Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fabiform (talk | contribs) at 23:30, 14 March 2004 (withdrawing objection to soap bubble). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The purpose of this page is to determine which pages can be listed on Wikipedia:Featured articles.

Anyone can add approved candidates to Wikipedia:Featured articles and archive candidates with objections. You can join the Wikipedia:Cleaning department to help maintain this page on a regular basis.

A featured article should be comprehensive, factually accurate and well-written. Please read Wikipedia:How to write a great article and Wikipedia:The perfect article to see how high the bar can be set.

  • Be an example of Wikipedia's very best work, and, ideally, example of what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.
  • Have a lead which is not too long, but concisely summarizes the entire topic. See: Wikipedia:Lead section
  • Include images, pictures, maps and diagrams, where appropriate.
  • Comply with the standards set by any relevant WikiProjects. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject
  • Be well-written English, even "brilliant prose"--the former name for featured articles.
  • Be copy-edited before submission and meet the standards of Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
  • Not be the subject of ongoing neutrality disputes or edit wars.
  • Include subheads and have a substantial, but not overwhelming, table of contents.

Some people feel that every featured article should have a certain length, and if not enough can be said about the article's subject to reach that length, it should in most cases be merged into another article. An article does not need to have a picture to be featured, but if you have some idea for a 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), please do tell us about it.

Procedure for addition

Anyone can nominate an article to be featured, a nomination article needs to be seconded by at least two persons who were not significantly involved in the article's creation. If you second an article, you thereby confirm that you have read it in full. Do not second articles which you do not want to read. If you nominate an article you have written yourself, please say so upfront.

The discussion period is one week. If, after that time, there are the required two supporters or more, and there are no objections, an article can be added to Wikipedia:Featured articles. If there are objections, they have to be worked out, until a nearly unanimous consensus is reached. If the article with objections remains listed here for more than a month, the nomination will be archived in Wikipedia:Feature candidates/Archived nominations. Feel free to re-nominate it when you think the problem has been resolved.

Be sure to sign (with date/time) your nomination ("~~~~" in the editor). If a nomination, comment, or objection is not signed and dated, 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:

CODE: {{msg:featnotice}}

RESULT: Template:Featnotice

A link to the article should be added in the proper category on Wikipedia:Featured articles and the discussion archived in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log.

Procedure for removal

If you are certain that an article should not be featured, just go ahead and remove it from Wikipedia:Featured articles and add it to #Recent removals and proposals for removal together with your reasons to remove it. Please be especially careful here to respect Wikiquette and be as comrephensive as you can in explaining your reasons. If you are not really sure if the article should be removed, ask first - in the same section - and try to find a consensus.

Removals are archived in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Removal log.

Nominations without objections

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

Voynich Manuscript

I and several others have worked on this one: it's been recently overhauled by Jorge Stolfi, and it strikes me that it's shaping up nicely. Smerdis of Tlön 17:01, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Carl Sagan

I've polished it up a little, it seems fairly comprehensive and well-written to me. Note that I've done some earlier work on this article as well.—Eloquence 18:26, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Although, it might be wise to mention that he was a noted author earlier in the article, probably the intro. -- Stewart Adcock 21:50, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article. Luis Dantas 02:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Space elevator

Might need a picture or two, but covers the topic well. - Fredrik 01:43, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Object. Lead section way too short. That section needs to act as a concise encyclopedia article in its own right. --mav 07:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I expanded it a bit myself. Better? Fredrik 09:09, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes - much better. I withdraw my objection based on that point. I'll look at the rest of the article later to see if I should add my approval. --mav
I'll add my support to this one, although if someone could get permission to get a picture for use, it'd be all the better. There've been enough proposals done for the space elevator, at least *one* of the design images should be in the public domain.  :) UPDATE: I just emailed Liftport to ask for permission to use one of their conceptual drawings or renderings. UPDATE: We got permission. I posted some to the article.  :) Rei
Beautiful :) Fredrik 23:54, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Full support - very comprehensive, well-researched and well-written. A masterful example of how a highly technical and nerdy topic can be explained in a way that people without scientific backgrounds can be made to both understand and be interested in the subject. Great work! --mav 21:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius

About a famous short story by Jorge Luis Borges that makes an enormous number of references to non-fictional individuals, many not well known in the English-speaking world. I believe that this article is the first good English-language guide for the perplexed. I didn't write all of it, but at this point it is mostly my work. -- Jmabel 05:08, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Lovely article (hence I'm moving this out of self-noms to uncontested). Jmabel, would you mind having a look at my copyedit? In the spirit of being bold, I corrected what looked to me like obvious errors but given the subject matter I can't be entirely sure (especially inside quotes from the story). --Bth 10:08, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I am not supporting or opposing this one yet. I think it has potential, but it needs a lot of copyedits. Kingturtle 04:50, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Following some suggestions by Kingturtle, I've kept strengthening this. I'd appreciate a few more people weighing in, either to endorse as a Feature or to let me know how they'd like to see it improved. -- Jmabel 07:34, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • This article has gone through some substantial edits. The article is more clear (as clear as such a topic can be). I endorse it now. But it would be helpful for others to give it the once-over. Kingturtle 19:33, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Labor market

Well written example of an economics article. Jrincayc 18:35, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • I would second that, but I dont know if I am allowed to seeing as I contributed to the article. Just one minor thing, both the English and the American spellings of labour/labor are used. I dont know if this is a problem.mydogategodshat 23:17, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Not opposing or supporting yet. Someone needs to edit out the royal we bits. I think it happens about 7 times. Kingturtle 04:55, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I have eliminated all the "we's" I found, and fixed the spelling inconsistancy. mydogategodshat 05:23, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't like to criticize someone's work, but I find the graphs hard to read. The lines are all too thick and too soft, and the text on several is impossible to read. That said, the content is very informative. Isomorphic 07:43, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I've redrawn the graphs, they're not as colorful, but the lines are thinner and the text darker. fabiform | talk 03:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks a lot. Much easier to read the graphs now (at least for me.) Isomorphic 04:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Carlsbad Caverns National Park

Nominated by Bevo 03:08, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. After reading the article I still have no idea where it is located. -- Kaihsu 18:17, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
    • Several days ago I added a small state map of NM that highlights the approximate location. Bevo 02:35, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I have to say that when I read it there was no location information. (See history of that page) -- Kaihsu 08:30, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)
    • Objection withdrawn, but not a vote in support. -- Kaihsu 11:39, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)
  • I really think a map with a dot (ideally on a topographical map, since this is about a geographical feature) showing the exact location is called for, not just highlighting the county. Other questions remain unanswered: What are the altitudes of the highest/lowest points? If it's "one of the largest" cave complexes, what are its competitors? What fraction of it is publicly accessible? (Aren't there any bats living in the public areas? There usually are in the caves I've visited before...but the article says that their "darkened homes are only visible to scientific researchers".) Steven G. Johnson 07:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Approve. "Southeastern New Mexico" is a very good description of its location (there are hardly any people in this region, so you can't miss it if you simply drive! Just follow the other cars and you will get there. It's not like California, where there are millions of competing stories). Ancheta Wis 02:23, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Approve. I just gave it a nice edit. I did, however, remove much of the Mexican Freetail Bat details. That should be its own article....maybe someday a FEATURE article? :) Kingturtle 19:43, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Not an objection, but I would like to see a national park table (see Yellowstone National Park). Come to think of it, complying to relevant WikiProjects may be a good criteria for being a featured article. --mav 11:30, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, a table like the one in Yellowstone National Park would make a great addition to the article. In fact, I'm not ready to withdraw this one from nomination, but that Yellowstone article is a much better article overall than this one, at this time. I suppose one side-effect of this nomination process is to get ideas on how an article can be approved, even if it never makes it to the FA list. - Bevo 19:02, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I added a LocMap that I created from the template image at Image:Map of USA.png. It would be nice now to get it and the stats into a table format like Yellowstone National Park. - Bevo 20:27, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Please make one - I see from the rules above that a basic criteria for being featured is conformance to relevant WikiProjects. --mav

Soap bubble

Very nicely written, in every prespective a soap bubble has. You'll be surprised. Muriel 21:21, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Wow. That is a great piece of writing. Kingturtle 04:53, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this is good. moink 05:29, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: Beautiful topic, content, and execution. --zandperl 21:23, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Being able to make science easily understandable is a rare gift. (I do find it ironic however that this article could just of easily be put on VFD by people claiming it is mostly a "How to" or claiming the subject matter is "unimportant"). mydogategodshat 17:42, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow! Very nice and informative. --mav 02:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, for now. The structure is a bit chaotic, largely due to heading overkill. Reduce number of section headings, move some isolated sections like "Frozen soap bubbles" into larger ones. "No-tear" recipe may need some elaboration. "Usage" top section is not really necessary. "Soap bubbles and maths" is not usage.—Eloquence 02:47, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • I tried to reduce sections and moved the freezing to physics. Is it OK now? Pleaseplease, this is such a nice article... Muriel 20:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry, no. I've done some work on it, but it's still a mess, especially the whole "interference" section, which also contains a broken sentence: "The ray of light reflected off the inner side of the wall travels slightly longer, so that, when the two waves become slightly out of sync, thus causing interference." I presume it can be fixed by removing the part ", when", but I am not sure. This section would be greatly helped by an actual illustration of the reflection of a light ray in a soap bubble, perhaps Theresa Knott could help with that. The structure is still messy. Mathematical theories related to soap bubbles do not belong under a "Usage" section. The "Frozen" section is still isolated. The last sentence of the "Bubble blower" section is ugly. Frankly, why did this get nominated? It may be a cute topic, but I see nothing here which stands out. Not the writing, not the structure, not the images (no caption for the merge image, btw).—Eloquence 00:02, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
        • This was nominated because i think is worth of Featured Articles. You may not agree and you actually dont. You explain your reasons and attempt your own corrections. Thats wonderful of you. Whats not wonderful of you is question why is this nominated, like the article was some sort of crap. From the supports i think its quite obvious that is not. Muriel 10:14, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Eloquence: I think your comments requesting more information on the interference should be addressed on the interference page, not the soap bubble page. --zandperl 01:04, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I agree with zandperl, I think this should not give too much detail about interference. Also, I tried to clarify how soap bubbles are used for maths, and tried to fix the broken sentence.it 01:46, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I agree with Eloquence, the structure of the article is still poor. And it really would benefit from a diagram showing light being refracted. fabiform | talk 03:58, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I've added in some diagrams, along with an explanation. See what you think. theresa knott 15:16, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I've done some further work and withdraw my objection. Theresa's disagrams are great. I'd like to see a bit more on the history of soap bubbles, though.—Eloquence
  • I was someone who liked the article, but wasn't ready to vote for or against it. I'm still not making any vote, but I'm happy to see it improved :) Good work! Sam Spade 18:55, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this is one of the most interesting articles in the entire wikipedia. -- Stewart Adcock 21:39, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but more could be done. I don't think the explanation of the role of soap in building better bubbles—specifically the remark that "It is so hard to make bubbles with clear water because the surface tension of water is actually too high, causing the bubble to pop instantly"—is not quite right. (Stop being so lazy, Dan, walk ten feet to your bookshelf) Hmmm... Isenberg... flip, flip, yep, it's a feedback effect that stabilizes the film because the, um, amphipathic ions decrease in concentration as the soap film stretches which raises the surface tension and brings it back. Dpbsmith 00:37, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellently, clearly and engagingly written. Extra points for the bubble recipes. Exploding Boy 02:38, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • I withdraw my objection . No vote. fabiform | talk 23:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nominations with unresolved objections

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

Chinatown

Good stuff, this. I'm putting it under self [when self-nominations and others were still separate - —Eloquence] because I've copy edited it a bit, but it's a very well-done piece. jengod 06:35, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Next to nothing on European ones. -- Kaihsu 20:30, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
  • Support. Content on the European Chinatowns has since been added. --Jiang 01:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • While it's a good article and fairly complete, there are still some omissions, for example there's nothing on Chinatowns in Asia, and some of the information (on Vancouver's Chinatown) is a little out of date. I think it's an incredible start, but could use a little more fleshing out. Exploding Boy 02:55, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Buddhism

One of the best Wikipedia articles I have seen. Very comprehensive, and NPOV (which is something extremely important in religious articles) Ludraman 19:14, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Not opposed, I like the article, but I think it would benefit from at least a couple of images. Bkonrad 21:07, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I second that, and I haven't even looked at the article. Buddhism (particularly for outsiders) is recognized particularly by its many images of Buddha. Sam Spade 01:51, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    I'm not disagreeing with ye, but it has a picture of the Buddha, what other pictures would you have? Ludraman | Talk 10:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Indeed a very comprehensive and balanced article, better than many books on the market. Luis Dantas 02:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Reluctant. While it looks comprehensive I still find it a bit rough, and patchy. Most of the grossly pov stuff was been weeded out recently, but it could do with some work. I think we should wait. mahābāla 12:55, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks really good, if somewhat too extensive and maybe too academic on details. A good NPOV writing. Revth 06:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • YEA. Because of its emphasis on psychology and philosophy, this religious article has proved to be as unbiased as a religious article could be. Usedbook 20:16, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • This article is not yet ready. Kingturtle 19:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

DOOM

Fredrik and I have put a lot of work into revamping this article lately, and though we're not quite finished yet, I think it's pretty damn good as it is right now. Any feedback on it would definitely be appreciated. Sarge Baldy 09:38, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Meh. Support probably - its a fairly good article but couldn't it be longer? Ludraman | Talk 10:16, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hrm, well, I think this nomination should wait a few days so the remaining work can be done first ;) Fredrik 18:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
As Fredrik explained, this article is not yet ready. Kingturtle 19:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

11 M

I just read in a comment, that there are several wikipedians from Madrid and we really don't know the fate of at least one of the regulars since the day before these events. Another admin wrote that he usually takes the train to go to the university but he didn't yesterday because of a strike. As this tragedy has touched the wikipedia community deeply and closely, I suggest that we make the March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks the featured article and use the Spanish flag with the black ribbon (es:Imagen:Madrid_pesame.png), de:Benutzer:Triebtäter

  • Oppose. I understand why you've made this request, but I don't think that this article should be given "featued status" yet. It's shaping up into a wonderful article, but it is still changing every day, hour to hour, and I think it shouldn't be made a featured article until it has had a chance to stabalise. It is currently linked from the main page in the "in the news" section. Perhaps we could make this more obvious by changing the picture in this section to the Spanish flag and black ribbon, as you suggest? fabiform | talk 22:04, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • As far as I get news from Madrid, the attacks shattered thewhole country. Coloured ribbons recently have become an international symbol for solidarity. So I think it is a good idea to have the same memorial feature as the Spanish Wikipedia has. | 217.231.218.28 22:12, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • For everyone's info, the image in question has been uploaded to En as Flag spain black ribbon.png (not by me). Garrett Albright 09:16, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Good comprehensive page. Ludraman 10:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Unsure. It's a fine article, but could it not appear a bit conceited to the external user to be featuring an article on ourselves? -- Kwekubo 00:45, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This article doesn't seem encyclopedic enough to me; it reads a bit like a user guide in places. The "history" section is just one sentence and a link to the full article. It feels like it focuses too much on the English wikipedia, it doesn't say how many other languages it exists in, or what the top five most popular wikipedias are for example. I tried to imagine this page being exported to another encyclopedia, and it didn't feel right... I think the focus of the article needs to be better defined... is this article about the document we are creating, or the community that creates it? Why are we creating this encyclopedia, what gap does it fill? Where's the mention of the printed and cd rom editions? fabiform | talk 03:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I also feel the article can stand to be improved. Sam Spade 09:21, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cultural Revolution

Colipon 05:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The great Leap Forward section is too long and should be made more direct and concise. The entire article needs some copyediting to correct stylistic inadequacies: "purging actions" should be purges, etc. --Jiang 19:41, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rainbow flag

Or does it need more work? -- Kimiko 22:47, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Lots of info, but some of the sentences are awkward and could be tweaked for legibility. Example: "The flag, composed of the major colors of the rainbow, which is used to symbolize the cause of gay pride and gay rights, originated in the United States and is now seen around the world." could be "The flag is composed of the major colors of the rainbow; these colors symbolize gay pride and gay rights. It originated in the United States, but is now seen around the world." Garrett Albright 00:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Donald Duck

A lengthy and well-written article, in my opinion. Samuelsen 11:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Very good article, but shouldn't be featured until it has more pictures.Ludraman 08:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • History should be summarized and/or condensed and split off to get the article below 30KB. --mav

Shell game

Very well done, and even includes a picture →Raul654 03:27, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

  • This is not a vote. This is a question. Should Shell game and Three card monte be merged? Or are they completely different games? Kingturtle 20:10, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • They're similiar, but not the same. One uses cards, while the other uses shells (or cups, et al). They are always called by different names →Raul654 21:05, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • They are similar. and more work should be done discussing their similarities and difference. Kingturtle 04:45, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I maintain that this article is not yet ready, because of duplication issues with Three card monte. Kingturtle 03:17, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Do we "second" these? If so, I will. Nice article. I have to admit it's the Hieronymous Bosch picture that "makes" the article for me. I wish there were a more detailed description of the sleight-of-hand move. Dpbsmith 01:27, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why does this keep getting moved to the "unresolved objections" list? My own comment was certainly intended as support. Is any suggestion for possible improvement considered an objection? ("On my ship, excellence is the standard"--Captain Queeg in The Caine Mutiny)
Kingturtle has objected, I moved it down once because I thought "more work should be done" was an objection, Kingturtle moved it back down when it was put back in no objections and clarified that "I maintain that this article is not yet ready...". fabiform | talk 16:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Venice

I thought this article was a good candidate. (I've had nothing to do with writing it.) -- Walt Pohl 04:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kinda stubish for such an important city. Huge holes in the history, for example. --mav 06:42, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem

The riddle is intriguing and the article is very well written. Fredrik 09:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree. Dpbsmith 21:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. Zashaw 03:42, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Needs a better lead section. All I get from reading the lead section is that it is a riddle. --mav 06:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Not disagreeing with this, but please see the comment I'm about to put on the Talk page. Dandrake 23:09, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm pretty confused. In the assumptions section it discusses the idea that Monty might not offer the player a chance to switch, or he might open a winning door. I've never seen this program, did he ever do either of these things? How come the second contestant isn't even mentioned until near the bottom. Did they really use live goats in the show (I'm trying to picture this!)? Can the "what actually happened in the show" and "analysing the problem with probability theory and various modifications" aspects be more clearly separated? And how about a few diagrams? I kept losing track of where we were assuming the blooming goats were. fabiform | talk 16:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Support now, there's been quite a lot of reorganising. fabiform | talk 19:15, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The explanations simply do not explain well enough. They are not wrong; they just leave too much to be worked out by the reader. I think the article needs a work party, for which I'll volunteer if I can. Dandrake 22:53, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. A fascinating article with lots of good information, but too disorganised. Needs a solid re-write so that it flows better. (In particular, the discussion of variations on the problem should not come imediately after the intro - this is very confusing. Tannin 23:27, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989

A lengthy, NPOV and well-written article on a controversial issue. Ambivalenthysteria 07:34, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Need to be wikified. Colipon 16:50, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Otherwise good. Fredrik 17:33, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Can you give me an example of where this needs to happen? I didn't write the article, but if you can point me in the right direction, I'll fix it up anyway. Ambivalenthysteria 06:54, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't see how it needs to be wikified. there are enough links. --Jiang 09:19, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A few sections would also be nice. --mav 06:25, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good, but I agree sections would help. Markalexander100 08:02, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Beer

Extensive and extremly informative. →Raul654 19:27, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object - it needs a good lead section that can act as a concise article in its own right (news style). This would also make it possible to have this item on the Featured article part of the Main Page. --mav 02:36, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I stronly disagree with both Mav's assertion and his reasons. I don't see any reason we couldn't put beer on the main page, and (more importantly) I don't think we should censor featured articles candidates based on whether they can be featured on the main page or not. →Raul654 21:57, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • Qualifying for listing on the Main Page is not my major point. My point is in regards to organizing information so that it is most useful to readers. Some readers want a concise article on the topic - not just a definition. Expanding the lead section into a miniature article (a concise article) makes the entire Wikipedia article more useful. --mav
  • Support. Well written, lots of info, and it does too have a good intro section. Couldn't fit more than two senetences on the Main Page anyway. --zandperl 01:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. In my view, the more concise the intro, the better. -- Stewart Adcock 21:36, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • That is reader unfriendly. Some people don't want to read a long article to get the basics. Best to summarize the major points and then give readers a choice. See news style. --mav
    • I detest the news style. It means that you have to read everything twice - once in an over-concise form and once in an over-verbose form. It is much better to write an article and then provide a short summary at the top so the reader (a) knows it covers the right topic (b) gets hooked. Besides, wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, not a news source. Just my 2 cents. Stewart Adcock 22:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • The lead section should be a summary that grabs people. That summary should address the major and most important points in an article. Since those points are so important, they bear repeating and being expanded upon later in the article. This helps solidify the major and most important concepts to the reader. Other readers could just opt to read the lead section to get the basics. In short, Wikipedia news style gives readers a choice about how much detail they are willing to read through to get the information they need. It is highly useful. This set-up also lets Wikipedia be a concise and general encyclopedia along with being an interconnected set of specialized encyclopedias. Such specialized encyclopedias normally require special background knowledge to understand articles. But a good lead section should be understandable by just about anybody. --mav
        • I have beefed up the introduction with an additional two sentences. I think that should do it. →Raul654 09:31, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
            • Thanks - that is enough for me to withdraw my objection. The lead section can be expanded more later. -- mav
  • Added Japan section and offer my support. Revth 06:32, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Leopold and Loeb

Easy to read. thorough. educational. an understanding of darrow. Kingturtle 19:31, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • My only concern is that it reads a little too polished. If this is original writing, then by all means let's put in the list. -- llywrch 20:39, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I get the same impression myself. Look at the original edit - looks a little too good for a first draft. →Raul654 21:50, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Sixto Nolasco

Self-nominated by Antonio Sex Addict Martin 2:21, 2004 Feb 29

  • Photo? This is a photographer, yes? ;) Sam Spade 01:01, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • He's better known for his make-up and fashion work with stars than his photography. Antonio Rat Martin
  • well, can we see a pic of a model he made up or some such? I really like pics, and this article seems to have use for one. Sam Spade 02:37, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I too would support this article if it had a pic of a beautiful woman wearing little or no clothes ;) - anon
    • Here here! Sam Spade 20:11, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ROC presidential election, 2004

Self-nominated by Kaihsu 20:36, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I would like to see this promoted, but I think the organization needs some help. I tried to add subheads, but left stuff that didn't quite fit or would belong in mutiple sections into "other developments". --Jiang 06:19, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks great but against it as vote is not yet done. I don't mind to having this article nominated again after results are in.Revth 15:02, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Good call. Let's keep the article a candidate until the candidate becomes elected. -- Kaihsu 17:24, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)

DXM

This is largely my article, I added info on dosages, safety issues, expected effects... it may be somewhat pro-dex POV, but I've tried to work around that... Pakaran. 23:28, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • mildly object. This article is slightly POV, lacks structure and might be a little cryptic for the "uninitiated". Some diagrams might prove helpful as well. Kpjas 08:14, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)\
    • I'll upload a molecule pic if I can find one that's not copyrighted. I'm aware of the pro-DXM POV in the article, and that needs work. Pakaran. 19:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This article has a lot of authoratative-sounding detail, but needs more of an introduction up front, and more focus throughout the article. I wasn't clear on what I was going to get from this article, and there seemed to be all sorts of random information that gets increasingly detailed (like the actual patent number) to the point of sounding like rambling. To be a featured article, I think DXM would at least need (1) someone to think about what is the significance of DXM and how this is covered in the article, and write an introduction that concisely summarizes this and guides the reader to the relevant parts, and (2) impose more organization on the article to sequester the highly detailed parts out of the main flow. Zashaw 03:42, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Graham scan

Self-nominated by Timwi 17:28, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Way too short for a featured article. --mav 20:18, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Contains subtle errors. I'll fix them when find some time for what I really know. :-) -- Mikkalai 08:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

S2

Self-nominated by Timwi 17:28, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. There is nothing particularly wrong, or bad, about this article but it covers a very esoteric subject and doesn't ooze brilliance. If it was of more general interest then I might support it but, as it is, I don't think we should dilute the list of featured articles with things like this. -- Stewart Adcock 21:45, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Buckinghamshire

Article on the county in England mainly developed to its current state by myself. I believe it's a good model for other county articles to copy. I finally decided to list it here because I've managed to find some artwork to display alongside Morwen's marvellous maps. Graham  :) 00:04, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Wow, that is tremendously comprehensive. Is it too comprehensive? Kingturtle 05:03, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Well there's nothing there that you won't find on any of the other county articles, except due to my local knowledge there is every single place in the county. I think it would be a travesty to not include those, but I suppose what you could do is to move the full list to a separate article and just have the key places in the main Buckinghamshire article. -- Graham  :) 16:00, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it's great, there's a lovely sense of politics and geography shaping the county. I will second it if we can break the long list of places off onto its own page. I think a list of (say 20?) principle towns/cities should remain on this article (you'll need to pick them, I have no idea!), and there can be a link to the entire list of cities/towns/villages in Bucks. How does that sound? fabiform | talk 18:58, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • How is it now? -- Graham  :) 21:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Excellent work. Still, it seems too much. Maybe Famous people from Bucks should be List of people from Buckinghamshire, and Towns in Buckinghamshire should be List of towns in Buckinghamshire? Maybe? What do you think? Kingturtle 22:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • No I disagree, and I quite like fabiform's edits making the lists into two columns. -- Graham  :) 23:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm happy with it now. The famous people seem fine on the main article to me. I've just tweaked the two lists of places so there's less white space. Anyway, I second this article now.  :) fabiform | talk 22:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


A few acres of snow

A succinct accurate correction of a general misperception, perfectly formed— since it concerns Voltaire— shows that a juicy brief article is recommendable too. Wetman 20:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Objection withdrawn. jengod 23:26, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for making the point, though -- I added several external references as a result of your concern. Bearcat 23:29, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
an Objection.
The quotation
"Vous savez que ces deux nations sont en guerre pour quelques arpents de neige vers le Canada, et qu'elles dépensent pour cette belle guerre beaucoup plus que tout le Canada ne vaut" does not necessarily lead to the conclusion Thus, there is simply no way Voltaire could dismiss New France as merely a few acres of snow, as the territory was too vast and too diverse in climate to fit the definition.
cette belle guerre has the conotation of this little war, a conflict, or the ironic sense of a "lovely war". This statement in Candide follows immediately after a duscussion as to whether the English or the French are the greater madmen. Beaucoup plus means much more and the sense of plus qu'il (tout le Canada) ne vaut is in the sense of il ne vaut rien - it ain't worht nothin', to put it in the vernacular. "le Canada" = "the middle of nowhere". It is perfectly reasonable to imply from this exchange of dialogue in a novel, particularly in the context of a description of the combatants as madmen, that Voltaire may well be of the view that, never mind that little patch that the combattants are fighting over, its not even worth the whole of that worthless back woods down as far as Louisiana. Although I agree that the quote may often be truncated, the weight of usage and opinion, as well as the actual context is against the conclusion of the author. It is an interesting take on it but Voltaire was concerned with the "Salon" not the back woods. A more balanced approach to the text and the context would get my vote. Benji Franklyn
These questions of whether Voltaire was right or wrong or lacked NPOV are for an essay. An encyclopedia entry is a report, not an opportunity for us to pass judgment on Voltaire's assessment of Canada and claim the "weight of usage and opinion.". The entry is succinct and self-explanatory. Wetman 05:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The weight of usage and opinion is that Canada is the few acres of snow, which is flat-out wrong regardless of what other opinions of Canada are or are not reflected in Voltaire's words. My entry doesn't claim that Voltaire had a particularly high opinion of Canada -- only that whatever his opinion was, quelques arpents de neige isn't it. Bearcat 05:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I object. While this is a very well written article, I don't think its scope is broad enough to become a "Featured article". While it might be interesting for Canadians, fans of Voltaire, or people interested in how misquotes (alternate, inaccurate memes) are often spread faster than real quotes, it isn't the kind of article that encompasses a topic of any real breadth, IMHO. Gaurav 19:09, 9 Mar 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)
    • I spent an hour or so wikifying and performing small edits. I also listed some comments and questions on the talk page of the article. We need to get some other opinions and editors involved. I still don't think it is ready. Kingturtle 10:54, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • No one has worked on this since my Feb 21 comments. Please see my comments and questions on the talk page of the article. Kingturtle 05:04, 6 Mar 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)

  • The language of the article, particularly the informal tone, the passive voice, and the many generalizations ("Marxists would...") is getting in the way of me understanding the content of the article. DanKeshet 20:32, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Content: If I think it's reasonable and Uncle Ed doesn't think it's left-wing POV, it must be well done. Style: If it could use improvement, it's not something I'll put on List of articles that dandrake slammed for not being in good enough English. It has some things we've been warned against as weasel-words, but I think the references to other articles cover the ground. Another reason for support: unlike other pages with sub-standard style, it has a lively Talk page, and it appears that any questions about its language will be seen and addressed if raised there. Dandrake 19:16, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Why don't we leave it here for a little while (say until the end of the month). Give me a chance to edit the language I find inappropriate or confusing. You can see the starts of my edits on its history now. DanKeshet 23:42, Feb 21, 2004 (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)
  • Object. I was utterly confused by the tenses, does this canal still exist today, if so is it used? E.g in the first line "The Erie Canal was a canal in New York State, United States, that runs from the Hudson River to Lake Erie, connecting the Great Lakes with the Atlantic Ocean." The English is spotty, strangely informal in places and unclear in others. I was left hanging a number of times: e.g. construction started in 1817 and finished in 1825, so we cannot say that 1000 workers died due to maleria (no date) and that they did the swamp section when it froze in the winter (which winter?). I added some metric convertions, but wasn't sure what tons (or even "tones") were referring to. It needs a map of the route of the canal, I was hopelessly lost since I know nothing about the geography of NYS, and a specific map showing the movement of population and goods would be fantastic. This article seems important and worth improving, its influence on American history was fascinating (if not always clearly expressed). fabiform | talk 12:00, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • In the Erie Canal area, there are freezes every winter, so any is a candidate for doing the swamp work, but nonetheless it would be nice to know just which winter. The Canal is still in use (as, I think, the NYS Barge Canal. As for malaria, I was surprised to learn that it was an issue that far north. Is this accurate? ww 14:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Quebec French

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)
  • Support (except as Quebec French) -- Stewart Adcock 21:00, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It still needs work. The English reads like a translation in places, and in others, frankly makes no sense to me: (e.g. this one-sentence paragraph) "This is due to the long history of French in Canada, the fact that the 16th and 17th century French immigrants to Canada were largely from areas outside Paris, and the strong influence of the French spoken by the King's Daughters who were of little bourgeois class from the Paris area (Ile-de-France) and Normandy." I also spotted some untranslated French, and felt a bit confused by some explanations which rested solely on comparisons to American culture. fabiform | talk 12:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Some edits made to address this. 67.68.254.41 05:19, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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)

  • Disagree. Reads like a rant in places. Needs a bit of work. -- Arvindn 08:30, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I second this. The second paragraph of the intro, for example, is clearly editorial. Various other statements strike me as improper in tone or insufficiently supported (random sampling: "There is some tension between the two lexigraphic schools" ... "Which in turn gave government crypto organizations worldwide a severe case of heartburn" ... "At the time this sentence was written, each of the references listed in books on cryptography is reliable. Mostly.") Moreover, the article is fairly long, and information on many of the key concepts (e.g. public keys, zero-knowledge authentication, etcetera) is buried in the discussion of the history. Like any other mathematical topic, I would suggest that the current state of knowledge be summarized separately from how it got there. Steven G. Johnson 06:51, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Arvindn -- The article has been pretty stable for some time save for some organizational rearrangments. Those who have done minor typo fixes and such have included some crypto well informed folk. Can you suggest some of the work to be done in your view? ww 17:29, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I have made substantial edits to the article resolving the majority of my objections about the tone and my vote is now neutral. -- Arvindn 18:32, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Major changes have been made to the article both in content and intended coverage. As a result I have withdrawn my nomination of it until the situation clarifies. See Talk:Cryptography. ww 16:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Critical theory

Nominated by 172 22:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Not yet ready for primetime. -- Kaihsu 08:32, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)
    • You're probably right, given that it's so brief. But its quality stands out in that Wikipedia is weak when it comes to subject matter like this. 172 00:11, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Green politics

Nominated by Kaihsu 14:59, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

  • This article constists mostly of bullet points. That is not beautiful prose. The article is informative, but is too basic. Kingturtle 18:30, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This article has not been touched since my comments on 29 Feb. Please work on this article if you want it to become a feature. Kingturtle 05:07, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Green movement

Nominated by Kaihsu 14:59, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

  • Not ready to be featured. What it lacks, and must have are: 1) History of the movement. Where did it start in various places around the globe? 2) Who were the important invidividuals to get the movements going, and how did they do it? 3) Where does and has the green movement have the most clout in the world? 4) As far as specifics, it really only mentions the U.S. Green Party, and the 2000 election...which is one of the weakest of Green Parties and IMHO the least Green of them all. Kingturtle 18:37, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This article has not been touched since my comments on 29 Feb. Please work on this article if you want it to become a feature. Kingturtle 05:07, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jürgen Habermas

Nominated by 172 22:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. The discussion of Habermas' philosophy is mostly jargon, & I am left with no clear sense what his actual philosophy is, or how it might be different from, say, Noam Chomsky. -- llywrch 19:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, there's something wrong with your reading skills, not the article. 172 00:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • 1.I find your comment offensive & insulting, 172.
      • 2.If a writer cannot explain an abstract idea in plain English, then it is my opinion that the writer does not understand that idea, & is falling back on jargon to hide in a fog of ambiguity. -- llywrch 01:15, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, I get lost reading about nuclear physics, but I don't dismiss the subject as meaningless and what I read as "jargon." I'm sorry to tell you, but the world's complex. 172 01:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • Explaining what is complex in clear & simple language is what makes an article worth praising. (That is what makes some popular accounts of physics and mathematics valuable, & others worhtless.) Consider Plato's Allegory of the Cave, or Wittgenstein's explanantion of his thoery of "language-games"; these explain very complex ideas in simple language. I would be happy to explain my problems with this article in detail at the Talk: page. -- llywrch 21:08, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • LOL! Now now.... I think readability is a factor deserving scrutiny. Perhaps a simplified synopsis would be an acceptable addition? It is true that a good many of our readers do not have english as a first langauge, and may benefit from a simple overview. Sam Spade 01:17, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • We don't have to be dumbed-down. Nevertheless the first sentence of the article reads "Jürgen Habermas (born 18 June 1929 in Düsseldorf, Germany) is a philosopher and social theorist in the tradition of critical theory who has integrated into a comprehensive framework of social theory and philosophy the German philosophical thought of Kant, Schelling, Hegel, Dilthey, Husserl, and Gadamer, the Marxian tradition -- both the theory of Marx himself as well as the critical neo-Marxian theory of the Frankfurt School, i.e. Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse --, the sociological theories of Weber, Durkheim, and Mead, the linguistic philosophy and speech act theories of Wittgenstein, Austin, and Searle, the American pragamatist tradition of Peirce and Dewey, and the sociological systems theory of Parsons." ..so I guess it is not totally unreasonable to accuse the article creators of intellectual masturbation. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:06, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • ..so I guess it is not totally unreasonable to accuse you of being ignorant. There's nothing wrong with this; we're all ignorant. For example, I wouldn't touch an article on, e.g., biology or software engineering. But when I come across something related to these subjects using terms with which I'm unfamiliar, I first assume that my ignorance is the problem, not the article. But if I'm wrong and you do know something about this subject, then I challenge you to write a better intro on your own. 172 14:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • Ignorant, yes indeed. There's the problem: people who are ignorant of the material we're writing about. As we computer geeks like to say, "If the customers can't understand our program, go find a better class of customer." Of course, we're joking; if we don't like the company's market, we need to find a different company in a different market. In point of fact, if you find a sentence as ponderous as that intro in any biology or programming article, you should complain! And get it out of FA if it's on the list, and if nobody fixes it. This applies whether or not you can make out the structure and meaning of the sentence, as I can without any large effort in the Habermas article. A sentence or an article is not good—not the sort of thing one wants to advertise—simply because the sufficiently clever reader can figure out what it means. If you don't want to change anything in the article, go ahead; just don't expect the article to be featured. By the way, though Habermas is no doubt a fine fellow, this encomium would appear to be so completely POV that it can't be featured anyway. Dandrake 17:48, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • In short, object. Dandrake 17:48, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wiki has the hyperlinks. Just put Weber, Durkheim, Parsons, Dewey, etc. in brackets and it would all be fine. The fact that users are objecting to this article simply by virtue of the fact that it's a difficult subject to access when you lack a fair amount of background strikes of anti-intellectualism. I'd have trouble grasping everything in Unified Modeling Language, for example, but I'd assume that that's my own fault, not the fault of writers engaged in what Pcb21 calls "intellectual masturbation." Nor is the intro "ponderous;" it's a succinct and clear summation of some really complex ideas. Moreover, do you realize the implications of applying the maxim "if you go with the maxim "customers can't understand our program..." to this page? For the sake of argument, Kylie Minogue would be the only article on this page that would reach a consensus. Granted the picture embedded in the body of the article makes this one of our best articles in terms of visuals, but insisting that articles have to be dumbed down to make featured status wouldn't say much for the site as a sourcebook for more serious subject matter - to put it mildly. 172 18:43, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I wish to apologize for use of the "intellectual masturbation" phrase. The phrase can be interpreted as offensive and I shouldn't have offended you. My point would've been better made if I had simply written "The first sentence is a bit long, innit?". I stand by that latter comment - ok Habermas's ideas are complex, and bring together the work of a lot of people. There is no compulsion that the first sentence of his article has to encapsulate all that. For instance the first sentence of the George Bush article merely states he is the current President of the US - it doesn't give his entire ideology. Good presentation doesn't necessarily require dumbing down. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the reply. When reading your comments, I did assume that you were dismissing the intro as rubbish. Your second posting, however, is very helpful. You're raising salient concerns; the article does jump right into the meat of the subject, so to speak, without a slow build up, perhaps making the article more daunting than it has to be. I'll add your posting to the article's talk page when I'm running less short of time. 172 23:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Zhu Rongji

Nominated by 172 22:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't know anything about this person myself, but reading the article makes me suspicious...it's so positive, it sounds like propaganda; someone critical should vet it. Steven G. Johnson 07:10, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It reads like a glowing review of the guy - seems too POV to me. Ambivalenthysteria 01:37, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jews as a Chosen people

I enjoyed reading this article very much. It seems very well-rounded and complete. --Alex S 17:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Object, the "Chosenness as superiority" section needs much more work. It is from a jewish perspective, and fails to give proper focus to the opinions of others, or how this may have become intertwined with anti-semitism. Sam Spade 23:21, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Political divisions of China

Comprehensive. --Jiang 06:07, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Second. -- Kaihsu 18:21, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
    • Second withdrawn and formal objection raised in order to get Bth's issue addressed. -- Kaihsu 10:57, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)
  • Broadly support, but section 2 of the table needs work to be comprehensible. -- Bth 14:54, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • fixed. --Jiang 08:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Not because there's anything wrong with the article- it looks fine- but it's a desperately dull topic. Markalexander100 02:27, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

M-theory simplified

Nominated by Ancheta Wis 23:02, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC). Comment: No equations, just concepts, which is appropriate for an introductory article.

  • Hmmm. Support, but only just. It is good, but I'm not sure the tone is entirely encyclopedic (there's one point where the article essentially goes "But why? I hear you cry") -- also, I think it would be nice if it included an explanation of how string theory includes gravity (unfortunately, this isn't something I understand well enough myself to be confident of simplifying it correctly). --Bth 15:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Formal objection so Bth's issue gets addressed. --Kaihsu 10:57, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)
    • In the article, the hypothetical spin-2 particle, the graviton, which gives gravitation, is a result of the theory. Ancheta Wis 12:31, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) I believe this resolves Bth's worry.

Kylie Minogue

Nominated by Dmn 21:14, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Second. -- Kaihsu 18:43, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)
  • No vote, but would it be possible to use a photo that's less erotic and, I don't know, shows her face or something? :P Garrett Albright 23:59, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't ever call the photo "erotic", but I agree that a photo showing her face might be a good idea. - Gaz 07:26, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Any better? Dmn 11:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • No, the old one was better! Still, very good visuals overall. 172 14:25, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • The old one is still there, scroll down Dmn
          • I think it's better. Think of the children! :) Garrett Albright 19:32, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • No vote as I was only looking to see the old photo, but Ive been thinking of My child there and I want the old photo back!! lol!! Antonio B*ttmunch Martin
  • I second this as well! Earl Andrew 02:08, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Second. It can't hurt in terms of attracting new users. --Bth 15:54, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Second. This page looks good.131.111.8.97 22:10, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Not bad. But not worthy of a listing with features, yet, imho. This article reads like a resume. it needs work. Kingturtle 04:48, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Quackery

Very well balanced and informative. fabiform | talk 16:43, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • This article is very weak on the history part. The history is very very rich, especially in 19th century USA and England. The article needs to delve much deeper. Kingturtle 04:53, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

San Gabriel Valley

Comprehensive and insightful article on region of Southern California. My edits are most copy edits and a fact here and there--there have been many contributors since its fairly recent creation. jengod 06:16, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • Not a vote (to ensure editing harmony). Need photographs. Please review the use of the word 'xenophobia'. Also, no link to 99 Ranch Market? (By the way, I used to live in Pasadena.) -- Kaihsu 20:35, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
  • Just a suggestion, in the spirit of the non-vote above: the ethnic groupings mentioned in the article leap out as future trends for the nation. If SGV goes prime-time, sub-articles will need to be split off. I in fact vote for inclusion, but rework seems inevitable, just like the History of the United States which has been withdrawn from the Featured article series. Yes. Ancheta Wis 02:14, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I oppose this one for now. It is comprehensive, yes; but it is not our best work. It reads more like an almanac and a tour guide. Kingturtle 05:00, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Recent removals and proposals for removal

Add new removals on top, one section per article.

Pub quiz

It's not necessarily a bad article. It's also not that long, not that informative, and really, not all that brilliant. Ambivalenthysteria 07:34, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Origins of the American Civil War

It has no lead section that can act as concise encyclopedia article (not in news style), which in addition to being reader unfriendly, makes it very hard to feature this article on the Main Page.

  • A lead section was added since the comments were made. 172 01:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is also horrendously huge (80 KB!), we should not be encouraging such a huge article size by featuring such an unusably long article. It needs to be broken up in discrete digestible bits (NOT another damn series - if you want to write a book then go to Wikibooks!)--mav 06:41, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some people like detailed, in depth articles. See "Wikipedia for Journalists" By Sree Sreenivasan, Columbia Professor & Poynter Visiting Professor http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=32&aid=62126 An excerpt reads, "So far, the effort has created numerous reference-quality articles as wide ranging as the Hutton Inquiry, algorithms, social history of the piano, origins of the American Civil War, and severe acute respiratory syndrome. As its quality has improved, news publications have increasingly cited Wikipedia on subjects..."


same-sex marriage

Heavily biased towards gay rights POV --Uncle Ed 18:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Huh? You're kidding, right? Please provide some evidence for this odd-ball claim. Tannin 19:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that this should not be a featured article, but not because of a heavy bias in any direction. It is a good example of how an article can become bulky by trying to satisfy every side of a debate. The current controversy and constant stream of news articles surrounding this topic garantees that people will argue over every sentence. As long as this situation continues it will be hard to keep it unbiased (or at least get everyone to agree on what unbiased means; see the article's talk page), or complete. -- Kimiko 19:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • When did this become a featured article anyway? It wasn't when I started working on it. At the same time, I don't see how it's biased, but --User:Ed Poor has made this claim on the talk page too, also without explaining it. Exploding Boy 01:33, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no actual reason to remove it Dmn 01:37, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bulldogging

The page should be merged with steer wrestling. Emsworth 23:35, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Political correctness

There is an ongoing neutrality dispute. Emsworth 23:36, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm not saying this article should be here, but I will say that the substance of the dispute seems to be "the article is too long for such a silly topic" which isn't a very convincing objection IMO. I've asked a couple of times for a dialogue relating to the dispute, and there doesn't seem top be much interest. Sam Spade 19:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • There is now some interest and new folks on the page, so maybe the header will get removed in time at least. Sam Spade 06:44, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Geologic ages

This articles dont make me especially proud. Not thats incorrect, its just not brilliant: much more can be done. Muriel 08:18, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree. Its incredibly short for such a broad topic. Sam Spade 08:27, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • To be fair, it used to have a big table with all the ages and IIRC more text - all of which has been farmed-off into other articles now. So at one time it was relatively brilliant, but it is no longer. Even if all the stuff I mentioned were still on that page, I would still vote for de-listing - I'm sure that will eventually happen to some entries we now think are brilliant if they don't continue to improve. As Wikipedia matures, we simply expect more. --mav 11:15, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

President of the United States

Article should make more prominent mention of how presidents get their position in the first place (preferably at the beginning and nicely integrated with the flow of the text). Currently we have to make do with obscure links at the end to U.S. presidential election and U.S. Electoral College. -- Dissident 04:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Done. jengod 01:34, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

DNA

(This article has been the subject of a dispute which won't be resolved in the short-term due to wikiegos.) The article is incomplete: DNA#More_on_DNA_replication -- Stewart Adcock 20:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. -- Emsworth 22:54, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove it till the edit wars end. It is completely outlandish that we should feature an article that's being protected! A truly great way of showing Wikipedia at its best, no? The situation is so bad that it may be best to take it up on WikiEN-l to ask for immediate action. Dandrake 23:23, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

History of the United States

This article is in the process of being rewritten (or so it seems to me). There are many sections with headings like For details, see the main History of the United States (1964-present) article without any text under that heading. Removed by: DanKeshet

Pumping Lemma

Removed by User:Technopilgrim but no reason given.

I pulled this article from the nominations because I found it pretty much incomprehensible. To put things in perspective I studied honors math under the same professors as taught the Unibomber so I can handle some abstruseness, but this article failed to elucidate this topic for me despite several read-throughs. technopilgrim 02:35, 10 Mar 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)

Glass

Needs better structure, standard TOC placement; recent discussions in some newsgroups are not a proper source to answer scientific questions. Also: pictures! How can we have an article about glass without pictures? —Eloquence 05:42, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia FAQ and WikiProject U.S. States

Neither of these are articles, so how can they be featured articles? Emsworth 23:37, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. -- Stewart Adcock 20:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. --Kaihsu 23:01, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • Might it be an idea to feature a project somehow, now and then? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:36, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed--Jiang

September 11, 2001 attacks

Ongoing neutrality dispute. -- Emsworth 23:56, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. I also think it contains too many daughter articles, most of poor quality. The article itself is not impressive either. --Jiang 06:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. -- Kaihsu 18:28, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism

Discussion moved to Talk:Libertarian socialism/Featured article removal

Removed by Sam Spade 07:36, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) (due to clear lack of Concensus)

  • Restored by Toby Bartels 03:03, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) due to clear lack of consensus to remove it.
    • What is the procedure on removal anyway? Do we require consensus to remove, or do we only require a lack of consensus to keep? If the latter, then Sam was right to remove it. OTOH, if the latter, then Sam could have removed it before the discussion, which certainly doesn't seem to be the procedure. I will ask for discussion on this talk page. -- Toby Bartels 03:03, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Clearly there is no concensus either to keep or remove this. From what I see on the talk, that means it must be removed. I am not going to edit war however, so would you be so kind as to remove it, Toby? Sam Spade 01:03, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • From what I can see on the talk, this is still a point under contention. Since I disagree with your position there, I'm not going to remove it. However, if you were to remove it, that would not (IMO) be anything close to engaging in an edit war on your part. Your position does seem to have more support than mine, and I would not restore it if you removed it. I do applaud your desire to avoid edit wars, but I don't think that it applies in this case. -- Toby Bartels 21:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Since some insist on removing the neutrality dispute, and Toby seems forgiving, I am removing it. Sam Spade 07:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Withdrawn nominations

1755 Lisbon earthquake

Removed this nomination because i agree with mav but i am not in the mood right now to pursue the suggested improvements. If anybody can volunteer, i would be happy to read! Muriel 21:01, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

i am very proud of this one. Muriel 08:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Pictures should be added directly to the article, I think.—Eloquence
    • Pictures from the XVIII century?? :) What do you suggest? Muriel 16:24, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • A google image search provides some suggestions of contemporary images: [1], [2] & [3]. fabiform | talk 16:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. jengod
  • Oppose until the lead section gets expanded. The lead section needs to be able to stand alone as a concise article in its own right. See news style. --mav 20:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Dear mav, can you elaborate on your criticism? I'm not sure if i understood and i cant improve the article if i dont. Muriel 10:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • The section starting "The 1755 Lisbon earthquake took place on..." needs to be expanded (at least a few more sentences - if not a second paragraph as well) to cover all the major points that are expanded on later in the article. --mav
  • Think there should be a reference to Oliver Wendell Holmes's poem, "The Deacon's Masterpiece: or the Wonderful One-Hoss Shay. Why? Because I first heard about the Lisbon earthquake in reference to this poem and to the theological disputes to which it refers. Dpbsmith 15:20, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=2769193"