Wikipedia:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page. Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is normally allowed to be the sole nominator of one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. An editor may ask the approval of the coordinators to add a second sole nomination after the first has gained significant support. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page:

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC): Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR): Archived FARs Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

Nominations

United States Constitution

I've done a little work on this, though most of the credit goes to others, so I guess I'll call it a self-nom. This is an excellent article that provides a fine overview of the document, its role, and its procedures. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:33, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

• Object. The writing of this article is good, but I find the structure to be rather messy and confusing: 1) The history section is very brief, even though there is a lengthy article on its history. I would expect a bit more here than just this short and vague section. Can it at least be a bit more specific? 2) The list of signers could be move to a separate list article. The information is not vital to understanding what the US constitution is, and many articles on the signers themselves have listed signing the constitution as that person's most important feat. 3) The preamble -- just a single sentence -- is discussed at great length, while the articles and amendments are only listed here. This is inconsistent. 4) The "The principles of government" section doesn't seem at the right place between "preamble" and "articles". 5) Many of the articles and amendments of the constitution have long articles written about them, yet they are dealt with here with a single sentence or less. I would expect a longer treatment, especially since several failed amendments get more attention than the parts actually in the constitution! 6) The section on impeachment seems out of place here. Many other issues discussed in the constitution are not discussed in this article, so why is impeachment? If this part remains, it should at least provide some background on why it is in this article. Jeronimo 17:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've tried to address your objections: 1) Rewrote history with more detail. 2) Moved signers to list. 3) Shrunk preamble section, content of which was duplicated at another article. 4) Moved to a more appropriate place in the article. 5) Expanded sections for the articles. 6) Removed impeachment section. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:28, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
• There are several errors in the article. For example, the article also wrongly states, "Appointed officials serve at the pleasure of the person or authority who appointed them, and may be removed at any time. The exception to this practice is the lifetime appointment by the President of justices of the Supreme Court and other federal judges, so that they may be free of political obligations or influence." The Bill of Rights section also includes some mistakes. I would most respectfully recommend that this article be sent to peer review. -- Emsworth 21:01, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby

Based on mostly NASA PD material, it is still a historical curiosity that is not that well documented even on Google. The Image is also in NASA’s Public Domain. GeneralPatton 09:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The "--" hacks need to be turned to —. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 13:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done, but for any changes that minor please just make the change if you notice it is needed. - Taxman 14:56, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The writing needs looking at, and I would do it myself, but I'm not sure how to proceed. My main problem is with the tense--it's very confusing the way the article talks about how the mission "would have done X", while other things "are X", etc. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:27, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
• Object. Not bad, but: 1) The picture has no source information. 2) As Meelar noted, the writing has some issues with tense. Even if this is al grammatically correct, surely there are some alternatives/synonyms to writing "would" all the time. 3) There are some minor issues, such as a sentence saying "It August 1995, but as of February 1991" and a copyright notice for a reference which is certainly not required. 4) (not part of my objection) It would be nice if there was a schematic overview of the craft, and its planned mission. Jeronimo 17:24, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Order of the Thistle

I understand that this is my second self-nomination at a time. The one-nomination limit, however, was never supported by a consensus; the objections thereto were not addressed. Therefore, I, begging the pardon of all who feel overwhelmed by the number of nominations, nominate the article despite the purportedly legitimate instruction. -- Emsworth 01:30, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Exploding Boy 12:23, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Japanese grammar

This is an exceptionally complex article, but it is also exceptionally well written, well organized, and well elucidated. It is an excellent example of the kind of great work Wikipedia can generate. Exploding Boy 14:29, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

• object. please see the Manual of Style. Headings should start at h2, not h1 and three line sections (esp at the h2 level) should not exist. "Introduction" is not a valid heading. --Jiang 17:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've fixed that. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 17:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • all headings under Japanese_grammar#Particles should be removed. the TOC is too massive. --Jiang 19:16, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support! A. Shetsen 18:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The beginning of the intro clusmy and fails to follow MoS standards (such as bolding). The TOC is overwhelming. I like the diagrams, but they distort the windows size unecessarily. →Raul654 19:00, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I must admit I haven't read the whole article, but the lead section doesn't conform with WP:MOS. Also, there are several tables incomplete, such as "(To do: complete this list)", which is really not something for a featured article. Jeronimo 19:13, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Seems reasonably thorough. Someone will say it wants a picture. Perhaps some Japanese calligraphy? Smerdis of Tlön 19:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I would suggest moving a lot of the content into seperate articles. That would help to clean up the TOC clutter and keep the page from being so... overwhelming. If some solution to that is found (either moving or otherwise) and some of the stylistic issues are dealt with, I'll change to support. Gregb 19:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Train station

Self-nomination really. It's been around for some time. I did not write the original article, but I did take it, rip out ugly lists, rearrange some bits into coherent sections and find nicer images to suit the sections. I haven't suggested anything to FAC before, so I don't know whether this falls short of the standard needed or not. It may need moved to a neutral page title like Rail station or Station (rail) (Non-US term is Railway station). Comments please! Zoney 11:16, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Not bad, but it needs some work. 1) I miss a history of the development of stations. When did the first stations develop? Is there a known "first railway station" ever? 2) I'd like to see some famous stations discussed here. The world's largest station are already mentioned, but some really famous ones (e.g. London, Paris) could be mentioned. 3) What are the major differences (if any?) with similar facilities such as subway stations? 4) One some points, the article is a bit too generic: "Many train stations date from the 19th century", which true, but this depends very much on the country in question. Where I'm from (Netherlands), most stations are actually quite new. On the other hand, examples like "(e.g. Wizzle in Netherlands)" are unnecessary. 5) This sentence is rather weird: "Basic station facilities, some of which are only present in larger or manned stations". 6) I would like to see some references to books or sites about railway stations. Jeronimo 13:31, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Responses on Talk:Train station Zoney 23:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Not a vote. Heading in the right direction, but I was also going to say that we should mention the first railway station (presumably on the Stockton and Darlington Railway or perhaps they just used steps to get on the train) and the oldest surviving station (possibly Liverpool St Manchester though it is no longer active). Also worth mentioning underground railway stations (oldest may be Baker Street tube station, although this not mentioned in our article I think there is a plaque to this effect at the station). Do the car-train terminals on Eurotunnel count as stations? And there must be similar cargo terminals at dockyards. It may also be worth including connections to tram stops and airports. -- Solipsist 14:03, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Responses on Talk:Train station Zoney 23:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ebola

I just stumbled across this article while scanning for vandalism. It seems very well written and documented to me. I only made a few minor wikilink tweaks. It also has a strong international draw going for it. Ocon | Talk 06:28, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• An interesting artice, but not Feature-worthy yet. Some problems include numbers (some are written in full form, as ninety, while others are written in digits, as 90) and clarity. In general the writing could be improved. Exploding Boy 11:30, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure I understand your meaning regarding the numbers, though. The Wikipedia Manual of Style states "Whole numbers between zero and ten should be spelt in full. Numbers higher than ten may be represented by numerals, except where they appear as the first word in a sentence, in which case they should be written out in full." I went in and made two changes to comply with this. Are you thinking that all numbers in an article should either be spelt out or written as numbers, but not mixed? Ocon | Talk 18:00, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ridge Route

A self-nomination of an article that took on a life of its own. Hope you all like it! - Lucky 6.9 04:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• The Driving the Ridge Route section suddenly gets really chatty, as if the writer is talking directly to the reader. Also some problems with contractions ("it is" not "it's"). Exploding Boy 11:32, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) This article really needs a map. 2) The "vintage" post card isn't dated, so it's unclear if this is in the public domain. 3) "one of the largest and most daunting feats of road engineering ever attempted". Why was it so daunting? This isn't clear at all 4) I agree with Exploding Boy that the last section is a bit "chatty". It is also unclear why the Tumble Inn and the Sandberg's Summit Hotel are so special to deserve attention in this article. Jeronimo 13:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Good points. Both the driving section and the postcard were added later. The building ruins are notable since the Tumble Inn is one of the most interesting and best preserved sites and the Summit Hotel was the most exclusive on the route. As far as the task being daunting, the only direct way between the two areas was through the mountains, and they're extremely rugged. I'll tweak it per your suggestions and try and locate a fair use map in the meantime. - Lucky 6.9 22:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Whew! Lots of work. I've cleared up a lot of vague points, added additional information, cleaned up the "chat" and even expanded the photo caption, at least for now. Not counting the lack of a map, is there anything else in the text I can expand on? - Lucky 6.9 00:23, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mains power plug

Self-nomination. I think this is a good example of an international article. I've put a lot of research into it, obtained permission for images and text from various websites, taken photos myself, and crafted the prose. You can't get all this info together anywhere else. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 17:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Try wikipedia:Peer review first. TOC is overwhelming and there is no lead section. Basic requirements for FA. --mav 17:20, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Click on "hide"! I thought the lead section was best kept short. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 17:32, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, I've always been a little concerned about "TOC is overwhelming" objections; the TOC is generated automatically from the article structure, and can be hidden if overwhelming (the "hide" link) or turned off entirely depending on user preference. If the structure of the article is poor, then that's fair enough, but if it's a good structure, we shouldn't have to refactor articles just to optimise the TOC feature. — Matt 04:28, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • NOTE TO WIKI DEVELOPERS. Can TOC depth be made a user preference? It seems objections are always generated whenever the number of levels is 3 or greater. A. Shetsen 20:03, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I've added a couple of extra lines and to the lead section, moved one of the photos up into it, and shortened some section headings in order to make the ToC box narrower. I can't do more than that without ruining the article. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 07:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, I think I've fixed this problem. While it makes sense having a heading for each plug type category (A-M), the subheadings for each individual plug type were unnecessary subdivision. I've left the titles as bolded oneliners (linebreak before relevant following paras). TOC is necessary - but there is now a reduced usable one, at, I hope, no cost to the article's cohesiveness or wiki-technical correctness. IANAA, so I hope there's no policy problem with creating "un-headinged" titles. Zoney 00:21, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• SUPPORT. Neutral/weak objection. How about the plugs used for bigger appliances, such as electric stoves, washing machines, etc., that take up to 30 A current (I think...)? Not sure if they should be given a separate article or included in this one. I note your title is Mains power plug. Is that term specific to "ordinary" plugs, or does it also encompass the bigger ones? Article should give an answer one way or the other. Excellent content in other respects. A. Shetsen 03:27, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Mains refers to domestic power, and the first numbered section of my article has a short note saying the article will concentrate on normal domestic use. In most countries, even large domestic appliances use the plugs described. The article is already huge as it is; there's imply no space for industrial connectors, and I think people would be less interested in them anyway. I created the article in response to people on the Reference Desk who were asking about the British mains plug. I may write an article about industrial connectors one day, and link to it from this article, but it would take a lot of research. I think people mainly want to know how to deal with plugs and sockets they might encounter whilst travelling. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 07:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • OK. Will support fully if (a) you make that distinction clear in the header, and (b) When referring to the post-Soviet territory, don't use the word Soviet. That's all dead history now. A. Shetsen 19:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) NOTE: I've taken the liberty of replacing "mains electricity" with "mains (domestic) electricity" for the Americans, and "Soviet Republics" to "countries of the CIS" in the first reference under the appropriate plug type. "Soviet plug", etc., remains. With that, full support if partial self-nom. A. Shetsen 21:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• SUPPORT. Slight objection (I did enjoy skimming through the article). It's a LOT of information. Overload really. I'd like to see the maps near top of page, and perhaps each type of plug having a shorter description (more of a summary), linking to the article on that plug type for more info. Should the less used types like Italian, Israeli really have an image on the page detailing all plug types? Anyways. It is far too much to be hit with when you go onto the page, IMO. Zoney 11:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The sections seem clearer or in a better order now, plus removing table/extra content was good. The table of contents, if turned on is VERY nasty. A TOC with just the major headings would be nice! I do say, the article is nice too for its comprehensive nature, and international flavour. Zoney 00:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Not sure I like what you've done to it there, adding fake headings with bold text. I can't link to individual standards now. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 00:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Not a good way to link - what if someone makes even a minor edit to the standard name (yes, they may all seem correct now, but "what if" there's a change to be made). Zoney 00:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I, too, object, for the same reasons as Zoney. Support. I always wondered why there are so many kinds of plugs. Johnleemk | Talk 11:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• There is only a short paragraph on most of the types. If it were any shorter, it would start to be just a list. That would be fine for people wanting to find out about a single plug, but I like the way it's possible to browse through all of them and get an overview of what plugs exist. Someone wanting to identify an unknown plug or socket can also browse through the photos on one page. If it were broken down into individual articles, a lot of them would be stubby. I prefer to let the article not be featured rather than dismember it. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 12:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I disagree that every plug type needs to be in a separate article. Perhaps you could bring it all out into one sub article that is referenced in the article, but for that part I don't fell its critical. Many large topics in wikipedia are structured like that because there is a lot of information to cover. However, the list of "Plugs, voltages & frequency by location" absolutely needs to come out into a separate article. A list that long terribly detracts from the flow of the article and having it in a separate list in no means detracts from its usefulness. By the way, where in the world did you find that much information on power plugs?! - Taxman 19:04, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, I have now moved that list to a separate article. I have removed spacing between sections to make it all tighter. I have removed the default boxes around those thumbnails that don't require a caption (to save space). I have removed one image each from the UK and Italian sections. I have trimmed unnecessary text. I've inserted __NOTOC__ to turn off the table of contents, so that you won't be overwhelmed (I intend to turn it back on though). I've moved the maps up to the top.
  • I got the information to write the article from various sources. I started by obtaining permission to use http://users.pandora.be/worldstandards/electricity.htm. I then corrected and expanded it by cross checking with many other sources online. I used my personal experience as a traveller to add further information. I took photographs of plugs I own. I requested photos from a camera-wielding Wikipedian in the UK. I proofread and wikified it. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 23:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral. I found it quite an interesting read (yep, I'm a geek) but I think the article needs to be expanded before it can be considered feature worthy. There's really only a small amount of information on each plug. --Zerbey 19:34, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Expanded? They're saying it's too long. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 20:12, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. Nice work. With the current and frequency list moved out and the TOC condensed like it is, the article is much better. Zerbey, just how long do you want the article to be? It's not like we need 2 paragraphs on each plug type. Much more on each would make this article unwieldy. - Taxman 12:12, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, there's only so much to say about each plug.
    • So, then. It seems there are no more objections. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 13:36, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. With the list of voltage/AC frequencies moved out and the maps moved to the top, it is starting to look better balanced. Perhaps not the best prose, but great articles shouldn't stand on prose alone. This collection of diagrams and images is more informative and useful than many articles.
• Still a slight reservation on the TOC, not because of length, but because the list of Type A,B,C isn't very informative. Would it be an idea to modify the headings to give a little more direction, eg. Type A - American, Type B - American grounded, Type C - Europlug etc. Although this still wouldn't help much if you were looking for the Chilean plug. -- Solipsist 14:05, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • That's one objection I'd have to the removal of the sub-sections — they are no longer visible in the ToC, leaving just the uninformative "types". — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 15:28, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've improved the headings. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 15:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • That looks better. Is it too late to say I prefer 'pin' to 'prong', or is that as US/UK English language issue. -- Solipsist 19:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • "Pin" sounds great to me, and it's shorter. I'll change it. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 20:34, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Monopoly (game)

Quite a nice article with plenty of background detail. Possibly ending up a bit drawn out towards the end. But mostly I think it deserves feature status because Monopoly is a well known cultural icon. You don't tend to think of it as an encyclopedia article, but I suspect many people would be drawn to it if they saw it on the main page. -- Solipsist 11:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Not bad. Support. Johnleemk | Talk 15:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support, but the article would be better if we had a picture of an actual game in process (not to knock the diagrams, which are quite well done). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:26, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
  • Agreed - surely someone has a board and a digital camera. -- Solipsist 15:28, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object: No lead section and table width is too wide, forcing horizontal scroll bars to appear at standard res. --mav 17:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Well I've expanded the intro a little, but I agree it could use a little more. I'm not sure that there is a solution to the board diagram issue. We might be able to reduce the text size, or replace them with a scaled down image of the tables which link over to the original tables. On the other hand, I rather felt that the London board in particular is a good example of what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet since many of the squares link through to relevant articles. -- Solipsist 15:28, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Hey, that is pretty cool. I didn't realize it when I read the article. Exploding Boy 15:31, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, if just for the most complicated wikimarkup tables i've ever seen. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:37, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Excellent article! Support. But: The article notes that "Marvin Gardens" is a misspelling. I've heard that Short Line was, in real life, a bus company, but is represented as a rail line. Is this assertion true? If so, it could be included. -- Emsworth 23:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Robert Mugabe

A topical subject. self-nomination. Also User:172 has had a good look at this. Wizzy 22:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1) None of the pictures has source information, nor permission information. 2) The lead section should be longer, briefly summarizing the most important facts about Mugabe. 3) Some of the sections are really short. This looks ugly, and they could probably be made into subsections of a larger sections. A partition into three sections "Personal life", "Political life" and "Opposition" might be a good idea. 4) The one sentence section about the 2005 parliament election seems irrelevant and is way to short to even be a section. 5) The use of bold face for his wives' names is not standard use, I think (WP:MOS). 6) Most of the "see also" references are already mentioned and linked in the article; mentioning them again seems rather unnecessary. 7) There are only web references, which are unfortunately rather 'volatile'. Any works on him in books, magazines, pamphlets? 8) The article seems to focus on the "negative" issues during Mugabe's reign. What are the reactions of the Zimbabweans to his rule? Some "pro-Mugabe" articles are in the references, but this article hardly mentions such support. 9) The land reforms section is rather short and uninformative, given the attention this policy received in the (western) media. Jeronimo 06:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Peerage article series

Yep, the peerage article is featured already. I am suggesting we begin a new section on Wikipedia:Featured articles for sets of articles/wikiprojects/categories that together are really good. I also nominate the peerage article series as the first article set to go in this section in recognition of the substantial feature quality work that Emsworth has done.

• (Pre-emptive response to some possible complaints):
  • No each article in the series does not have to be of stand-alone featured standards (if so we could just list them all separately). I propose that a substantial proportion (say at least one-third?) should of featured standard and the rest should reach another minimum standard of quality (say peer reviewed level?).
  • No it is not possible to feature a set of articles on the main page. But as has been established long ago, "main page featuring" is a subset of "featured article page featuring". This idea exploits that loophole.
• Pcb21| Pete 09:15, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• While I am humbled by the nomination, I am afraid that I cannot give it my wholehearted support. I would not like to see any article that is below the appropriate standard on its own to be included under a "featured series" class. To exalt substandard articles because of other articles in the same series engages in the reverse of guilt by association. Hence, I would request that this nomination be regarded as a nomination of each individual article in the series; I shall be willing to address all objections. -- Emsworth 13:43, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, for the image, I suggest that the picture of a peer in his robes (see Peerage) be used on the main page for each article, especially where images will not be appropriate (as in Styles and titles of peers). When looking at the image, one does get an impression that it connects to the nobility. This suggestion would comply with Wikipedia:What is a featured article, which asserts: "An article does not have to have a picture to be featured; however, even if the subject does not have any obvious images associated with it, a suggested picture which could be used to represent it on the Main Page (it can be an abstract symbol that would be too generic for the article itself) is helpful." -- Emsworth 14:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I fully agree with his lordship: I wouldn't want to see any article that was not featured article worthy be recognized as such. Exploding Boy 16:32, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • How can I make it more obvious that that isn't what I am suggesting? By creating an example in my userpage area, perhaps? Pcb21| Pete 17:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I misunderstood as well when you said "no each article in the series does not have to be of stand-alone featured standards". Perhaps you could elaborate? — Matt 18:17, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For convenience, I have treated each article as a separate nomination:

Rights and privileges of peers

• Neutral. I like your articles on peers, they are all well written, but I feel it isn't a good idea to nominate every single articles on peers. Shouldn't the nomination be for Peerage? Revth 04:58, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Why not nominate? If they article is of Featured Article quality, what would be the downside? — Matt 05:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 05:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Dan Gardner 20:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Peerage law

• Probably should not be a featured article; more like a list than an article. -- Emsworth 17:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Orca

Although I couldn't possibly keep pace with the prodigious quality and quantity of Emsworths output, I figured it was about time I put another cetacean through the gauntlet. Hopefully I have covered ideas that arose last time before the event. Self nom. Pcb21| Pete 08:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• (not a vote) I'll vote after reading the whole article, but I have a question: why is the name Orca capitalised throughout the article, and why are there two plural forms used (both Orcas and Orca)? Jeronimo 09:10, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • How embarassing - the last edit I made before nominating was to change all "Orcas" to "Orca" - I wrote the article uncertain to which plural was actually correct (both are used!) and used them both. Then I tidied up and nominated. Unfortunately the edit didn't take for whatever reason. I've just made the edit again. As for the first point, species names are capitalized in Wikipedia. Pcb21| Pete 09:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Irish fiction

Self nomination. Bmills 08:19, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1) The image of Beckett has no source information. The paintings should also be dated, to make sure these are in the public domain. 2) The title is incorrect, IMO. This article is only about English language fiction in Irish literature, so the article's title should reflect both the English language and the literature (there may also be Irish fiction in film, and possibly other art forms). 3) Parts of the article look more like a list of authors - do we really need al these birth/deathdates and details on the lives of these authors? This article is about Irish fiction; most of the details of their lives are not particularly relevant for that topic. To place the authors in time, listing dates for their works seems sufficient. 4) The coverage of modern day fiction authors is rather poor. Not a single book title is mentioned. 5) Although some points are mentioned throughout the article, I miss a (brief) discussion of differences between Irish fiction and fiction from other countries, and Irish fiction in the Irish language. Are there any differences at all? 6) There are no references to works or sites on Irish fiction specifically. If such works do not exist, I would like to see at least one or two references to good books on Irish literature - surely these exist. Perhaps it is also a good idea to list the discussed works again, so that readers can easily find these works in the library. 7) There doesn't appear to be a good reason to let Irish fiction start in the 18th century - or at least this isn't explained very well. The lead section of the article actually seems to give a reason why Irish fiction should begin before Swift. 8) The current lead section is actually better suited as the first part of the article. I would like to see a lead section that briefly summarises the topic, mentioning the most important specific characteristics of Irish fiction and perhaps a brief mention of some of the best known exponents of Irish fiction. Jeronimo 09:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Freyja

Self-nomination. One link in red but I can nail the basics of the outstanding article (Egil's saga) fairly quickly since I am rereading it at the moment. We've done Odin in the past, about time we got some gender balance in the process :) Sjc 07:30, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• The article is somewhat short. Each section (aside from the lead) has just one paragraph or two short paragraphs. I oppose on the grounds of length. -- Emsworth 13:42, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Length isn't the problem, writing is. It needs more editing. Exploding Boy 16:27, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The lead section is way to long, while the rest of the article is short and doesn't use correct sectioning. 2) The writing is rather chaotic, listing "facts" about the deity in quick pace without a good "story line". 3) The naming of the goddesses is messy. I believe Frey and Odin are the more accepted English forms, even if the Old Norse forms are different. Mentions of Óðinn link to Odin. This should be straightened out, and since this is an English language encyclopedia, I think the English forms should be used. 4) Frey(j)a is the origin of the name Friday, but this isn't even mentioned. 5) The origin of the picture is given, but there isn't any copyright information. 6) She was a goddess, but little is mentioned about how she was worshipped. Jeronimo 09:51, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • So what if it's the english language Wikipedia? he's writing about it in english, i find it quite nice to read that article with all those nice letters, especially ǫ which is no longer used, it gives a sort of nordic feeling to it, support -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:19, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
    • Poliy on this matter is pretty straight forward - use the name by which most english speakers recognize it. If this isn't it, then it needs to be changed, period. If it's not in agreement with policy, then it can't be a featured article. →Raul654 03:24, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • Et tu Mark? it must say i didnt see it comming. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:46, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
        • Oh for God's sake, don't call him Mark too. He's Raul. We have several Marks already! As for the names, Raul (cough cough) is right. That said, the old Norse names should be mentioned somewhere, as I felt they significantly enhanced the article. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:33, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
          • How about in the text like now? -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:03, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
• One suggestion: the picture says it depict's Freyja in Richard Wagner's operas; but the text does not explain in which ones she features. Der Ring des Nibelungen is indeed probably the place most people will encounter this goddess; some note of this should be made in the text. Smerdis of Tlön 17:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object unless English names are preferred. Norse gods were worshipped in Britain too, and this is an English encyclopaedia. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 13:51, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Russian language

Self-nomination. I've tried to give an overall sense of the language without veering off into politics, military history, ethnography (well, a very little)... all the stuff that really should be dealt with separately. A. Shetsen 06:24, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I'm not a linguist, but it seems fairly complete. There are a few problems with writing here and there, so this is a weak objection. If someone with knowledge of Russian and/or linguistics wanted to do a quick edit I'm sure it would be ok. Exploding Boy 16:36, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Could you be more precise? Which sentences do you object to? Otherwise, how can this be "actionable"? A. Shetsen 17:19, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Copy-editing your own text may or may not be valid, but, at any rate, I've gone over it, eliminating as many passives as possible, breaking up some of the longer sentences, and generally trying to simplify. A. Shetsen 19:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • In action to a comment in Talk:Russian language (unfortunately anonymous) that complained of incomprehensible passages in the treatment of consonants, I've revised the Russian language#Consonants section. Thank you, 128.175.100.74, whoever you are. A. Shetsen 20:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Objection. This looks pretty good, but I do have some problems with this article. It looks rather messy, mostly because of the notes (there should be a good wiki-way to include footnotes, I think), and the tables. I realise the note problem is not actionable, but the table problem could be fixed. Probably removing the borders for some tables (especially those with only one row) would make it less messy already. My second problem are the examples. These have little context, and I can only why these specific excerpts where chosen. If it is only to show how the language looks, one or two examples would be enough. If it is attempted to show the evolution of the language, some more context and annotations are needed. I would also very much like a sound sample of the Russian language. Jeronimo 10:03, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Tables. Are you objecting to their visual appearance, or to their use, period? I've removed the borders. Notes. Do you mean the three or four paragraphs in small print? They define the approach taken to various technical points. If Russian were written in the Latin alphabet, some of them would not be necessary. Originally they were in ordinary print. Do you think that would look better, since the notes would then be in the main flow of the text? Examples. Any language has its cultural context, acquired by native speakers largely in childhood, whether spontaneously or in school. The examples are all schoolbook illustrations of linguistic and cultural development. I've provided notes to each of them, mostly on linguistic points. Any attempt to comment on the culture must be done very carefully, because POV and ideology are involved, both on the part of the reader, and on the part of the writer, as seen in the text. Perhaps the latter POV/ideology should just be picked out by the reader. But I don't think we should pretend there's no cultural dissonance between native speakers of English and those of Russian. Dissonance is not conflict, by the way. Spoken examples. Which ones? What do you suggest? Songs, television broadcasts, recordings of text being read? Also -- I know the Wiki language template encourages audio examples. But I wonder about their utility to someone who is reading the article for a first acquainatnce with the language, and cannot understand it.
• As for the notes, I am indeed referring to the smallprint text, labeled "Note". But Wikipedia doesn't have a footnote syntax (that I'm aware of anyway). The tables are much better this way; this is much easier for the eyes to read. The example annotations are a good addition, I think. This is sufficient for me to remove my objection. I would still like one or more sound samples, but I don't really care what they contain. Perhaps it would be good hear one of the written samples spoken out loud, but any random sentence would be fine with me. Jeronimo 20:36, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I will provide: (a) audio examples of all the individual sounds mentioned in the text; (b) two or three very short audio samples of continuous speech. A. Shetsen 20:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Exploding Boy 11:20, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. However, are there any well known reference works that could be listed as further reading? (I'm thinking of something roughly equivalent to Fowler's "The King’s English".) Dan Gardner 01:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I used Russian sources. I'll try to find some English general references as well, but after I add the audio as per Jeronimo's request above. A. Shetsen 03:36, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Order of the Garter

Self-nomination. -- Emsworth 21:03, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Support.... but: (1) "Ladies Companions" could use a brief explanation where it first appears, because it looks like a spelling mistake, (2) the English meaning of the motto should be given where the motto first appears (this could be fixed by removing the first appearance and simply referring to "the motto"), and (3) do "sovereign" and "government" need capitalizing? Otherwise, bravo. Exploding Boy 16:47, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've clarified (1), and followed suggestion (2). "Sovereign," the noun, is capitalised, but "sovereign," the adjective, is not. When referring to "the Government," one refers to the specific body of British ministers (as in the article), but when referring to "the government," one speaks about the general political institutions of the nation. -- Emsworth 17:51, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lord Emsworth has been doing a ton of edits to the British Honours sytem lately - bravo! --Zerbey 03:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Postdated support. No offense to Lord Emsworth, but I feel that right now, thanks to the thorough and energetic rewriting he's recently given it, the page is basically the work of one writer -- better to feature the article once it's reentered the wikipedia collaborative community. So I vote to wait a month or so. Doops 06:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Clarification in response to User:A. Shetsen: Sorry, perhaps I was unclear. I realize that featuring an article doesn't set it in stone; I merely meant that it seemed to me that it would be more worthwhile to feature the article once it's receieved the benefit of collaboration. Give Lord Emsworth's improvements time to settle in before the article is thrust into the glare of public gaze. :)

Response to A. Shetsen: for my general reply to the notion that this is an "improper objection," see the discussion page. In this case, I protest that I am not objecting to featured status for the article! I'm just asking that it be postponed until other users have a chance to go over Lord Emsworth's work. This includes me -- there are a number of changes I'd like to see but haven't made yet, at first out of politeness to Lord E. (I didn't want to kill his momentum by interrupting him while he was so hard at work), and more recently because I just haven't gotten the chance to make them. But I suppose there was really no need for me to suggest a delay, since featured article nominations are supposed to have a built-in lag time of a week; and perhaps that's enough time for me, or anybody else who's interested in the article, to weigh in. So I'm sorry for bothering you all. Doops 22:10, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Support. The article is excellent. BTW, can Doops' objection possibly be in order? Even featured articles can be edited, so says the policy. Sigh. A. Shetsen 06:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response to Dopps. You raise a point further argument of which will definitely be off-topic, but is important. Therefore, see the new Improper Objections section under discussion for this page. But as it applies to the present article, I cannot see what specific action can be taken to fix your, to put it bluntly, objection. A. Shetsen 06:53, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Treaty of Devol

This is a self-nomination, of an article I worked on while I had no internet access (that's the best way to write :)). I know it needs a picture and/or a map, and I will continue to fix the prose a bit...it is a little shorter than other FACs, but I think it is detailed enough, it's certainly more info than is available elsewhere on the internet. Adam Bishop 20:28, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• A few things are needed.

1. A pic of either of the two signatories (or beter still, both) (or, even better than that, a map of Antioch's location--preferably old).
2. The article makes reference a couple times to traditional Western distrust/dislike of the Byzantines. Can we get a little background as to why this prejudice existed and what exactly the Westerners did think of the Byzantines?
3. I'd like a definition of what's meant by "Westerners", for those of us who aren't up on the Crusades.

Thanks a lot, and I'll support once some of these issues are addressed (if no pic is available, I understand). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:39, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

I found a pic of Alexius I, and an old map of Asia Minor and the Crusader states...I can't find any more relevant maps, or any pics of Bohemond or Tancred. I have also expanded it a bit, hopefully clarifying the origins of the conflict between the Crusaders and Byzantines. Let me know if it needs to be more clear. Adam Bishop 19:43, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Nice article. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:12, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

• Support. Good article. One question: Bohemond I of Antioch redirects to Bohemund I of Antioch. Which of these is the name commonly used in English language? Jeronimo 20:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • On the internet "Bohemund" appears to be more popular (and all of our prince of Antioch articles use that spelling), while in scholarly sources "Bohemond" seems to be more usual. Adam Bishop 01:30, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Impressive! Lupo 20:55, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support, I think it's quite good. Everyking 20:58, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Geoff/Gsl 06:52, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yesterday (song)

This article is quite short compared to most other featured articles, but I think it's extremely good compared to other articles on songs such as YMCA, The Sound of Silence or Hotel California. If this article was on something else and of the same length, I wouldn't support/nominate it, but for a song article, this goes into quite a bit of detail on the song's origins, etc. An excellent example of what other articles about songs should be. Johnleemk | Talk 13:54, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A slight self-nom as I made a couple of edits to this article a month or two ago. Johnleemk | Talk 14:10, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Almost there. A few things, however: (from [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:16, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC))
  • The other members didn't think this sounded like them--in what way? Could you be a little more specific? If I hadn't heard the song, this would be unclear.
  • Not an objection, but what two songs beat it out on the BMI list?
  • Is there any way to describe the song's sound--for example musical notes or something of that sort? I don't know enough about music to say.
• Support. I think it would be good to have a few featured articles that weren't 50 kb of text. If somebody with musical training wanted to expand the bottom section, they would be welcome, however. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:06, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

• Change to support. It's a really good article right now, although the synopsis of the lyrics at the end is almost so simplistic as to be condescending. I'm going to object at this point, although I do like the article.
  1. The article is really short. Most of the length of the article comes from the alternate lyrics section, which should probably be in Wikisource or something.
  2. The article does not have standard TOC formatting that is usually present on featured articles. It needs a lead in section and some divisions.

  -DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:58, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • I've fleshed the article out, doing the best as I can (Meelar's third objection was rather hard as I have nearly no musical training; I had to take some material from Alan Pollack's analysis and rewrite it). What do you guys think now? Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I think it's... ok. I hate to damn with faint praise, but I just don't think the writing is spectacular. Exploding Boy 16:12, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
• (not a vote). Maybe a stupid question, but would a - say - 10-second excerpt of the song fall under fair use? Jeronimo 20:22, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes - probably more than that too. →Raul654 20:25, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • In that case, I object, since I think an article about a song needs a sound sample. Jeronimo 09:51, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object, needs to go into more detail in practically all areas. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 20:27, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • What do you think of it now? I've added quite a bit more — at least four paragraphs worth of material. The intro has been fleshed out, and it's more relevant now. There's more background on the song in the "Origins" section. There's also quite a bit more mention of just how much the song was played (I honestly had no idea it was that popular back then), spread out over the article. Johnleemk | Talk 07:01, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • According to User:OldakQuill, he/she will be away till 10 August. This article's nomination period ends on 7 August. How can this objection be handled further? Johnleemk | Talk 09:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object on grounds of the name of the article; there are plenty of other Yesterdays which will need dealing with e.g. the novel Yesterday (novel) by Maria Dermoût. Should be renamed something like Yesterday (Beatles song)
  • Moved to Yesterday (song). I don't think there are any other famous songs titled "Yesterday" — certainly, the majority of people when looking for a song named "Yesterday" will be looking for this composition, so I think where the song is as of my move is just fine. Johnleemk | Talk 07:32, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, that will do fine until someone writes another song called Yesterday. Sjc 07:34, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Um...is that veiled sarcasm or something? :p Noticed you're still objecting, though, so I presume that was sarcasm. Undoubtedly there are quite a few "Yesterday"s out there unrelated to this song, but until they're as well-known as this song, yeah, this title will do just fine. "Yesterday" probably won't be knocked off any time soon by another song of the same title any time soon, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 07:57, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. While a sound clip would be nice, I like the article as it stands. It's interesting and informative, and while it may be short relative to other feature articles, I think it important to remember this article is about a song, not a political movement or a historical figure. Denni☯ 19:41, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
• Support. Object. 1) Writing is poor: 2) Some source material would be nice and not hard to find: i.e. quotes from McCartney about the song; 3) More on the recording of the song (will try to add that myself).Marlowe 19:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten much of the article from scratch (a wee bit imperfect in a few areas, though). I've added a quote by McCartney and another from Bob Dylan. I've added a little about the song's recording. What do you think? Johnleemk | Talk 11:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I think the article still needs tightening up in a few places - some parts of it aren't very well written. Someone also needs to add a paragraph on Lennon's vitriolic reaction to the song, especially in his own composition 'How Do You Sleep?' - ChicXulub | Talk 22:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • It would be helpful if you indicated which parts...anyway, I cleaned up some places where the wording looked fishy, and I've added anecdotes about "How Do You Sleep?" and the original lyrics ("Scrambled Eggs"). Johnleemk | Talk 10:54, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. (See below) I went over the article, which is excellent, and made a few minor tweaks to sentences. Honestly, if anyone else says "writing needs work" or something similarly vague, please point out where? I had to march slowly through the article picking out tiny issues. But honestly I don't think there's any grounds for further objection. :-) Jwrosenzweig 16:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I looked at this article earlier today (before your supposed edit) and I just looked at it again, and frankly it still has problems with writing that should be evident even to a casual reader, let alone someone who's "marched slowly through the article." Granted, it's an interesting topic for an article, but -- how can I put this delicately -- the writing just isn't very good. Add to the fact that it's not well written the fact that clarity is sometimes a problem, as are grammar and elements of style (for example, there are contractions where there shouldn't be contractions), and the only conclusion is this is simply not an article that is deserving of recognition for outstanding writing. Please register this as an objection, and consider re-nominating the article if it is substantially improved -- for a few examples of what constitutes excellent writing, consider taking a look at Order of the Garter or Order of the Thistle. Exploding Boy 16:54, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, I noticed an edit to the article after I was done with it that caught a couple of glaring errors I missed, so obviously I am either not very awake this morning or wasn't proceeding as carefully as I'd thought -- my apologies. I do think the article is fairly good at covering an interesting topic, but upon reflection the writing does still need work, and I'd forgotten to consider the brilliance of the prose when evaluating -- I learned quite a bit about the song from the article (and I'd thought I knew it moderately well), and forgot that all our articles are supposed to instruct, but only a select few can be featured. I withdraw my support, while still professing to like the article. Jwrosenzweig 17:10, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Enigma machine

Excellent article. I learned a lot about the Enigma machines from it, and I was extremely surprised it hasn't achieved featured status yet. Detailed, but not so detailed that you're ultimately bored — and quite interesting too. Johnleemk | Talk 13:54, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Support. With qualms. This article is currently under review by several regular contributors to the crypto corner. jwr made an invited non-specialist review of it (see Talk) and his comments will be implemented, Real Soon Now. I agree that it is (almost) a feature quality article, and expect that it will be still more so quite shortly. Say in the next week or so. </strike.> ww 14:21, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Support. This article is really interesting. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:01, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

• I think it's a very good article, but I have a couple of very minor objections: 1, the writing style occasionally becomes a bit too chatty and informal in parts, and 2, there are an awful lot of brackets. I tend to use brackets a lot as well, but I found it rather distracting when reading this article. With those things cleaned up a little I'd support. Exploding Boy 16:16, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

• • I've tried my best to remove some brackets here and there. I'll see what I can do about the writing style tomorrow. Johnleemk | Talk 16:24, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent, detailed article. - Taxman 16:59, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I've noticed some problems in clarity and coverage:

One thing that stuck out is the second paragraph in Breaking the Enigma. It notes "...decryption of their messages was impossible in practice..." and "[British]...and French cryptanalysts gave up...". Later information seems to say that that was temporary in some cases. That section could use some improvements for clarity and correctness.

Also, the section Breaking the Enigma after discussing the initial Polish efforts, focuses almost entirely on the British efforts. Is that the fact that the British were the most successful at breaking the Enigma? The French role is especially lacking, did they accomplish anything? The American role is mentioned in only a few sentances in that section. More could be covered on the Allied and US "industrialization" of the bombs. The intro paragraphs seem to say that the breaking of the Enigma was more balanced than the Breaking the Enigma section does. If that is not the case, either or both could be fixed. Thanks - Taxman 15:59, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

See the recent discussion at Talk for the French contribution. The article is about 39K at the moment and it's unclear how much more detail should be shoehorned in. The comments should answer your question in re the French. As for industrialitzation, there was a serious tug of war over who would have access (and the UK side probably saw control there as well) to Engima decrypt work, including bombe design/construction. USA and USN finally decided to have at some (advanced, high speed) bombe designs and that, according to some accounts, was the straw that broke the foot dragging back. Cooperation on bombe work and Engima decrypts was much less a bone of contention thereafter. Again, should this be in an already (too?) long article? ww 19:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see that discussion. I'm not asking for more material, just more clarity on who contributed what when. The summary of events on the talk pages shows that it doesn't take much volume of material to be more clear than the article is now about the above points I outlined.

If you're more worried about length, then maybe the article should be separated into one on the machine itself (which the article title is anyway) and one on the process of breaking the cipher. You guys seem to have a lot more material to go in, so it would be a shame to not do that just because this article should really only be about the machine anyway. - Taxman 20:53, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. An interesting story. Smerdis of Tlön 00:54, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Weakly object for the moment. This is already a good article, but I have some relatively minor areas for improvement: (1) some of the sentences are missing segues showing how the thoughts connect (I'll try to do some copyediting in the coming days), (2) the organization of the article as a whole is adequate but sometimes unclear, and moreover technical cryptanalysis gets mixed in with military history (I think the main issue is to add a paragraph at the beginnings of sections saying what's in the section), (3) some terms and concepts aren't introduced for those who are unfamiliar, e.g. the German term for the Navy, (4) I got lost in the Operation section; since Enigma is inherently complicated, this is not a fatal flaw, but a diagram would be nice, and it would be nice to have some kind of simplified view that gives the basic idea for less mathematically inclined readers who are interested in the history and high level cryptography but not the details, (5) Most of the "Disclosure" section is somewhat POV, e.g. WRT the Luftwaffe bombing of Coventry, it says that Calvocoresssi is better than Winterbotham, but not why; needs more sources or evidence. The article is good, but ideally could be improved before being featured. Zashaw 03:25, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I withdraw my objection. I should say I haven't read the technical sections that closely, so I'm not contradiction Exploding Boy's concerns below, but I think the article's in decent shape. Minorly, the Disclosure section still sounds somewhat POV; I'm not sure how controversial this is, though. Also, there's never any mention to figure #2, although it seems to relate to the text. Anyway, I'm happy with this article being featured. Zashaw 20:56, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • I've tried to copyedit the article as best as I can; now it's obvious #4 has a diagram; #5 has been fixed. The rest...it's debatable, but hopefully it meets your standards. Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it's looking ok. There are still one or two things I'd like to change (some of the numbers still need to be written out rather than given as digits, for example). I'll give it a quick check in a little while. Otherwise, support. Exploding Boy 15:08, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, I have just spent I don't know how long trying to fix the writing in this article. I got about halfway through before getting sick of it. There are a lot of problems with style and clarity. I withdraw my support for now. Exploding Boy 16:35, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

• • • • Matt Crypto has made several edits since your edit — it seems clearer to me, now, though I'm not sure whether this is more due to your work or his. Johnleemk | Talk 10:52, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • No, I'm sorry. There are still problems with writing and even, in a few places, with grammar. The article is interesting, but in many places the writing really gets iffy, especially in places where there are technical descriptions. Exploding Boy 11:10, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. This is an OK article, but 1) Yes, the article is pretty unclear in the technical descriptions, and the Enigma isn't the easiest machine to grasp; I think much of the description needs some heavy reworking, and the liberal use of diagrams is traditional in expositions of the Enigma — we need more. (User:Wapcaplet has kindly agreed to make some 3D models of the rotors). 2) The article fails to even mention several important details, and sometimes glosses over points to the point of inaccuracy (e.g., "Procedures for communicating using Enigma" describes only one of several indicating procedures used for Enigma — for most of WWII, it was different); I've listed some stuff on the ToDo list at Talk:Enigma, and I plan to work on it tonight, but, in truth, I think it's unlikely this article can be fixed up to FA standard before it falls off the bottom of this page. — Matt 01:09, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Colonial America

Vote this for a featured article because it deserves such an atribute. It is absolutely glorious, magnificent, fabolous, marvelous, gorgeous. OK this is too much but I couldn`t pick one word. :) [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 13:40, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Exploding Boy 16:19, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now. The article is great, but the section on the Middle Colonies is ridiculously short, especially considering the truly stunning writing and detail given to the rest of the areas. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:21, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The title is misleading and incorrect. This is not about Colonial America as a whole, but only about the Colonial period of the North American east coast (mostly what is now the US), and specifically about those colonies that later became the "13 colonies". Apart from that, there appears to be virtually nothing about French, Dutch and Swedish settlements in these areas, it's mostly about the British who settled there. 2) The only picture is actually bigger in the article than on the image page (technical goof-up?); some more pictures would be nice. 3) The real section is rather weird. There are two section headings below each other, but there's only one sub-section anyway. It ends with a list of "acts", which seems to be placed there are random. 4) While the web-references are ok, there are no book or magazine references. Jeronimo 20:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agree. The article should be moved to a better title, perhaps something like "British Colonial America" or maybe "Colonial era history of the United States" (?). Surely we can make a less ambiguous title, as the article has nothing to do with, say, New Spain and the rest of Colonial America. -- Infrogmation 16:50, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

El (god)

NOT a self-nom. A fascinating article. Neutrality 04:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Writing style seems to change, very hard to read in some sections, generally could use cleaning up. Exploding Boy 16:22, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. What in the world is this and what is the significance of this name? Why does one translation of the name of such a universal concept as god have a separate article? Nothing in the intro makes that clear. There are hundreds of names in different languages for the concept of God. Why is this one important or different? - Taxman 17:03, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Reads like a bad school textbook rather than an encyclopedia. It needs a picture (not sure what of though). It does have some potential, however. --Zerbey 17:09, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This article is interesting and has potential, but syntactic errors need cleaning up, brackets need checking, and other housekeeping matters must be attended to. More importantly, a number of sentences need rewriting for clarity; while technically correct, they are wordy and confusing. Denni☯ 19:52, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

Cocaine

• Well written. Fascinating, IMO. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:22, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I have to strongly disagree with your assessment of the quality of writing, I'm afraid. I love drug articles, being a boring, vicarious-lived type person - but this article is full of poor phrasing. A couple of examples: "In 1856 Friederich Wöhler asked Dr. Carl Scherzer, a scientist aboard the Novara, an Austrian frigate sent by Emperor Franz Joseph to circle the globe, to bring him back a large amount of coca leaves from South America." (parse that one first time 'round), He proceeded to experiment on himself and upon his return to Milan he wrote a paper in which he described the effects of coca on himself (nasty chiming), It does tend to get better near the end, and I wouldn't normally whinge I would edit. However, I got in a bit of a mess trying: [1] and I don't seem to be at the height of my powers at present. --bodnotbod 11:36, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Where to begin.
  • First, the chemical formula shouldn't be given where it is, because the top of the TOC cuts off the bottoms of the numbers. Then we have to read through side effects, health issues, isolation of, and popularization of cocaine before we ever really get to what it is.
  • This sentence: "In most cases, each purchase is about two grams for one day of smoking (after treatment with ammonia)" is difficult to understand. What, or who, is treated with ammonia and why?
  • The Cocaine as an anaesthetic section is two sentences long, and doesn't really explain anything.
  • There are some problems with tense, grammar and punctuation.
  • The section that talks about Coca Cola seems to contradict the content of the Coke article.
  • Some other problems with formal writing style.
  • Part way down the page there's a sudden name switch from cocaine to coke.

I'm going to stop here; I think that's plenty to be going along with. Exploding Boy 16:34, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Bicycle

Seems like a decent article. (I just did some minor copyediting.) Gzornenplatz 01:32, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1) The "Variations" section is currently a list; this could do with reworking into a wordy form, making it into an informative discussion, and not just raw information. 2) The "history" section (and possibly the "Technical aspect" section) could use some subsections to make it easier to digest. — Matt 02:46, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Could be an excellent article with a little work on writing style, and the term "bicycle" needs an explanation better than "hence the name." Exploding Boy 16:39, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This article is a mess and incomplete. 1) The order of the sections is strange (what makes the "speed" section so important?), and there are several sections that quite small, opposed to the long historical and technical sections; this could be balanced better, several of the smaller sections could be shared under one section. 2) The history seems to stop at 1900, but there was plenty of cycle development afterwards. 3) The technical image has no source or copyright information. 4) The use of the bold font in the technical section is non-standard, and I think also not recommended in the WP:MOS. 5) The Variations section should either be spun off to a list article, or more information should be given. Also, a sentence like "And maybe at least one reference to a sports science article that explains how cycling is the most efficient form of human powered transport." indicates this article isn't finished yet. 6) Several of the "cultural" sections are rather vague and (implicitly) US-centric or western world-centric. This should give a better global perspective. 7) There's mention of racing bikes and Lance Armstrong, but not much about bike racing. 8) The article doesn't even mention that "bike" is used as a synonym for bicycle. 9) The web references seem random and many of them are hardly useful. 10) There are no book/magazine references. Surely there are some good books about the history or bikes, or technical works? I think there might be more, but this should be enough for now...Jeronimo 20:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The bicycle in the illustration at the top looks sad and lonely. (In fact, the whole of Category:Cycling is a mess.) Gdr 15:58, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
• Object. Reading this article is like reading the English instructions on a Korean applicance. Typical sentence: [quote] The ICHC no longer distinguishes between a "first true" bicycle with pedals and any precursors, and regards as the start the two-wheeler principle which requires balancing and is the basis of cycling (and motorcycling). [end quote] When I started reading the article I thought I could polish it a bit, but a few paragraphs in I realised it would be Herculean labour. It looks well-researched enough, but the writing is abominable. --213.199.128.153 16:28, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Capsicum

Well-written and nicely illustrated. Covers the subject from many angles (etymology, history, botany, culture, cooking, chemistry and evolutionary biology) clearly and tersely. A model article. Gdr 00:50, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

• Very interesting article. The writing could still use a little work here and there though. Exploding Boy 16:43, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Too short, specifically there is very little coverage of it's different uses in foods. Hot chocolate was originally made by indiginous mexican peoples with chili. Mole is a very common popular use of chocolate and chili in Mexico. Roasted chili peppers have an entirely different taste than raw. Also no coverage of the endorphin rush that intensely hot food can cause. I also edited the claims of the hottest pepper to hopefully NPOV. - Taxman 18:05, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • I added a paragraph about why people eat chillies, mentioning endorphins. I agree that there needs to be more about cooking. Gdr 12:26, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
• As mentioned on the talk page, the unilateral merge into capsicum was a little inappropriate without discussion. Now the article is wholly inconsistent in the terms it uses. Why would the article be at capsicum if the article refers to them as chiles? Also as mentioned on the talk page, the name now violates the naming convention of using the most common name. Finally, I didn't parse the whole merge, but at least some information was not kept in the merge, nor moved to the talk page. Because of these radical changes, I suggest a move from FAC to peer review to settle the article into something feature worthy. - Taxman 15:00, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Black hole

I have never edited this article, but it seems quite broad, well written, NPOV and interesting. So much in fact, that I'm surprised it is not featured already. - Taxman 23:34, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Fascinating read and covers the most recent discoveries. --Zerbey 17:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not qualified to say if the science was right, though I'll take Zerbey's word for it, but very well-written. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:30, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)
• (not a vote) Can we get some pictures showing suspected locations of black holes (say, from Hubble)? Also, can someone expand the lead section? Thanks. Great. Dan Gardner 17:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Lead section expanded a bit. What do you think? - Taxman 17:29, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
• (not a vote) Didn't Stephen Hawking say some of his theory on the black hole was wrong? Not sure how that fits in, but here it is. [2]
• Support. And it has a nice picture too. Hawking did recently announce a modification of his view of black holes as mentioned in the article above. However its a fairly subtle point relating to how information may be released from a black hole and resolves the Black hole information paradox. It looks like User:Stw has already updated the black hole article. -- Solipsist 10:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pac-Man

A really nice, full and interesting article on a true cultural icon. My only contribution was to cheer up one of the sentences a little. --bodnotbod 01:41, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Good article, but the Trivia, Historical Events and Legacy sections neeed a little tweaking. There are some unclear points in all three sections: (1) Did the 8 year old boy really get a letter from Reagan?, (2) the explanation of Pac Manhattan is a little unclear, (3) the part about "somewhat reverse engineering" the Atari version of Ms. Pacman could use work. I also corrected a couple of other mistakes. Exploding Boy 01:57, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • OK...
  • Point (1), there are not many references on the web, but it did happen - supposedly - in 1982. How does one decide if these refs are enough? [3]
  • Point (2) - I've rewritten the paragraph, how does it look now?
  • point (3) - I'm out of my depth. ;o) Any takers? --bodnotbod 22:41, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. This article has a lot of potential, but I see some areas for improvement: 1) Are those images free for use?, 2) To many red links, they should be consildated into the main article, new articles written for them or removed altogether, 3) No technical information on the original system (I'm working on it, there's a quick note of the processor information and I'll make sure I add more tomorrow), 4) Future improvement: I'd like to see some more information on the ports to other systems. --Zerbey 23:17, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • OK...
• 1) The screenshot: I've left a message on the contributor's Talk page to ask them to confirm that the image is kosher here. The cartridge shot has notes saying it is a pic taken by the user himself.

• That looks good, it was the main picture I was concerned about but it's probably fair use --Zerbey 03:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Yeah, I submitted the screenshot in question. I'm not a legal expert, so I'll explain the situation for someone that is: I took a screen snap of the Pac-Man game while playing it in the MAME emulator, thus creating a pixel-perfect image of the game. I uploaded it in PNG format, if I'm not mistaken, and put that in the Pac-Man article, replacing another that was a lower-quality photograph of an arcade game screen. What I don't know for sure is, does the fact that Namco owns Pac-Man and everything associated with it thus make the shot not free to use, or does that not really matter, since it's only a screencap? Gus 03:57, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

• 2) The red links are primarily to game sequels. This is already quite a long article, I feel that were anyone to write about those games we would quickly get towards too long an article and they would be given their own articles soon enough.

• Withdrawn --Zerbey 03:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• 3) Fair point. That's beyond my abilities, anyone able to help?

• I seem to recall reading a website about it, I'll see what I can do. --Zerbey 03:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• OK I found it, I'll add some information tomorrow --Zerbey 03:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• 4) Not so sure about that. It is such a universal game that it would have to be pretty broad - but I welcome input from others. --bodnotbod 02:45, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

• I like it! Definately support. -Seth Mahoney 03:57, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I enjoyed this article, but I think it could be improved before being Featured. 1) There's plenty of scope for more images in this article; they should be easy to get hold of, and they would certainly help: ideas include: screen grabs from clones, or Pac-Man eating one of the monsters, or a still from the cartoon or the cover of the single etc. 2) One image we really could do with is a close-up of Pac-Man. 3) Sections should be larger than one paragraph; could we merge "Arcade system information" and "Implementation" into something else? — Matt 02:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

The first list is featured articles that do not have a picture and hence would be problematic to put on the main page. Please add pictures and then move to the second list. GFDL or PD preferred — avoid fair use images where possible (they may not be fair use on the main page).

Tangentially connected pictures may also be suitable for the main page, even if they wouldn't sit well with the article itself. Use your common sense.

Articles missing pictures

• Computational complexity theory
• Computer security
• Donegal fiddle tradition
• Gram Parsons
• Have I Got News For You
• History of the English penny (fair use picture)
• Illegal prime
• Indus Valley Civilization (fair use picture)
• Lollapalooza
• Milgram experiment
• Negligence
• Not the Nine O'Clock News
• Palm Sunday Tornado Outbreak (image of too-low quality)
• Pattern welding
• Peer review
• Social history of the piano
• Vacuous truth
• Spamming (Can of spam is trademark violation) (this article does have an image though?)

These now have pictures

• Ackermann function - use pic of equation
• Adoption in Rome - done by a anon user Muriel G 11:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Anno Domini - Smerdis of Tlön 19:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Application programming interface - use UML lollipop symbol for an interface.
• ASCII (a lame one)
• Christianity
• C programming language
• Copyright
• Damascus steel
• Economics
• Éire
• Free will
• Freemasonry
• Greek mythology (about halfway down: Image:Perseus_slays_medusa.jpg)
• Irish poetry
• Irish theatre
• Japan general election, 2003
• Java programming language
• Jazz (still needs free image)
• Jim Henson (still needs free image)
• Korean name - use Image:Hangul_seong.png
• Madonna (singer) (still needs free image)
• Markup language (well, sort-of; suitable for main page? James F. (talk) 15:02, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)) (don't see why not Lupin 00:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC))
• Menstrual cycle
• Mitochondrial Eve
• Peloponnesian War – unfortunately the picture is a copyright violation
• Portuguese language
• Quantum computer
• Quantum mechanics- use electron orbitals
• Radar
• Race - use tangentially connected picture Image:MLKJR.jpg - was removed again - Added composite image from FBI mugshots. -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:39, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Road transport
• Roy Orbison
• Schizophrenia
• Search engine
• Split infinitive
• Telephone exchange
• Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius
• Tuberculosis
• Vampire
• World Wide Web
• Charles Ives
• Algorithm
• Action potential
• Crime fiction
• Franks (image of too-low quality) - Added image of charlemagne
• Hebrew calendar