Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Publius~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 02:52, 19 December 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This page works similar to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, only the other way around: If a page is listed here for at least a week with no objections, it can be added to the Brilliant prose list. If there are objections, they have to be worked out, until a nearly unanimous consensus is reached. However, if the article with objections remains listed here for more than a month, the nomination will be archived in Wikipedia:Brilliant prose candidates/Archived nominations.

If you nominate a page to which you have contributed all or a large majority of content, then it must be seconded by at least one more person in order to be accepted. Some people may object to self-nominations on principle.

If you are trying to decide whether to nominate or second an article for bphood, it is worth reading Wikipedia:The perfect article to see how high the bar can be set.

Also, be sure to sign (with date/time) your nomination ("~~~~" in the editor).

Join the Wikipedia:Cleaning department to help maintain this page!

See also:

Recently added to brilliant prose after going through due process here

  • Bible code -- Nominated by: Kpjas 08:28, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC).
    • Added by: Iseeaboar 03:09, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Objection (but not yet removed) by: COGDEN 19:50, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC). This is a cute article, but it's not well-documented with citations, and the prose doesn't flow well.
  • Garry Kasparov -- fun for anyone. comprehensive up the wazoo. Kingturtle 05:50, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Headlines and a TOC, please.—Eloquence 06:55, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
      • I have addressed this objection. I support adding this article whether the headings I added are kept or not. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:26, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Lots of info, but not "brilliant prose." moink 23:03, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • This has already been added, if you want to remove it, provide some more explanation, remove it from Wikipedia:Brilliant prose and add it to #Recently removed articles, and reason for removal on this page.—Eloquence 23:11, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
        • Comments along these lines have been made before... Maybe we could have a Wikipedia:Great articles page which could replace the BP page to de-emphasize the "prose" and re-emphasize that we write encyclopedia articles? If this is done, we should wait til after the refresh on administrative grounds. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:40, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • I (unsuccessfully) tried to get some feedback for a possible page rename on the wikien-l mailing list last Friday [1].—Eloquence 12:46, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

Recently removed articles, and reason for removal

Current nominations

Nominations with objections (being resolved)

  • Urban renewal -- I wrote this one a couple of months ago. I had decided to try to be comprehensive and not just throw up a stub, so I spent a couple of hours on it. I just realized today that no one has made any edits to it -- which means it's either brilliant or not worth reading... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Second. A really good, well-written article. Bmills 10:17, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Object. If it was Urban Renewal in the US then I would agree as far as I can tell it is good; but there is no international element to it other than the intro and conclusion. It needs to give far more than a passing mention to urban renewal in Europe. : ChrisG 12:08, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Fair enough criticism, I have to admit. I think renamimg it is a good suggestion. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 18:06, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Roman Emperor -- detailed, well-linked explanation of the office, with a comprehensive list of imperatores to supplement it. --MIRV 18:02, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I object. Not to the contents but to the format. This article was recently extripated from List of Roman emperors and it still needs a bit of polishing to be shining and brilliant. Shouldnt be difficult. Muriel Victoria 10:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • What needs fixing? I'd be glad to clean it up. --MIRV 09:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I concur with Muriel's objection. I haven't really had a chance to touch up the article, and as it is I find it to be unsatisfactory; it is certainly not my best work, to say the least. I've proposed a revision to the article in Talk:Roman Emperor, and I'd appreciate any input on that proposed revision (or any other). Publius, 2146, 18 December 2003
  • Olavo Bilac, it´s got sample poems, sample translated poems, comprehensive biography, links, and picture. User:Doidimais Brasil
    • Much of the writing is awkward and unfortunately clearly non-Native speaker. Also, is it a bit short for BP? Bmills 10:15, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Jesus Christ - I think it is now a rather excellent article after I don't know how many contributions. I've done a lot of the recent polishing, and I've reached the stage I can't find anything more to polish. So... : ChrisG 15:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded. I'm not even Christian but that's a very nice article. Sarge Baldy 09:22, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Object, for now. Precursors of the Jesus meme should be mentioned, especially Mithras.—Eloquence 20:00, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • —Eloquence, is your objection only that the article is not fully complete or perfect? Surely all articles on Wikipedia are by definition works in progress? : ChrisG 12:15, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Yes, they are, but articles on Wikipedia:Brilliant prose should satisfy a reasonable degree of completeness, which I feel is not met by this article. I also think that ignoring these memes is problematic in NPOV terms.—Eloquence
        • Disagree with that attitude. At best it says 'essays' can fail as provisional (which they would be, no?); at worst it condemns just about anything I might write about here. Charles Matthews 13:18, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • You may disagree, that doesn't change my objection. I can't agree to list an article as BP which I feel lacks vital information. An additional objection is that the subsection summaries in the present article are rather inadequate.—Eloquence
        • Brilliant prose - or excellent content? Isn't the idea to encourage good writing? Well, I may have the wrong idea here - but if it's a Hall of Fame why not call it that? Charles Matthews 13:34, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • See naming discussion with Pcb above.—Eloquence
            • With regard to content I actually think the article is rather comprehensive by Wikipedia standards. The article actually had to be broken up because it is so long and now provides links to substantial articles on specific issues and differing points of view. As to Mithras, there is nothing to stop Eloquence adding a sentence or two on Mithras and a link to the Mithras article. :ChrisG 14:27, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Support--while I admit that there is room for mention of Mithras (though I think Mithras has nothing to do with the historical person of Jesus), I think the article as it stands is an excellent example of Wikipedia treating a subject likely to be filled with bias in an NPOV way. I think articles like this should be on brilliant prose to encourage other articles to meet this standard: perhaps not comprehensive, but fully informative and essentially neutral. Jwrosenzweig 23:00, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Two points: with a strong objection like we have here, I think it would be inappropriate for this article to go on brilliant prode. Also, I'd like some backup for the repeated statement in the article that most historians accepte the historicity of Jesus. I believe there may be some contest around this claim. Bmills 13:48, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Geyser -- Partly self-nomiated by: mav 01:00, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I like this too but sadly can't be an official seconder ... the few photos mav didn't take I did! Pete 13:03, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
    • Looks good. How about some more links and a bibliography?—Eloquence 06:55, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
  • Machismo - I also liked this article that I began. Check it out and let me know! Antonio Loose Balls Martin
    • I'd disagree almost completely with "Generally speaking, machistas doubt women's rights to work, play sports or perform at other, traditionally male-dominated areas. Many machistas also believe it is their right as men to cheat on their wifes" (perhaps this is true for Latin America, but then the article is incomplete), and the article also fails to mention macho-look. Nikola 08:15, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • As a little vingette, I rather like it. However I hope you'll forgive me for pointing out that it is one of only two articles listed on this page that gets flagged as a stub under my preferences (<2000bytes). This begs a question - should "short" (suitably defined) articles not be listed on bp as a point of principle - the principle being that such articles are too narrow in scope to be truly brilliant prose? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:35, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Too short for me to support. Sarge Baldy 09:26, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
  • Wesley Clark - good balanced article. This is what wikipedia for. -- Taku
    • I agree, this could be a controversial article but it seems balanced and well done.Ark30inf 23:08, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • "During the Clinton administration, NATO tried to prevent Russian forces from occupying an airfield in Kosovo." - this sentence alone, not to mention some around it, besides being 100% untrue, is more POV then CNN. Nikola 19:53, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • It is somewhat true... what really happened was that Wesley Clark wanted to keep the Russians from occupying the airfield, but British General Mike Jackson kept him from doing so, saying it would cause World War III. ugen64 20:19, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Russians were not occupying the airfield, Clrak didn't want but was ordered to stop them. Nikola 15:17, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This article could go through significant changes over the next year with the election cycle in the US. I'd hold off until he drops from the headlines for a significant amount of time. --Minesweeper 09:38, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)
  • Richard Wagner - thorough and (AFAICT) accurate article on a prominent classical composer, no brilliant prose listing of any classical music topics, demonstrates NPOV handling of a highly sensitive issue. --Robert Merkel 08:41, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Object. Still needs much more on anti-Semitism, particularly concerning theories regarding anti-Semitic motives in Wagner's operas, also on the use of Wagner's music by Hitler (maybe in a separate atricle, but it needs to be there) and scholarly views on Wagner's actual influence on Hitler. Bibliography is hardly comprehensive.—Eloquence 07:32, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Second. Excellent article. Too much emphasis on antiseminism detracts from the main subject (his music) and is in danger of being POV. It's fine as it is. 80.255 23:00, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Command-Query Separation - A beautifully clear explanation of a technical topic. -- Bill 15:35, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Object. Does not conform to MoS, provides little history of the concept (quotes from source material with original definition would be nice), does not really explain difference between query and program state change, does not contain practical examples or case studies, contained spelling error (now fixed), no bibliography -- no brilliant prose.—Eloquence 07:32, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)
  • Red Scare - superb rewrite by user:Populus flows smoothly, is historically informative and combines balance and neutrality so well that he makes it look easy! --Uncle Ed 15:07, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I think it's incomplete. A very good start and a good rewrite, but I think the relationship between the red scare and civil defense should be discussed. Also, the anti-immigrant, anti-union parts of the Palmer raids. DanKeshet 06:11, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Current nominations without objections (so far)

  • Hubble Space Telescope - Well written, good (public domain) pictures, history of the mission as well as its future, everything you could ask for in an encyclopedia article. --zandperl 02:45, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Japan - good content, balanced and the format and heading are complete. -- Taku
  • Dictionary - decent content and good references. Need some heading. -- Taku
I would support this - but some patching is required to repair the hole created by the recent move of material, from which Ann Lee was created. Mkmcconn 16:27, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I added back in a shorter section on Mother Ann -- hopefully this addresses the issue... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 16:48, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thank you.

Current self-nominations (need to be seconded)

  • Battle of Oudenarde - Finished this marathon project in about an hour... and right before Thanksgiving weekend, in fact! I cited my source (a good book, by the way), and I wrote it completely by myself (using only information from the book). It's a good article... :-) ugen64 21:38, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
  • First Battle of the Stronghold - My first attempt to flesh out some of the events of the Indian Wars, and I think it turned out pretty well. Gentgeen 14:54, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded. Good topic, well-done, nice use of pix. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:01, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Very well-written, nice-looking and complete. However, before it becomes 'brilliant prose' it needs a full set of references in a ==References== section and a ==Further reading== section for good books on the subject. The lead paragraph also needs to be a short summary of the entire article. The reason this is important is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of encyclopedias and one of those encyclopedias is a concise one. Having a comprehensive lead paragraph(s) accomplishes this (not too long, however). See news style. The photo caption is also wrong; the Army fortifications in the photo are inside the Stronghold and, IIRC, were built after the second battle when the Army took the Stronghold over. I suggest replacing that photo with others that show Modoc-built defensive or offensive positions (or even caves they were living-in). --mav 01:10, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Thanks mav, I've expanded the intro paragraph, added refrences, and replaced the offending pic with another one (also yours) showing Captain Jack's cave, although I liked the first, just to show the rough terrain. Gentgeen 11:55, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nominations withdrawn by nominator

  • Hamas - laid out nicely. easy to follow. complex issues explained for all to understand. Kingturtle 05:46, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I object in the strongest terms. In the "beliefs" section, the only thing we learn about is Hamas' beliefs about Jews and Israel. It doesn't explain what their conception of an Islamic state is, how they're organized (no, "loosely structured" doesn't cut it. Do they have a supreme leader? A council of elders? How do they make decisions? How would an Islamic state make decisions?) It's discussion of the complex relationship between Hamas and secular nationalist Palestinian organizations is so paltry as to be embarrassing. Its activities mentions in passing 'relief and education' efforts, but doesn't even say what they are. Hamas has had many famous activists. Where are the links to their articles? This is all through a cursory glance; this article is nowhere near ready. DanKeshet 06:26, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree with the objection. At the moment it reads like a piece written to color it just as a terrorist group, rather than a political/community organisation which changed into a combined poitical/community and terrorist group as a result of the occupation. One of the major groups fighting for political power in Palestinian circles deserves far more complete coverage than this. Jamesday 01:53, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I have decided to withdraw this nomination. Kingturtle 05:01, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=1995823"