifies what this is all about. It may just be our bias, but oh well. Deltabeignet 23:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geology of the Death Valley area[edit]

Self nom. Death Valley National Park is already featured. Boy does this place have a complex geologic history (even more complex than the geology of the Grand Canyon area). Is this article FA quality yet? If not, what else needs to be done? --mav 23:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • To me, this is FA material. Support. Phils 16:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work as always. - Taxman 17:22, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Minor, but the references section should not have [1] links as they are really not informative by themselves or durable; instead, they should be formatted as any article or Internet reference. 119 18:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • What? Having such links are standard on Wikipedia and each points to a different page for the same reference. It would be stupid to list each as if it were a separate reference so I'm not going to do that. The reason I have such links is 1) to make it easier for readers to navigate the source (the source's navigation is easy to get lost in) and 2) to provide direct link backs to public domain content I use in a compact way (I treat PD text as if it were FDLd - as a courtesy). --mav 22:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • [1] offers no information on what the source actually is, so it is not useful. If 1-9 are all from part of the USGS webpage "Death Valley Geologic Time", then its author, title, and publication date or access date should be cited so [1] is not totally useless when the reader or that page is offline. Regarding your reverting my formatting of the book references to Chicago style, you say it's for consistency with the inline citations, but your inline citations are not consistent with any standard format and the References formatting is idiosyncratic and very difficult. Compare below, I think others will agree that the one formatted according to a widely-recognized style is more usable. 119 02:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        Geology Underfoot in Death Valley and Owens Valley, Sharp, Glazner (Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula; 1997; pages 1-2, 41-54) ISBN 0-87842-362-1
        Robert P. Sharp and Allen F. Glazner, Geology Underfoot in Death Valley and Owens Valley (Missoula: Mountain Press Publishing Company, 1997, ISBN 0-87842-362-1), 1-2 and 41-54.
        • Author info was not given for the USGS cites. The [1] directly follows the name of the series and a link to its first page. What's more, the printable version of this page expands the url. So saying that [1] is useless offline is absurd. I also used books, not works of particular authors, as references. That is the way I cite things because that is the way I use them (I simply don't think of who the author is while reading reference works). Logically with the Chicago and similar styles one would have an inline cite that says (Sharp, 122) which gives the impression that that person is the one who developed the idea. That is not appropriate for citing a secondary source. I've added viewed info as well as last modified info for the online cites (oversight on my part). --mav 04:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Besides, we don't yet have a standard form for citations, so objections that the form is not the way you like it are unfair because they are not based on the criteria articles are judged on. The criteria call for references and inline citations, which this article has. When a consensus better system comes out, these and other articles can be converted to it, but I don't think it is a valid objection until then. - Taxman 18:13, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
          • I do not object on the book references format, though I would like them to be a recognized format. I object on having references that are just links because whatever style is used, the bare URL or even a title and URL is not a useful reference. It's not that I want those in a specific style, but that I want information necessary to track this reference down to be included. Add (corporate) author, title, publisher/website, publication date, access date, etc. and those references would be verifiable. 119 18:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Oh, ok, asking for full reference information on external links (as much as available) seems appropriate. That did not seem like what you were asking for. - Taxman 21:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
            • Title, publsher/website, publication date, and access date all included with the external links. There was no author information, so it is not possible for me to have included that. --mav 22:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note to Raul: Please keep this as a FAC for a while longer. I want more feedback. --mav 02:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Looks very good, you've made the complex geology very accessible. My comments include
  1. Is Snowball Earth accepted enough to include a link? I thought it was still in the "wacky hypothesis" category.
  2. a few too many parenthetical comments, probably should be reworded.
  3. Capitalize MYA ? Mya? Not sure.
  4. typo: shaly -> shale
  5. link to Slab gap hypothesis
Must run, more comments later. Looks really good. -- hike395 14:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. There certainly was a severe glaciation in the Varangian and a great deal of evidence supports the claim that large glaciers (perhaps continental glaciers) extended into the tropics. In fact the tillites that date to this period in the Death Valley area were deposited when that part of North America was in the tropics. Therefore some version of Snowball Earth is fairly likely to have occurred at that time (at least, that is how my historical geology professor taught it ; but then, we've already found out that some of my professors are biased when it comes to pet theories). I think my use of the words 'possible' and 'hypothesis' give adequate qualification. If you think more qualification is needed, then please add it. :)
  2. Fixed. Great comment - the text is less choppy now.
  3. I've seen mya most often. I don't think it really matters either way.
  4. 'Shaly' is the correct word. I needed an adjective for 'shale'.
  5. Linked in the body. Not sure if it would be a good idea to link it in the lead. Please do so if you think it would be a good idea.
Thanks for your comments! --mav
  1. is limy a word?
  2. One of these days, one of us should write Sierra Nevada Batholith (not really a edit comment)
  3. Template Inote usage seems to be broken?
I learned a lot reading this article -- definitely should be a FA. -- hike395 16:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. Yep. Webster told me so. :)
  2. Geology of the Sierra Nevada is needed before that... (so much to write, so little time!)
  3. Seems to work again. Odd.
Thanks! --mav 02:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Cemetery[edit]

Self-nomination. The article has been through peer review and was nominated for the International Writing Contest. I believe I've addressed the few concerns that were brought up, and I think it's a good candidate for FA. -- uberpenguin 13:41, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

  • Support good article, nice pictures, all my concerns in peer review were fixed. Sayeth 16:45, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Simply stunning, a great article. plattopustalk 16:50, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Congrats to the authors. Phils 18:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. violet/riga (t) 12:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. - Taxman 12:51, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I love cemeteries and I love this article! jengod 01:08, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Fascinating. Mgm|(talk) 10:08, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. JuntungWu 14:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I live nearby and will now be visiting Oakland thanks to this fascinating article. Ganymead 21:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cool, let me know when you'll be in town and I might be able to give you the grand tour (I was a tour guide there for a short stint). -- uberpenguin 23:02, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791[edit]

Mostly a self-nom (I just have to thank logologist for translating my writing into beautiful English :D). One of my shorther works (yep, I am afraid it is below the 32kb treshold), I think it is still pretty comprehensive. As always, I appreciate your comments (PR, to little suprise, seems pretty quiet to my comment requests anyway). Assuming this passes FAC, I would like to propose this for 3rd May main page :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Could we shorten the title to just say Polish Constitution of 1791? Or is it conventional to call it by the full date? Everyking 01:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Neutrality: I am uneasy with the declarative and unequivocal stance taken regarding intentions in the introduction and article; is there no disagreement on those? I specifically see a number of passages as representing one point of view or lacking attribution/statement of opinion as fact:
      • I don't know what 'intentionts' you have in mind, but I will reply to all specific objections below: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I mean the way in which the Constituion's goals and the intentions of neighbors hostile to it are stated as absolute fact; it struck me as very strong, and not knowing anything about the topic I as a reader was a little on-edge for bias after that. Perhaps that's accurate, I don't know--I don't object anyway. 119 18:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • As far as I know - and I have found no sources to contradict this - this is correct. Btw, do you object or don't you? I am confused here...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • I don't, it was a comment. 119 20:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • "The magnates looked after their own interests and not for the good of the nation."
      • I can't find that very sentence in the text, but it is an undisputable fact - i.e. stated in every single source I can find, from Polish history books (pre and post communist) to English sources like Davies book in references or various external links. I suppose the above sentence - if it were in the text - could be changed to 'majority of the magnates', as there were always notable exceptions. The gist of it is, however, correct - feel free to show me sources proving me wrong, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • "It is often stated that a principal cause of the Commonwealth's downfall was the peculiar institution of the liberum veto..." Can you be more specific on who states that?
      • Found it, rest is as above. Most of the given references will mention this. In such case I don't think I need to footnote the sentece to the several references - or rather all of the refence section? If you think the sentence should be rewritten due to weasel wording, feel free to do so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Not a footnote, but attribution in the sentence itself would fix any weasel words. Below, the text states that the nobility was ignorant--that is an opinion without attribution. 119 18:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • As I wrote, I can attribute it to all and any of the references. It is a fact. The liberum veto, this is. The word ignorant has also been replaced to make it less 'personal', but all of the facts you mention are, I repeat again, repeated in every single source I can find. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • I'm not challenging the accuracy of what you have, here or in points below. But that the principal cause of the Commonwealth's downfall was liberum veto is an interpretation, an opinion. So who argues this should be attributed. I'm only asking that "It is often stated" be replaced with "[X] states that", even if it is broadly "Historians agree that...". 119 20:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • Glad we are getting somewhere. I have changed the sentence (and several others you mention) to 'historians....'. Since in all those cases I cannot find a single source that would say otherwise, I think that it is not a weasel usage, but a normal NPOV statement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • "deputues bribed by magnates, foreign powers, or simply ignorant and believing they were living in the 'Golden Era'"
    • "Despite courageous protests"
      • Well, what is wrong with that? There were protests, protesters faced the risk of being beaten/dying and such, and they are regarded as 'heroes' by any source I can find, again including all the references. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • It's without attribution though; we are saying the protests were courageous, but that's taking one opinion as fact. If what you mean is that Poles at the time or now regard them as courageous protests, then I think it should be attributed. 119 18:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • "which can be regarded as the pre-constitution"
    • "The Uprising defeat was inevitable in face of gigantic numerical superiority of the three invading empires."
      • Again - as above (referenced in many sources). Besides, I can't see what is objectionable in this sentence? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • It's an opinion. Was their defeat inevitable? I'm looking for attribution. "Historians consider the Uprising's defeat to have been inevitable..." 119 18:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, I have yet to find a work dealing with the uprising which would say it had a chance of success. Of course, this is not a counterfactual history discussion, isn't it? Do suggest how you would rewrite the sentence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • I do not dispute the accuracy of your summary, but its content is an opinion which should be attributed under NPOV. Above I suggested something like ""Historians consider the Uprising's defeat to have been inevitable...", which changes its meaning from 'Wikipedia's editors say that this interpretation is accurate', to 'historians generally say that this interpretation is accurate'. 119 20:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • "an amazingly progressive document for its time"
      • Again, as above. Ok, it is a strong endorement, but it is not only my personal opinion, but a statement of the given references. Feel free to show me sources contradicting me and stating it was a minor, unimportant and normal document for its times and I will change the above sentence. Still, I agree it is perhaps a bit too much, I have replaced 'amazingly' with 'very'. Is it better now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • However it is worded, it is an opinion and I think should be attributed. 119 18:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Should I attribute every single sentence? This was never a FA requirement, and it is rather ridiculus. Constitution is praised - in various phrases - in every source I can find. Should I toss a coin and attribute it to random reference? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • I think you are misrepresenting my argument. No, not everything need be attributed, but opinions must be according to NPOV. To clarify, I do not mean that "attributed" involves showing a reference, proving a fact, but rather saying who holds this opinion. 119 20:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • I see. You have a point, glad we could make it past the initial confusion. I think I fixed it now: 'recognised by political scientists as'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • "Russian Empress Catherine was furious to see the effects of the Constitution"
      • She wasn't happy, that's for sure. Perhaps furious is a too strong word, again, though. How do you suggest we change it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Can you factually state how she was said to be angry, what she did or said as a result? 119 18:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't recall the details, but several sources state so. For example, here is an online source that you can check and which states that. Or borrow one of the referenced books. Or show me a reference proving me wrong. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • I was just thinking of contentious articles like George W. Bush, where saying he was "furious" would likely result in an edit war over the 'truth' over what is really a hard thing to qualify, his emotions. So I think it is best to show how she was "furious" rather than simply characterising her reaction as that. But it's perhaps an overreaction, I'll strike it. 119 20:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • "It should be remembered that the contemporaneous United States Constitution sanctioned the continuation of slavery." I don't understand how this is relevant to the footnoted section? To me, it appears to have been included only to say that the Polish Constitution was progressive.
      • I left it from the time before I begun rewritting the article, but it does seem useful. After all, it is a note to the sentence which states that peasants were not given equal rights under the constitution - it seems logical to show that the only other contemporary constitution similarly limited political power of some other social class. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • The footnoted main text says that the May 3rd constitution took steps towards the enfranchisement of serfs, then the footnote states "It should be remembered" that the United States sanctioned slavery. There's no comparison in the main text or footnote, no explanation of relevancy--I don't see what this is supposed to do but subtly advocate an opinion that the May 3rd constitution was progressive. 119 18:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, it was (don't think so? give me your source). I really don't understand your arguments. If you think the phrasing is somehow misleading, rephrase it. If you think the facts are wrong, give me the sources. You have yet to propose a single improvement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Whether it was progressive or not is an opinion. If you disagree on that, can you explain? I do not understand how this sentence contrasting the United States' sanctioning of slavery with Poland's enfranchisement of serfs serves any purpose but showing the document to be progressive. If this is its purpose, it would be an original argument and also not neutral. If this is not its purpose, then perhaps the relevance of this sentence to the article should be explained. 119 20:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Let me explain what I want to achieve, and then you can help me reword it. I want to show that both contemporary constitutions did not enfranchise all adult population (male): while US excluded slaves, Polish excluded serfs. Perhaps it is because I try to include in the very same paragraph the notion that nonetheless May constitution improved serfs fate (by limiting serfdom and such, compared to pre-May Constitution times) this becames unclear? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • I think I misunderstood then. I think the footnote should be expanded to show its relevance, but this is not an objection I have now. 119 03:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
119 03:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. 119 03:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • commentsupport could we please have more inline citations which allow us to work out in which reference to look up different facts for verification. Mozzerati 05:49, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Support Halibutt 17:50, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Balcer 01:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support logologist 11:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Berg[edit]

Not really a self-nom, as all I did was a little copy-editing and one or two minor additions when I came across the article today. This is a comprehensive look at one of the most enigmatic baseball players in history. Indrian 23:49, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Having read The Catcher Was a Spy years ago, I expected to see more about Berg's post-baseball career, both the spy part and his later life, which this article covers very quickly and without much detail. And there's very little mention made of Berg's odd personal quirks (and/or mental illness). I'm not objecting, because there may be enough in the article already to justify FA status, but I'd like to see more space devoted to the non-baseball parts of Berg's life. -- Rbellin|Talk 01:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I did the major rewrite of the article, also having read The Catcher Was a Spy, and I didn't see very much to put in there about his post OSS time. There seems to be little really known about it and there wasn't really anything significant that he did. All he did was wander around living off other people's generosity. I could be mentioned that he lived with his brother until 1964 and them moved in with his sister, but other than that, he didn't accomplish anything after he got back from the war.
  • Object:
    • Two untagged images
    • Needs a copyedit (e.g. "Roseville offered Bernard everything her every wanted in a neighborhood" and the fact that he is often referred to as Moe and not Berg)
    • Heading titles should not have capital letters at the start of each word
      • One related thing... too many of the headings begin with the word Berg, to the point where it's actually noticeable upon a casual read through the text. A heading like Berg's first trip to Japan could be renamed First trip to Japan and still be useful enough as a heading. plattopusis this thing on? 15:40, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sentences like "Berg had an outstanding day by going 2-4 with a single and a double and made several marvelous plays at shortstop" assume familiarity with baseball
    • Berg the coach needs to be expanded
    • Berg becomes a spy could do with an expansion, it is the main thing that would make Berg unique from other baseballers and is barely detailed enough It would be good if Berg becomes a spy was expanded, but I don't see it as blocking this article from becoming featured. plattopusis this thing on? 18:02, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • plattopusis this thing on? 12:53, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've taken care of the images and the headings. There's not much that can be done about expanding his coaching section as there is very little information about what he did other than he was the bullpen coach. How would you suggest the sentance "Berg had an outstanding day by going 2-4 with a single and a double and made several marvelous plays at shortstop" be modified for the non-baseball enthusist? I agree a little more can be said about his spying days and I'll get on that soon. About his post-spy days there is little useful information because he really didn't accomplish anything. Gorrister 14:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I couldn't tell you how to improve that sentence... I have no idea what it means, being a non-enthusiast myself. :D What do the 2 and 4 in "2-4" mean, and what is a single and a double? If you explain these terms once at their first usage, you could use the terminology through the article without fear of people misunderstanding. plattopusis this thing on? 15:40, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • How about this: "Berg had an outstanding day by getting two hits in four at-bats (2-4) with a single and a double and made several marvelous plays at shortstop."? Gorrister 17:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Excellent. I was unaware that there were 'pedia articles on those terms, but that is the ideal solution. I would suggest going through the rest of the article looking for terms that might assume familiarity with baseball or another subject, and either explain them or wikilink to their articles. Regardless, my objection is withdrawn and I now Support this article's candidacy. plattopusis this thing on? 18:02, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Object Stylistically, this is very choppy prose, and is WAY overlinked, with virtually every date, country, city, and Japanese and American university underlined. I started to amend this, but got a headache. Substantively, for starters the external link given to look up Berg's stats begins by saying he was a "Math major" at Princeton, not modern languages. Any sports fan reading this would be surprised to be told that Berg's magazine article "Pitchers and Catchers" "remains, even today, the most concise primer on the essential art of baseball". The headings are also curious: "Joins the Red Sox" deals mostly with his quiz show appearance, and "Spying for the U.S." includes the (glossed over) last decades of his life, and his death. The guy deserves better. now Support Sfahey 03:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • You're right, almost every date, country, city and university is linked, as I think should be. There's no reason to leave out links if they are unique. Except for some years, most of the links are unique and should be left. About the external links - Baseball-Reference is the defacto source of baseball statistics on the web. The part about him being a math major was added by the page sponser, not the web site itself. As for the last decades of his life, there wasn't much to speak of. He wandered from place to place living of the kindness of others. Feel free to add more about his life after WWII. Gorrister 10:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not think it is possible for an article to be overlinked. Linking ability is one of wikipedia's strengths. Also, you should be more familiar with baseball reference.com before claiming that anything in the sponsor section should be considered researched and accurate. You may have a point about the headings, but I am not really sure that your objection has anything else that is actionable and is really that valid. Indrian 17:40, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • It is difficult to believe this when you went on to make a huge number of subsequent improvements in the article. Point well-taken though about the ext.link thing, as I believe now I understand where that bogus insert came from. Sfahey 02:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Hey, just because I think an article is already good enough to be a featured article does not mean I do not think it can be improved. I am not quite sure what this statement is implying. Anyway, do you have any further objections after said improvements? Indrian 03:08, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
Why is everyone so testy here? What I was implying is that you (and others) went and fixed several of the things to which I objected, after claiming that said objections were not valid. I believe that the huge number of needed changes you found belies your insistence that the article was already "feature" ready. I basically had five objections :
1. The prose was substandard. Indrian's copious rewrite remedied this. 2. The headings did not apply to their content. This has been fixed as well. 3. There were some unfounded statements. Of the two I referred to specifically, in one apparently it was the external link which was wrong, and the second has been fixed. The only one I find on a reread is in the lead: "Casey Stengel" (talk about the pot calling the kettle black) describing him "'best' as the 'strangest' ..." again insults the subject, who deserves better. 4. I still think it is way overlinked, including MANY unimportant dates, and terms like "Europe", "Bell and Howell", and dozens more. Sfahey 22:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Indrian, your comment is not an actionable set of objections (apart from the beef with headings) and therefore shouldn't be considered a valid vote. And besides, there's not such think as too many links. That's the entire point of a hypertext encyclopedia. -- plattopusis this thing on? 18:53, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Opinions differ on over/underlinking: please see Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. I have to say that I agree with Sfahey, and I think these responses are a little defensive. Linking every month and place name seems excessive to me. Also, Sfahey's remarks on the prose style, Berg's magazine article, headings, and echoing my concern about the brevity of the last (post-baseball life) section seem fixable to me, and have not been addressed. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Like Rbellin (and the site he cites) says, links should be relevant to the context. It is unlikely that someone reading up on MBerg wants to link to "quiz shows", random dates and years, or Tokyo univerities. Might as well link to every noun and number! The article is a mess of red and blue underlinings. And please whoever left a note on my page, it's not signed. Sfahey 14:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you go by that strictly, then why would you hyperlink any date unless something world shattering happened (Dec 7, Sept 11, etc) that directly releates to the article at hand. If I'm writing an article about baseball and the date December 7 comes up, but has nothing to do with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, does that mean that I shouldn't hyperlink the date? I disagree. Maybe quiz show doesn't need to be hyperlinked and individual months might not be needed as well, but I think unique places (incuding foreign universities) should be. That's one of the beauties of Wikipedia. I agree that identical dates near each other should not both be linked, but I do think that every unique date and unique year and unique place and, and, and, ... should be. Gorrister 14:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Sorry about not sigining you page when I left my last comment.)
  • RBellin above suggested reading the relevant section on wiki-links. Print encyclopedias generally link (by boldfacing or underlying) items relevant to the topic of the article. The idea is that, for example, someone who looked up "Ted Williams" might want to know that that encyclopedia also included articles on "Triple Crown" and "Boston Red Sox". They might also highlight/link "Fishing" or "Left Fielder", but not "divorce" or "1948". Wikipedia is of course more flexible, but the principle is the same. Per the section mentioned above, landmark dates should be linked, but not the dates of every time a guy gets traded. This article has been improved by whoever redid the sectioning. Unfortunately however, I just re-read one section, where the number of required copyedits alone keeps me from changing my vote. Sfahey 04:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I was going of some past feature articles to determine if they were wikilinked in a similar way to this on or where "less linked". I found with Brian Close that not only was every unique year linked but so where comedian, apartheid and just about every geographical location mentioned. Lottie Dod is very similar, as are non-atheletes Mark Antony, Batman and Isaac Asimov. I admit that the article could use a lot of copy editing - I did the major rewrite and I know how awful my written communication is (one of the reasons I started contributing was to improve it). When reading my writing, I'll admit that it looks like english is my second language and not my primary, but if copy editing is the only think really holding this article back, then that should be take care of quite easily.
      • The magazine thing has already been fixed and I agreed that the headings could use work. The post-baseball life of any baseball player is usually not worth remarking on. They are ordinary men by and large and live out an unremarkable retirement, even when they do some pretty unusual things like Berg did. The highlights of his OSS service have already been recorded, and his post-World War II life is unremarkable. Since you have read "The Catcher was a Spy," could you elaborate upon what of importance has been left out? Just saying that you expected more does not provide enough detail to improve the article. As for being defensive, some of Sfahey's statements were provocative, particularly his comment that "the guy deserved better" when he has only limited knowledge of the subject as evinced by his mistake regarding Baseball-Reference.com. Indrian 22:37, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • The headings are looking better now. It's been a long time since I read The Catcher was a Spy, but I vaguely recall there being more to the story of Berg's Europe trip with the OSS looking for physicists, and the Heisenberg business, all of which gets one short paragraph in the article. And it really feels unbalanced to give essentially two sentences to the last 25 years of the man's life. Also, a brief note on the References entry for the baseball-reference.com link (assuming we know his Princeton major is correct and the sponsor has it wrong) would be appropriate, since this is certainly a little confusing. -- Rbellin|Talk 23:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • A couple of reason for the brevity of his OSS work and post WWII life are that he was a baseball player for 19 years while a spy for only 4. What he did as a spy was not all that astounding because his mission, to find out the progress of the German bomb, was made moot when the allies discovered that there was no German bomb. As for his life after WWII, there is really nothing to offer the reader of any substance. The Catcher Was a Spy, however good it was (and I did enjoy it), spent too much time on how he would go from here to there, living off other people, doing nothing with his talents, trying to convince others he was still a spy. Also, most spys will tell you that he wasn't a very good spy. Spies are supposed to blend in and not be noticed, and above all, nobody should know they are a spy. Berg would almost advertise it by hushing people or outright ignoring them when he passed somebody on the street that recoginzed him. Just my 2 1/2 cents. Gorrister 12:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have done a more extensive copy edit, rearraged and renamed some headings, and added some more information, particularly to his later life. I would appreciate an update on what people think of the article with these changes and what additional work may need to be done. Indrian 21:16, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice job on the copy editing. I think the article has moved far enough away from when I edited that I now feel comfortable voting. You took out a couple of things I might have left in, like the managers names of the Robins & Giants. They were important because it was the personality of the managers that helped Berg decide which team to sign with. Other than that, I think you did a real good job in straightening out my inability to write a coherent sentence. Gorrister 11:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I feel this article is adequate to meet the FA standard at this point, though it's a borderline case and I'd understand if others objected to it. It could still use a full pass through to improve the writing's fluency and style. The coverage of Berg's post-baseball life still looks too slim to me. But I find it just about good enough. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good team effort on this now fine article. Credit also should go to whoever chose to leave it on the list long enough for it to reach current state. (judges, n.b.: I also "voted" way up top, where I had made my original objection) Sfahey 18:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs[edit]

Self-nom. The article covers the Single Convention pretty thoroughly, documenting its key role in the rise of global drug prohibition. Rad Racer | Talk 17:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Object for now based on our previous conversation Rad, will support once thats mostly taken care of.  ALKIVAR™ 19:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • OK, I took care of the objections to the extent possible, but there's not much I can do about the newsprint photo unless the UNODC responds to my request for images, or we can find some better way to find them than Google Image Search. Thanks for the help, Rad Racer | Talk 21:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Getting there!... list as currently stands:
  1. find a replacement for that godawful b&w newsprint image.
    or remove it entirely
    OK, I killed it. Rad Racer | Talk 04:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. medical and recreational use needs some expanding, or a link to another article more sufficient.
  3. penal provisions is a bit brief
    better, but still seems brief, i'd like to see a list/link to a list of how different members prosecute under this policy. How they enforce it.
    OK, I added a cursory review of national drug policies. Since there are 180 Parties to the treaty, I won't be able to cover all of them there; a separate article would be needed to do it justice. Rad Racer | Talk 12:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. although Schedule IV is the most important, we should be NPOV and list them numerically, and explain them numerically.
  5. limitations section seems a bit too terse, i'd want it beefed up a paragraph or two, theres lots of concepts that can be broadened in there. EXCELLENT! this covers most of my why?'s
  6. legal commentary/ammendments are too short to deserve their own sections, perhaps they can be expanded or merged into another section?
  7. related treaties, could you perhaps specify what they were designed to fix/target?
OK, I covered the Convention on Psychotropic Substances in the Limitations section and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in the History section. Rad Racer | Talk 12:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Why are we yelling here? Denni☯ 03:31, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
    • Thank you . Denni☯ 01:37, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Strongly support- there is an urgent need for this subject matter to be brought to light. I especially like the detail given to the scheduling section and the regulation of cannabis- very informative! Tparker393 15:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I throw in my support. Great article, and I especially like all the pictures! Good Work. --Howrealisreal 16:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well researched, especially given how little attention the treaty gets. No one has a full understanding of the reason for marijuana and narcotics's illegal status without reading about this treaty.

User:Mr. Bobo. 5:42pm, 10 Apr 2005

  • Support. Although one thing I would like cleared up before going ahead. The quote in Manufacturing states group is unattributed. Is it from the text or an editorial interpretation? Alex 13 Apr 2005
    • The section on the five factions was taken from the Canadian Senate committee report, which in turn took that information, and that brief quote (about the manufacturing states group's strategy to "shift as much of the regulatory burden as possible to the raw-material-producing states while retaining as much of their own freedom as possible"), from W.B. McAllister's 1999 book, Drug Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century: An international history. The citations have now been added. SonicSynergy 03:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/May_2005&oldid=235619117"