Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed Poor (talk | contribs) at 15:50, 18 February 2004 (Nominating Jmabel's version of "socialism"). 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 Wikipedia:Featured articles. 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:Feature candidates/Archived nominations.

How it works

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 featuring, 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). If a nomination, comment, or objection is not signed it might be ignored.

After nominating an article, you may want to place a notice on it to alert readers:

''This article has been nominated on [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates]]. Please refer to that page if you wish to second or contest the nomination.''

If an article's nomination is accepted, this statement should be removed and a notice placed at the top of the talk page:

''This is a [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured article]].''
Join the Wikipedia:Cleaning department to help maintain this page!

See also:

  • Rudyard Kipling
    • Needs TOC. Bmills 13:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • ToC provided, though I'm sure some would quibble with my choice of chapters and chapter descriptions. Jwrosenzweig 06:09, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Objection withdrawn: good work Jwrosenzweig. Bmills 12:04, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Bioinformatics - a very good summary, neither short on information nor delving into too much detail. Looks nice, too! Gaurav 13:32, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I weakly object. This is a good article, particularly in staying at an appropriate level, and refering to more detailed other articles. However, it's pretty disorganized, at least needing well-thought-out section headings. The selection of topics seems a bit haphazard, though this may just be an effect of the organization. There's also some claims I'm uncomfortable, some of which are non-trivial to fix, e.g. homology is clearly an important concept in bioinformatics, but it overly dominates this article. Zashaw 05:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • C programming language - good intro, carefully written. Lots of the other Wikipedia sites have this article, showing it is an important one.169.207.85.97 12:02, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Éire - a good example of how a number of editors working together can create a fine article on a minor but interesting topic. Bmills 11:42, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Seconded. Dandrake 21:33, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Japan general election, 2003 - not sure if the writing is brilliant but the article is completely done now.
    • not an objection or a second, just a timestamp to get the clock rolling. Gentgeen 08:40, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Fairly well-written, and provided a good analysis. Second. Then again, I'm something of a politics junkie... - Scooter 03:13, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Ralph Yarborough - I wrote all of this article starting from nothing using mostly the Handbook of Texas and Texas Almanac. (Jan. 15 8:34CST).
    • I second this. The article is very well-written, and the prose is bright and imaginative. - Scooter 09:23, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • All your base are belong to us - Clearly written article about prominent piece of internet culture. Kagredon 02:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree. Ilyanep 21:48, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Clear, simple and to-the-point. I like! Gaurav 02:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree. Jwrosenzweig 05:58, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Witty and droll in its NPOV! Wetman 22:01, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I like it too, I offer my fifth (make it tequila, please ;) Sam Spade 06:45, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Golden Gate Park - very expansive article about San Francisco's large urban park. My edits were wikifications, copyedits, clairifications, and disambiguations only. Gentgeen 02:19, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Origins of the American Civil War - very complete. nice layout 65.58.234.58 01:18, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the nomination. It's funny that I usually get a favorable response from the work on the 19th century West from a comparative historical bent (e.g., this entry and the German history series) - that is considering the political struggles in the U.S. route to modern capitalist democracy. But when I pay attention to the same complexities in societies that faced greater challenges - societies having to dismount a well-established agrarian society of the feudal, oligarchic, or bureaucratic forms - I get the oddest reactions. Just today, I hear a glib "show me a peasant who isn't impoverished" when briefly mentioning political unrest in Central America. Maybe I should just stick with the pre-WWI era. 172 19:06, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Recently removed articles, and reason for removal

Current nominations

Please add nominated articles to the bottom of one of the categories below.

Nominations without unresolved objections

  • cryptography and related pages -- this article does a pretty good job of introducing the modern practice of crypto, with some brief connections to its history. It is not overly technical, despite the ever present tendency to disappear in the technique or mathematical underpining. It's a good article in part because it avoids much of the myth and legend that encrusts the subject, warning in several instances of such cruft. Also, I goofed in adding it before noticing the candidate page. It's been removed, but adding it officially would be a good memorial to its evanescent existence on the list. Sorry about that.
The related pages are also pretty good, though perhaps not of quite the same standard. A reader looking through them would get a quite reasonable, and responsible, sense of the current state of the basic field, and some sense of the history. ww 16:53, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • English poetry - this article used to be a positive embarrassment, but user:Bmills has put a huge amount of work into it and it is now thoroughly informative, well organised, and a great read. seglea 17:13, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. -- Kaihsu 20:45, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
  • Erie Canal - the geology and its effects on history alone would make this a candidate. Wetman 19:35, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Excellent, IMHO. Kingturtle 00:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Québécois language: very extensive article on a topic rarely discussed in English. -- Kaihsu 16:44, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)
    • Seconded. Good beans. jengod 23:35, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Irish Houses of Parliament
    • I object. Firstly, the article states "Irish peers had the constant right to elect a number of fellow Irish peers as representative peers to represent Ireland in the House of Lords, ironically introducing a degree of democratic election into the British House of Lords that has never existed since." This is absolutely incorrect, in my humble opinion. If elected representative peers form a democratic element, then such an element already existed, as Scotland elected representative peers. Also, such an element has indeed existed since, because under the House of Lords Act 1999, ninety hereditary peers are elected by their counterparts to sit in the House. Secondly, some of the pictures appear strewn across the page. -- Emsworth
      • SUPPORT. Ignore the comments above. What extreme nitpicking! The sentence in question was out-of-date since '99 depending on how you want to play a game of semantics. BTW, I did modify it so that it leaves no room for ambiguity. Anyway, this entry is clearly the work of a professional historian specialized in Irish politics. Yet, the most brilliant achievement is combining the attention to detail of the historian with a style of prose/layout that is succinct, matter-of-fact, and encyclopedic on one hand, while engaging and accessible to all general readers on the other. The author, User:Jtdirl - a specialist in Irish political history, a professional encyclopedist, and a published author of journalism, history, and fiction - exhibited each of his prodigious qualifications when putting together this article. Users of Jtdirl's caliber will consider the site worthy of their efforts when they see this article posted on the main page featured articles. 172 19:06, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Firstly, I hardly appreciate the fact that my objections have been dismissed as "extreme nitpicking." I merely noted that the article was factually incorrect, and no matter how unimportant the falsehood seems, the article remains incorrect. Furthermore, I do not doubt Jtdirl's expertise, but suggesting that his expertise is somehow conveyed to the article would be committing the logical fallacy of honor by association. So, my first objection has still not been adressed: the article still reads "Irish peers had the constant right to elect a number of fellow Irish peers as representative peers to represent Ireland in the House of Lords, ironically introducing a degree of democratic election into the British House of Lords," incorrectly. Secondly, my objection to the strewn pictures remains. I maintain both objections. -- Emsworth 17:43, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
        • This is not "honor by association." My comments were based entirely on the article, irrespective of the writer. I noted how this entry seems to make no trade off between style and substance. This came to my attention right away, as I have been chided for using technical terminology that - I've been told - renders some articles inaccessible to general readers. Then I noted that the author had the ability to strike such a balance - and I say this not on the basis of his background, but evidence of this that I've seen on Wiki. 172 05:04, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • Objections withdraw due to the changes that have been made. -- Emsworth 13:31, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. -- Kaihsu 20:43, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
  • Peerage - Partial self-nomination: several others have contributed, but I have just rewritten some parts of the article. I think that it provides a good, comprehensive consideration of the Peerage. -- Emsworth 22:44, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Second. -- Kaihsu 20:20, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
    • Although I've worked on this article some, I think Emsworth's thorough-going revision is excellent, and this'd be a good choice for featured article. john 09:59, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • U.S. Electoral College - thorough, well-written, covers both sides of debate. Minesweeper 09:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I object, on the grounds of accuracy. The article states, "The number of electors for the District of Columbia is equal to the number of senators and representatives for the least populous state (presently three)." However, DC need not necessarily have the same number of votes as the least populous state; it could have fewer votes. Amendment XXIII states that DC may appoint "A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State." This does not bar DC from having fewer electors. And even more importantly, the article does not mention that the House of Representatives, when choosing a President, votes by state. Furthermore, it is necessary that, in my opinion, the original system and the present system could be contrasted. That the House of Representatives originally voted on the top five candidates, but now votes on the top three, could be noted. It could especially delve deeper into the Jefferson-Burr election- noting that they were of the same party, that they were Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates together, how the framers did not anticipate such partisanness, how the House took 36 ballots to find a winner, the influence the Federalists had in lengthening the process- and more importantly, what exactly the flaw was in the original electoral college. -- Emsworth 21:11, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I'll withdraw this until the article is more thorough and accurate. --Minesweeper 09:24, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Lord Emsworth, could you please edit the article as you see fit so we can get this terrific article onto the Featured Articles list? Kingturtle 17:37, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • This is not what I intended when I stated the objection, but I have amended the article to my liking nonetheless. I therefore declare that I do not retain any objection to the article. -- Emsworth 19:25, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • I support this nomination. I think it is extremely well-written. Very easy to understand. And thorough. Kingturtle 19:28, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I also support this nomination. It is an excellent example of a fair and balanced presentation of a controversial topic. Mcarling 20:17, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Parthenon - very informative; good pictures. -- Emsworth 13:17, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. -- Kaihsu 23:04, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)
  • London Congestion Charge - over 20 users participated in creating this colourful article that examines both the pros and cons, both the past and future. It is a quick-read that is not dumbed down. Kingturtle 09:46, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This is already a featured article. -- Kaihsu 23:04, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)
  • Chosen people - I enjoyed reading this article very much. It seems very well-rounded and complete. -Alex S 14:33, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Donegal fiddle tradition - An excellent article, originally from Nupedia I believe, covering an unusual but interesting topic. Danny 01:10, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Socialism - Jmabel's version is the most neutral and accurate article I've read on any controversial subject at Wikipedia in the last 2 years! He should get a barnstar, too!! --Uncle Ed 15:50, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Unseconded self-nominations

  • Poetry - partial self-nomination as a lot of people have worked on this article. I think it's a good overview of a complex subject and lots of useful links at the end. Bmills 14:39, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nominations with unresolved objections

(add articles to the bottom of this section when they get their first objection)

  • Carbon
    • I object. The line about the change from diamond to graphite being so slow as to be unnoticeable is incorrect. While it is true that changing carbon from diamond to graphite is an exothermic reaction, and thus will self propigate if started, it does not occur at all at STP, as the activation energy is so high that the reaction does not begin. It's not that it's slow, it doesn't happen at all. That's the big factual error I found, but there might be more. I'll go look more closely. Gentgeen 07:07, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Objection. Needs better orginization. Currently broken up into two sections, I can see atleast two more natural divisions. Also seems to need some copyediting, but nothing specific I can put my finger on, just some tightening up is needed. Gentgeen 08:38, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Occam's Razor
    • The Numerous ways of expressing it section is a mess. Bmills 13:39, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Astronomy and astrophysics
    • Just a disamb page now. Bmills 13:39, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I believe the original nomination referred to the page now titled astronomy. The two fields of astronomy and astrophysics are often considered identical, but strictly speaking astronomy encompasses astrophysics. zandperl 05:04, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Alexander the Great
    • Some poor writing. Here's an example:
      • Alexander married several princesses of former Persian territories: Roxana of Bactria; Statira, daughter of Darius III; and Parysatis, daughter of Ochus. However his greatest emotional attachment is generally considered to have been to his companion, and possibly lover, Hephaestion. He also took as lover one of Darius' minions, the eunuch Bagoas, as Plutarch tells us. Roxana eventually gave birth to the boy Alexander IV "Aegus", putatively his son.
    • Now I know that means Alexander's son, but grammatically it could be the eunoch's. And what does "Aegus2 refer to?Bmills 13:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Object, not to English but to POV. The article minimizes his effect on India, saying that all he did was vandalize some little principalities. This would not explain the quite visible Greek influence on Indian art at the time, nor the usefulness of Alexander as an anchor in figuring out chronology in India. Also, the name Iskander spread in the Muslim world well beyond Central Asia. —Well, OK, I also take exception to the suggested some-people-think comparison to Hitler. Really, I don't like Alexander much, but I'm not aware of any genocidal madness in his case. BTW, what is the difference between a heroic empire builder and Hitler? Dandrake 03:30, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not yet good enough. An editor is needed who has read a modern biography of alexander Wetman 22:01, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Achilles
    • I find much of the writing somewhat confusing or awkward. For example, the sentence near the beginning on Homer's failure to mention Achilles's weak spot seems self-contradictory and the handling of alternative versions of storied is quite repetitive. Bmills 13:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Three Colors: Blue
    • Much of this seems to be slightly non-native English. An example:
      • "Blue" is a movie that is impossible for most anyone to fully understand with only one viewing.
    • Also missing commas, etc. Bmills 14:02, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
    • Needs TOC. The sentence So-called politically correct language stems from the belief that using (for example) sexist language tends to make one think in a sexist manner. seems just to have been thrown in. Criticisms need to include the case of people without language: can they think? Bmills 14:05, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Anarchism
    • Reads like a string of unconnected sentences in parts. Bmills 14:13, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Game theory
    • Object. I don't like the History section. It feels like it was just tacked on later, and the information would fit better if it were incorporated into the main article with the sections it talks about. Gentgeen 18:19, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Obliged to agree. The History is sketchy, and so is the treatment of non-zero-sum games. Things it would benefit from: some mention of attempts to apply GT to political strategy (Rand Corporation and its critics); analysis of whether the reduction of non- to zero-sum game is of any use. Dandrake 03:13, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Chess strategy and tactics
    • I object. Much of the article is written in the second person; I think that such sections should be converted to the third person, as doing so would make it seem less like a chess manual. Secondly, some explanations are lacking in some areas. For instance, it is suggested that "In the endgame, if there is a passed pawn which is a candidate for promotion, the rooks, both friend and foe of the pawn, belong behind the pawn rather than in front of it." The beginner, however, would not know why rooks belong behind rather than in front of a pawn. Lastly, I would recommend that in the section on doubled pawns, it be noted that doubled pawns are often accompanied by an adjacent open file, which could counter-balance the faults of the doubled pawns. But in any case, the discussion might become moot, as the idea that the article is more like a guide (in my opinion, especially due to its use of the second person), and therefore deserves to be moved to Wikibooks is being discussed. -- Lord Emsworth 02:26, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ibn Battuta
    • Object, perhaps tilting against political windmills. If you're going to explain what the hajj is, explain it in English; the English word for the relevant city is Mecca. Formally, all this requires is a global search-and-replace; in fact, most of the article looks good & does not hide its points behind unfamiliar language. Dandrake 03:37, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with this objection. Bmills 09:48, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Tank history
    • Object. As the article itself indicates, it needs vastly more on non-German history. Dandrake 04:22, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Battle of Jutland
    • Object. The prose is not brilliant, though the article is good. Needs a good deal of copy editing. Dandrake 04:23, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • second the objection. DanKeshet 21:12, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Gulliver's Travels
    • Object. A consistently gushing tone of "this is the greatest satire ever". POV of the applicability of much of the satire after 250 years needs review. E.g., the "special cant and jargon" of lawyers may refer to the survival of old legal French, not really applicable now. Dandrake 04:33, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Diamond
    • I object. Some items are not well established. For example, the last line in the Sources section is. A city of major importance in diamond trade is Antwerp, Belgium. Yet, there is no meat behind the statement. When did Antwerp become important? Why? Also, in the Symbolism section, we have, The "tradition" of diamonds as engagement rings was created by De Beers as a promotional tool, which they continue to use to this day. Contrary to popular belief, they were not used as engagement rings previous to De Beers's advertising campaign. Where are the supporting statements, what are the refrences? What were used before. In general, I think much of the history of diamonds has been left out. Gentgeen 10:08, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Chinese history
    • Object, regretfully. Needs copy editing by native English speakers. Hesitantly doing some, but people with subject-matter knowledge could do better. Dandrake 05:34, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC) In too many places the exact meaning cannot be made out, making mere copy editing impossible. Unfortunately, till the contributors who worked hard to get it this far take a renewed interest in it, it can't be made ready for prime time. Dandrake 05:50, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • History of Egypt
    • Object. This is just a pointer to the other articles in the history of egypt series. To be listed here, it should summarize them. DanKeshet 21:12, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Falkland Islands War
    • Object. Besides distractingly redundant linking, this article includes impossibly detailed information--down to exact quotes!--without one citation or attribution I can find. DanKeshet 21:35, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Protist (and related pages)
    • This article is a bit short and not too extensive. Few examples of protists are cited, though some are listed at the talk page and could be added. The prose is not particularly evocative - though of course, writing evocative prose concerning protists may be beyond the capability of the best authors. - Scooter 03:32, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • History of Levant
    • Object. This needs some better standard formatting, with an opening paragraph, a brief description of what the Levant is, and a description of the period after the rise of Islam. DanKeshet 17:52, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Cowboy Bebop - I'm rather fond of this one. About as NPOV as I can describe one of my favorite anime titles, especially one that has near universal acclaim. RadicalBender 18:47, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Unfortunatly, I object. I've never seen Bebop, so I'm only commenting on the writing, not the facts. Some of the introductuctory material needs to have a good copyedit, and the article needs to be converted to a timeless reporting style. Anything that reads as "even today" should be changed to "as of 2004", or something similar. Gentgeen 09:00, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Object currently. Facts seem good, but the start of the article does not read well, although it seems to improve as it goes. Some work on it could change my vote. --zandperl 03:39, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Anorexia nervosa
    • I find that the article reads too much like a brochure, which is probably where it came from. Hardly original in that sense. Alex.tan 19:29, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)
  • Sample chess game
    • A good writeup, but not what I would have expected from an encyclopedia. For one thing, the mistakes made are so blatant that no self-respecting decent chess player would make them. If a chess game should be featured in brilliant prose/featured articles, it should at least feature brilliant moves and tactics. Alex.tan 19:33, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)
  • Anal Sex -- a thorough, sensitive treatment of a potentially squeamish topic. Reads very well, covers all angles, is unbiased, and deserves recognition for its approach. Exploding Boy 13:04, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • a thorough, sensitive treatment of a potentially squeamish topic. - is that a bad/funny/unintentional double entendre? →Raul654 20:27, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • well if it is a double entendre it was unintentional. Actually, to be honest, I don't get it. What's so suggestive about "thorough, sensitive treatment of a potentially squeamish topic"?Exploding Boy 04:18, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. While I agree that the tone/approach is good, the actual writing is poor in places. In particular, there are points at which the absence of punctuation marks makes the reading of the article difficult and potentially obscures the meaning. Bmills 11:23, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Made some editorial changes, fixed puncuation, clarified some areas. Exploding Boy 11:57, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Approve. I agree, well written, and handles the topic well. --zandperl 03:39, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Remove my objection. Bmills 12:27, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Support, but please dont put it in the Main Page - we have to think about the children :) Muriel 13:03, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't know Helen Lovejoy read Wikipedia! Glad to meet you. Anyway, you can consider it all part of their "liberal" arts education. →Raul654 16:57, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • oppose. This was the first article I ever edited here, after having used the wiki as a reference for over a year. The reason I felt an intense need to edit (where I had not remotely felt such an inclination before) was the ovewhelming POV against female receptive anal sex. I have reduced this a great deal over time, but I still find it to be a clear problem on the page. Just this moment, I have finshed making an NPOV edit on the page, clarifying that female receptive anal sex is not only done for the purpose of birth control or vaginal virginity, but ALSO as a matter of personal preference. The article is profoundly lacking in its focus on this area, mainly due to all the POV to the contrary (it used to basically say women didn't like it). I think this article is is a long way off from brilliant prose, but perhaps with enough concentration of effort in the right areas... things can be knocked into a satisfactory condition over time ;) Sam Spade 06:59, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Reading over it again, I'd be more inclined to put a NPOV dispute header on it than add it to brilliant prose, frankly. I really don't agree with what is suggested in the "pleasure" section. Seems VERY POV to me. It doesn't take alot of pondering to get an idea of who wrote these things, and what their opinions are, which is never a good sign. Sam Spade 07:09, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I can see no reason for a POV header. Would you care to elaborate? As to your second post, who and what are you referring to? Exploding Boy 13:51, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • I likewise don't see a need for such a header, or I would have put one there, I was making a point in the process I see the article at (i.e. closer to needeing a dispute header than being brilliant prose). The comment about who wrote the article itself is directed to them ;). I assume the sorts of things I am refering to are before your time, but we can discuss them on the talk page in question, and review the page history to see who I am refering to. The what is a bias against female receptive anal sex. Sam Spade 13:58, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • History of England
    • Object. The formatting on the page is very ugly, including lots of self-references and confusing explanatory notes and distractively excessive linking. Needs better formatting into 'series' style. DanKeshet 21:26, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • I have resolved my own objections to my satisfaction, so I'm restarting the clock on this one. I hope some others take a look at it, because I don't know the subject matter that well. DanKeshet 18:35, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Object, despite the formatting now brilliant format - thanks Dan. Its a nice article, but has too many links to main articles and see alsos. As i understand brilliant prose, a brilliant article should be complete by itself. HoE is a brilliant overview not a brilliant article. Muriel 13:00, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Calvin and Hobbes - I thought this was pretty good too. Sarge Baldy 04:24, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Object, the prose and tone needs sorting in a few places. First paragraph is not npov (overly enthusiastic) and not very well phrased (that many copies of one book, or did they print many different titles?, you only find out at the bottom of the page). Also the paragraph about unauthorised tshirts reads awkwardly ("especially unauthorised"?). It's crying out for a picture of C&H, and the creator. Fair use book cover? Good in general though. fabiform | talk 10:22, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Smoking fetishism - astonishingly lucid, in particular the description of motives. <KF> 05:03, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I think the reader is being asked to take a lot on trust in this article - difficult to judge whether what is written is the author's opinion or standard fare in analysis of this field. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:30, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Crime fiction
    • Object. The original article(put on brilliant prose) has been split into three different articles because of length. The existing article needs considerable polishing to make it suitable for brilliant prose.
  • Prostitution
    • Object. The article is not comprehensive enough.
  • The Simpsons episodes, for example There's No Disgrace Like Home
    • Object. While the plot summary seems adequate and the formatting is acceptable, this entry does not provide any reason for its own existence. Is there a point to it besides telling the plot of the episode? Our articles on culture have to do more than recount the story; they should place it in context. DanKeshet
      • More interpretation is needed. The subject is what we like here. Wetman 22:01, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't understand. This is a place to list articles to feature, not subjects to feature. What am I missing? DanKeshet 22:44, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Short Sunderland - good, complete, and even has pictures. →Raul654 00:13, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Second, extremely informative article. Arwel 00:22, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. It needs a few thorough re-edits, and a little bit of parsing. Kingturtle 00:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Multiracial - The page states the main concerns of the topic and backs it up with census data for both the US and Britain. There are a few authors with contributions (including myself) ensuring a topic which could be heated is relatively NPOV. Writing style flows well. --zandperl 14:35, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. While the content isn't bad, I feel that to be a truly great article it should discuss more than just the United States and the UK. ShaneKing 04:12, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • You have two cows - funny and serious at the same time; an example of how can one create a nice article out of an apparently trivial topic. Muriel 10:06, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I've got mixed feelings on that article. Although it's technically excellent, the jokes are beyond lame. As such I'm not sure I'd want to support any sort of promotion that might make people unwittingly read it. ;) ShaneKing 13:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Some of the jokes are amusing, a couple are quite witty, and most vary from unfunny to beyond lame. A page with this many ultra-lame jokes shouldn't be on the list. I think any reasonable person would agree. Regrettably, no two people will agree on which is in which category; this makes it hard to make the page worthy by deleting the garbage. I think this is an objection. Dandrake 18:51, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • The Beatles - looks worthy to me. Sarge Baldy 00:12, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. The article falls into a timeline feel. Needs to be streamlined. Kingturtle 00:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Martin Van Buren Bates - A biography of a very tall man. And a fairly good one, or at least, so I like to think. --Delirium 10:46, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Seconded. Interesting. jengod 23:37, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. A good article. Interesting, yes. But not thorough enough. I wouldn't consider it one of the BEST we have to offer. Kingturtle 00:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Congo Free State - Superb work on a topic that strikingly overlooked and difficult to research in scholarship, especially by User:Tannin, who must've expended quite a deal of effort, given the attention to detail and sources. This article provides excellent background for anyone trying to understand the civil war in the Congo since August '98. Mobutu's post-independence "kleptocracy" is the heir to the plunder of the Congo Free State. More recently, before the July 2003 power-sharing agreement, the DRC saw much of the same, with warring parties intentionally prolonging the conflict to plunder diamonds, gold, coltan, and timber. Although refugee agencies often attribute 2.5- 3.3 million deaths - directly or indirectly - to the civil war, reliable news from Congo is still so hard to find. It's to Wiki's credit that such an easy-to-overlook topic wasn't left to languish as a stub. 172 18:07, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Not ready for Feature. Needs more editing, more wikifying...needs to be adjusted for the everyday reader to understand. Kingturtle 00:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I made some changes for the sake of accessibity and presentaion. (Nothing substantial - so this isn't a "self-nomination" by any means) Are the changes enough for you to withdraw the objection? 172 23:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nominations withdrawn by nominator

(none currently listed)

Articles nominated for removal

  • Libertarian socialism
    • I don't understand how this ever got on the list, I can't find any discussion of it. Additionally I think the very concept is fundamentalliy flawed, as well as the article tragically misinformative. Sam Spade 23:06, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Your political objection to the concept is not a reason for its removal. Secretlondon 23:12, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't recollect discussing my politics, and I can't imagine how they are relevant here. I am torn between begging the question, ad hominem or red herring as the fallacy you are committing by bringing that up. Perhaps all 3? What are you talking about? Sam Spade 23:39, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • There seems to be a misunderstanding relating to the phrase, "I think the very concept is fundamentally flawed" - perhaps you would care to clarify which concept is flawed, for the sake of removing any doubts? Emsworth
      • Its an oxymoron. Libertarianism involves the defense of private property, and other forms of personal liberty, whereas "Libertarian" socialism involves the removal of private property. It simply makes no sense to string the two words together when you can more honestly just say "socialism". I'm not at the moment contesting whether the article should exist (I can see how such an argument could validly be made however) but I am clearly stating that the article as it stands is misinformative. Also, there is the question of how it, and other articles got onto the list in the first place. Was there any discussion involved? I find no record of it. Sam Spade 23:47, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • After some more thought and research, I have placed an inclusion dispute on the page, due to its being irredeemably biased. Maybe it should be a redirect to anarchism or something, but as it stands, it serves only to misinform. Sam Spade 23:58, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Umm, the notice that's now on the page says that its inclusion in Wikipedia is disputed. Did the wrong message get picked up, or what? If anyone wants it out of Wikipedia, it belongs in VfD, not here. (If the debate really is about inclusion in Featured Articles, I'm neutral at the moment: the name clearly is oxymoronic, but it appears to describe something for which there isn't another useful name. BTW if it's heavily POV, shouldn't it be getting that disclaimer along with a debate on its Talk page?) Dandrake 19:03, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
          • The name is not oxymoronic, if you believe so, I think it may be your cultural bias. The word "libertarian", in and of itself, in no way implies capitalism. However big-L Libertarianism has created that impression in modern times, as it's become the most common usage on the Internet and in America. See the talk page for further details. I'm not supporting the article for featured article status though, as I believe it needs a counterbalancing "critics of libertarian socialism" section. ShaneKing 09:57, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
            • The name is absolutely oxymoronic. Not only that, but the article is POV, poorly written, and a red herring. It should be list on the Votes for Deletion page. Mcarling 11:50, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
              • Hear hear! Sam Spade 23:45, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
                • Actually, this goes beyond being an oxymoron. Liberty and socialism are exact opposites. This really belongs in VfD. As I live in the former Soviet Union, I trust that ShaneKing will not accuse me of a narrow American perspective. Mcarling 03:07, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
                  • Firstly, I've not accused anyone of having a narrow American perspective, I merely stated that the idea of Libertarianism being a uniquely capitalist concept is most widespread in America. Before exposure to that view on the internet, I was only aware of the term in it's dictionary usage: "an advocate of the doctrine of free will". Secondly, the claim that socialism and liberty are opposites is a POV statement, and has no place in deciding upon the text for an article. I think Scientology is a crock of shit, for example, but I will certainly not be putting that in the Scientology article, nor voting for the article's deletion on that basis. Thirdly, and I'll qualify this as saying it's entirely my POV, the former soviet union had a terrible political system. However, I'd describe it as socialist in name only, and state capitalist in actuality. If that's what you're basing your opinion of socialisism being anti-liberty, I can sympathise with where you're coming from, even though I disagree. Forthy, the fact that you feel the title is oxymoronic is neither here not there, as it's the real term used to describe the concept. I dislike certain phrases too, but I'm not campaigning to remove them from wikipedia based on my own distate. ShaneKing 07:08, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
                • Are you people serious? I won't claim that the article is "featured" quantity -- most articles aren't -- but what are these objections to the very notion??? I don't believe in the "Catholic Church" (since when has any church ever been catholic?), but there's a group that calls itself that, so we have an article on it. And there are people that call themselves "libertarian socialists" -- some quite famous -- so we have an article on that. And if that article ever gets up to "featured" quality, then we should feature it too! -- Toby Bartels 06:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
                  • Humbug. The name is a mislabeling trick for something else. I am asking on talk:Libertarian socialism where the difference betweeen this and say... communism, anarchism, etc... is. I'd be fascinated to hear what anyone can say to illuminate us. Sam Spade 11:15, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Homer Simpson
    • I can't find any evidence that this has gone through the nomination process, and don't think it is a very good article. --HappyDog 15:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Norse Mythology
    • This article is confusing, rambling, inconsistent and inaccurate. Haukurth 23:40, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. -- Emsworth 01:05, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=2434106"