Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Etaonish (talk | contribs) at 01:10, 21 May 2004 (Added Prisoner's Dilemma). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The purpose of this section is to determine which pages can be listed on Wikipedia:Featured articles. A featured article is, simply put, a particularly comprehensive, neatly-organized, and well-written article that exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work. For more information on what a featured article should be like, see what is a featured article.

Anyone can nominate any article. If you are nominating an article you have worked on or copyedited, note it up front as a self-nomination. Sign (with date/time) your nominations and comments with "~~~~". After nominating an article, you may want to place a notice on its talk page to alert readers by adding the message {{msg:fac}} (which expands to this).

Please read any nominated article in full before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. If there are no objections after at least one week, candidates can be added to FA. If there are objections, a consensus must be reached. If enough time passes (approximately two weeks) without objections' being resolved, an article may be removed from the candidates' list. Anyone may add approved pages to FA or remove prospects that have failed.

After an article becomes featured, a link to the article should be added in the proper category on FA. The nomination statement should be removed from the article's talk page replaced with {{msg:featured}} (which expands to this).

Archive unsuccessful and withdrawn nominations on: /Archived nominations
Archive successful nominations on: /Featured log

Nominations without objections

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

Prisoner's Dilemma

Excellent article on a fascinating subject. Minor expansion may be necessary, but it's already great now. --Etaonish 01:10, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

British East India Company

Self nomination. I was involved in expanding the History section considerably. I have tried to add everything that is credibly known about the company's long and influential history. Many users have also done some great copy-editing. Hope the article has shaped up well. If you have any objections/suggestions for additions, please go ahead/let me know about them. - Chancemill 07:06, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Moving this back up to without objections. :) jengod 00:53, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent; well-written and very thorough looks at the Company's ups and downs, its influences and key players. I would, however, hope for another picture or two, perhaps illustrating some of their work, good and bad (famine, etc.). --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:31, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • I too feel that the article would be so much more complete with a few balancing images. unfortunately, I am unable to find any more relevant images in the public domain. Any help in this will be greatly appreciated. Chancemill 14:00, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, with minor reservations. The article's content is excellent, but I think it could use some copyediting. I made one pass over it, but it still has a strong tendency towards run-on sentences and overuse and misuse of commas. A pitcure of a trading post or of a sailing ship would be nice next to the intro paragraph. --Andrew 15:29, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now- it needs some work. I've left some questions on the talk page. Markalexander100 03:18, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The East India Company played a MAJOR role in some 150 years of India's history and this article is pretty good. -- Kishore
  • Support. Sundar 06:04, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Have recieved a lot of good suggestions for refining this article in the past few days. I am working on these changes right now. Will indicate it here, when I am done. Chancemill 13:43, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Markalexander100's questions addressed. Great progress made in copyediting. 172 19:55, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess, the article is pretty much okay now. Mark's questions have been pretty much addressed. Thanks all for great content addition and copy-editing. Chancemill 15:41, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it's kind of marvelous. jengod 01:08, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Linus Pauling

  • What can I say, I liked it. Gentgeen 13:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Needs a longer lead section. Fredrik 13:50, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read it now and it seems fairly comprehensive. I did a few minor edits along the way. One thing that confuses me is the part about his education where it is said that he was "becoming one of the founders of the new science of quantum chemistry" at OAC and was later "becoming one of the first scientists in the field of quantum chemistry" when in Europe. Ideally one of these should be removed, but I'm not sure which. I also got the feeling that I wasn't reading "brilliant prose" in some other parts of the article – some paragraphs not being as fluently constructed as they could be – but I won't object on that ground. Neutral. Fredrik 22:02, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson

Brilliant prose, good content. Is there anything else to say? Johnleemk 08:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Zeppelin

That's a darn fine article, if you ask me. War zepplin = coolest phrase ever. jengod 03:17, May 20, 2004 (UTC)


Pufferfish

Excellent overview of the biological and sociological aspects of this rather fun fish. :) jengod 21:31, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Emacs

Includes history of Emacs, description, and external links. --FePe 23:15, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object - it lacks a picture. →Raul654 22:36, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Evolution of sex

Excellent article, with images to boot! --Lexor|Talk 06:22, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral for now. Some of the terminology needs wikifying or explaining: "propagules"? And the images aren't as exciting as I'd anticipated. ;) Markalexander100 08:36, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All y'all are smart. jengod 01:54, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Marshall, Texas

This article has come a long, long way from its Rambot beginnings. Would that most of our major cities had something this detailed and well-written. - Hephaestos|§ 03:15, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The article is very thorough and has an excellent section on the city's history. Acegikmo1 03:42, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I did contribute much of the information to the article and would be happy to answer any questions any one has of the it.- JCarriker 19:18, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support I learned a lot about the place by reading through this article.theresa knott 15:50, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Lots of research and work went into a very detailed article about "Hometown USA". Kar98 16:30, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes! I love the idea that we should feature a wider array of articles, including unexpected ones like this one. Very well-written and a great candidate to be featured. Moncrief 18:29, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Dmitri Shostakovich

Self-nomination. Fresh eyes and constructive criticism would be almost as welcome as support. ;) Markalexander100 02:50, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Nominations with unresolved objections

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.


Burning Times

Self Nomination, but yes, I know, it still needs a photo (working on it really soon) and perhaps a couple 'tweaks'... Comments are appreciated! Morwen Celeb'Kuruni

  • Object until it gets a picture. →Raul654 22:36, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Moreover, it has a major lack of wikilinks. The explinations are pretty thin. The majority of the article is primary source material. →Raul654 23:03, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 85% of content is the primary source text. jengod 22:54, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Most of the article is source text, and the remainder is far too short and lacking in detail. Worst however, is the question of accuracy. I suggest reviewers start by reading "Recent Developments in the Study of The Great European Witch Hunt", a review article by a Wiccan who also has an M.A. in medieval history. One sentence summary: much of what was traditionally believed about witches and witch-hunting is now proven to be mythical. Much of the original part of the Burning Times article is based on this myth. A featureable article on this topic would include origins and early form of the myth, recent historical research which debunks it, what really happened, and attitudes and beliefs today (Wiccan and otherwise). Securiger 03:20, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Article offered by securiger is devastating. Author appears to be offering the foundation mythology of one of the religions invented in the 20th century as history; since it primarily libels another religion, needs strong evidence and balanced input to even belong in this encyclopedia. Alteripse 04:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is marked as "disputed", but there are no comments on its talk page, which I presume is where the issues raised about should be discussed. This was not easy to find. Oh, and I agree, oppose. -- Jmabel 19:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler

Good history, well constructed article. Might still need some tweaks for NPOV though. Sarge Baldy 19:33, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object - there was an inaccuracy in the very first sentence that I have corrected but this was an indication that there are more. I spotted two more i.e. declaration of war to the USA by Germany and the time when Hitler discovered that he had oratory talents was earlier, when he was still working for the army delivering motivational speeches. Please correct asap. I also spotted one important omission in the article, that is the irrational fighting to the bitter end. Any normal person would have surrendered just after or even before the battle of the bulge/battle of Ardennes. Why was this? The article is long and articles in Wikipedia (like any encyclopedia) shouldn't be too long. But why below 30k? Why not below 40k? Andries 09:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Good, but could use perhaps a bit of splitting, with little paragraphs and a small header just below the title of each section, linking to the main article. --Johnleemk 09:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read this article having seen two neutrals and two opposes. Thus I was expecting it to be far less impressive than it is. Although longer than the average article, the quality of writing was good and didn't have a difficulty reading it all in one sitting. In addition to what Andries mentions, I think improvements can be made:
    • For this length article, the lead paragraph does not have to be so "dense" we could easily afford two paragraphs before ==Childhood and youth==
    • The ==Hitler's personal life== section seems incomplete as it only mentions his personal life upto 1932 (i.e. the point in the chronology we have reached in the article at that point) It would be better to mention Eva Braun in that section, moving the section if necessary.
    • The section covering the late 1930s (second half of ==The Nazi regime==) doesn't quite seem to be of the same high writing standard as the rest.. short paragraphs on the Spanish civil war, Anschluss, Munich could be improved.
    • If length is a concern the section ==World War II: Defeats== could possibly focus more heavily on Hitler (holed up in Berechtsgarden in Summer 1944 and in Berlin 1945, slowly going mad) rather than world events. Also maybe true of the ==Holocaust== section, though the "Did he order it" question is adequately covered already.
  • In all, I think with a little work this article could easily deserve featured status. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Immortality

Self-nomination (I only added a few minor things. There were many contributors) The article is interesting and presents a variety of perspectives on the idea. It is comprehensive without being boring and includes relevant quotes. Chubtoad 18:54, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • neutral. Need to talk about the after life in religions. What is also understood has imortality. Needs info for why people want to become imortal. The article is very interresting and good. Some pics would be nice. After this is done. I'll support Pedro 22:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. This article means well, but is rampant with awkwardly phrased sentences, misspellings, comma disease, and a general lack of Wikification. I also contest the considerable amount of mere speculation this article contains. While some is attributed to philosophers of note, some appears to be an airing of the author's own viewpoint. I regret to say that I made it only about two thirds of the way through before giving up in frustration. Denni 05:42, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

Common sense (the belief, not the pamphlet)

This is a really interesting article--it explains the underlying philosophy clearly, and it's an article that only Wikipedia would have. I enjoyed it immensely. Not a self-nomination. Meelar 18:20, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now, the lead section is not okay and I find the article not mature for reasons I can't pinpoint (yet). Though I think Meelar is right that articles about interesting subjects not covered in other encyclopedias should have priority. I added a link to a Wikiquote article that I wrote. I think the article is messy probably partly because the subject has many aspects and partly because it needs copy editing. Andries
  • Oppose for now. There are so DAMN many good quotes about common sense, but my favorite is one which has been paraphrased by a number of philosophers and pundits: "The one thing about common sense is it's not very common." For that reason, I see this article as needing more work. It's an excellent start, but far too short to cover the ground it needs to cover. For instance, this quote, "Common sense is what tells us the Earth is flat and the Sun goes around it" is an aspect of common sense which ought to be discussed. A gut feeling is well and good, but there aren't a lot of brain cells in the gut. Flesh it out. Use all those great quotes as a road map for the article. I'd love to cast a supporting vote. Denni 21:09, 2004 May 16 (UTC)

Wicca

Self-nomination. Well, sort of. I've edited and added here and there. I really like this section, and I think it's a subject worth checking out. I think there will be a few people who don't understand what it is and don't want to read the article, but I'm willing to take that chance. It seems like there should be more in the article, but there's nothing else to put.

  • Support (I don't know how to sign this I'm still kind of new) Very informative. Very nice. -Kerridwen 5/14/2004
  • Withhold support for now -- first of all, I think the opening is very cluttered. If it could be gone over and cleaned up for style (and if we could not open with a symbol) I think this would be improved. Also, the content feels a little thin to me -- lots of brief paragraphs. I don't know Wicca well, but the article leaves me thinking there is information I'm missing -- can someone more knowledgeable (maybe the nominator?) tell me what still needs to be added? Or does it just need a reformat? Jwrosenzweig 18:39, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've only been studying for a little over 2 years, and all the basic history is there... The only things that aren't there (from what I can see) are details on the holidays, example spells and rituals, information on the 'burning times', and divination examples. Give it those things (and maybe one or two things I'm not able to think of right now) and you'll have a full book on Wicca... I'll look into it though, see what I can dig up. Morwen Celeb'Kuruni 11:46 (US pacific time) May 14, 2004
  • Object for now. A number of problems:
    • The picture isn't very good; a larger version without conspicuous jaggies that could be shrunk automatically would be better. Maybe a picture of Wiccans Wiccaning?
      • Comment: Wiccans Wiccaning? You mean like a Wiccan Gathering? Tell you what, I'll get one if and when I am ever able to get to one and with the permission of those involved... Either that Or I'll make one with cartoon dolls, lol. j/k. But seriously, the goddess symbol and the pentacle are the two most important symbols in Wicca, so I think the picture is good, but yes, the quality is kinda... what's the word... bad. My resources are very limited... There's not much I can do, and there doesn't seem to be anyone else out there willing to throw up any images... Morwen Celeb'Kuruni 1:54 (pt) May 14, 2004
    • The business about the rejection of matriarchy strikes me as waffly. The whole Robert Graves style ancient goddess religion business is just the Aryan race mythology, reinterpreted by the contemporary ethical imperative to root for the losers; it has all the problems of Aryanism and adds some new ones. To say that scholars "hold serious reservations" about its continuing validity strikes me as still seriously understated. These matters are discussed in somewhat more detail at the matriarchy article.
    • Some note about further historical sources would be helpful. Ronald Hutton's The Triumph of the Moon is an excellent resource.
  • This really is a fascinating subject, but I see plenty of room for improvement here. Smerdis of Tlön 18:48, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Thompson Denning

Good (but short) article (with good examples) of an important and interesting character. -- Kaihsu 13:01, 2004 May 12 (UTC)

  • Support - Interesting, good quality, solid detail. Not very long, but it seems to cover the essentials. --Andrew 20:07, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - I sectioned it up, as I felt that was necessary for my approval. Just the sort of quirky article Wikipedia should excel at. --Gregb 02:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fascinating article, but as it currently stands I found the chronology confusing. Some facts seemed to be repeated more times than necessary, while others (his time with the House of Lords, and how he got there) are glossed over. In general I think the article needs a bit of reorganizing. Isomorphic 20:34, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No pictures, long blocks of quoted text (and legal text at that), and no real discussion of his significance/popularity. Good, but not featured material. Kudos for a good description of the British court system, though. Meelar 20:58, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The long quotes need severe pruning, and there needs to be discussion of the criticisms of his "reasoning" (although I wouldn't go so far as to call it that!). Nice to be reminded of Hinz v. Berry though. And the title (I think) should be Lord Denning: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Historical_names_and_titles. Markalexander100 03:39, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Though well-written, it should also mention 'Lord Denning's Report' about the Profumo scandal, which made quite a fuss in 1963. JoJan 11:26, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball

I'm shocked that baseball isn't on the list yet -- this is a superb article about a fun yet complex (and highly notable topic.) — Adam Conover † 21:37, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

(Addition: While I made one or two copyedits today, that's it; I've barely worked on the article, so I don't consider this a self-nomination.) — Adam Conover † 21:38, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was nominated less than a month ago. →Raul654 21:43, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Right you are. I withdraw my nomination, assuming that the issues raised when this article was last nominated have not been addressed. — Adam Conover † 21:50, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Imatinib

Self-nomination. This drug is the first anti-cancer drug that doesn't simply kill rapidly-dividing cells but actually targets the mutated proteins (tyrosine kinases). A lot of basic science, but this pill is going to attract a Nobel prize somewhere in the next few years. Jfdwolff | t@lk

  • . Neutral at the moment. I have some problems understanding the jargon but I am not sure if this is due to unsufficient effort and lack of basic knowledge on my part or due to missing explanations in the article. Jfdwolff, why didn't you write in the article that its "chemical method" differs from older anti-cancer drugs? Andries 11:46, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I don't think it is entirely my fault that I have difficulty understanding it. There should be more explanations in the article. What is TK and what is 2-phenylaminopyridine? I guess it is a good article for people who already know something about the subject. Andries 20:19, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to oppose for now. I have made some copyedits to improve the article, but the jargon in the molecular biology section is not accessible in the current state. In general, most things need to be explained, even if very briefly, in layman's terms. Also, In particular:
    • "Imatinib is a 2-phenylaminopyridine derivative"--What is 2-phenylaminopyridine? This should read "Imatinib is a derivative of the _____ 2-phenylaminopyridine" or "Imatinib is a derivative of 2-phenylaminopyridine, which is _____"
    • " functions as a specific inhibitor of a number of tyrosine kinase enzymes"--What do tyrosine kinase enzymes do, roughly? This should read "functions as a specific inhibitor of a number of tyrosine kinase enzymes, which _______", where ______ is a brief explanation of what tyrosine kinase enzymes do.
    • What is the TK domain?
    • What is p210bcr-abl? (i.e. where did the p210 come from?)
    • etc. Nohat 17:27, 2004 May 9 (UTC)
    • I liked it enough that I added a couple of sentences that emphasize what wolff says above and what tyr kinases usually do (which is mediate the action of dozens of hormones that promote cell growth). This is good. Alteripse 04:19, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

PGP (or Pretty Good Privacy)

This article discusses the most widely used system for secure communication (eg, email). It has recently been reviewed and updated by one who participated in some of the history, thus resolving some rather obscure points, technical, political, historical, and spelling. Not too technical, but fairly covers some of the pitfalls. A good, brief, account of a part of a large topic of importance, including public policy issues. Should even evoke a smile or two. Worth featuring. ww 14:41, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Very informative. Picture would be nice: how about a screenshot of some PGP-relatd program? Real PGP would be nice (I suppose PGP2 key generation would be traditional, but a GUI is probably better) but I could supply one of a GUI frontend to gnupg. --Andrew 21:24, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Andrew, I've been thinking about an image since you left this comment. Whatever is used will miss some critical abstract aspect of PGP operation as a cryptosystem, but people like them, I guess. Please put one together if you're willing to do so! ww 13:56, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice article, well written and brings up the important issue of privacy and how to protect it. MikeCapone 03:57, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • I owe ww a bunch of comments on cryptographic articles, so I'll comment at some length here -- the article has a number of minor issues (it bolds words like all for emphasis, which drives me crazy...it also gets an occasionally chatty or didactic tone, almost like I'm having a conversation with someone who wants to convince me to use PGP). Most importantly, though, it ceases to be fun or easy to read for me about half way through (sorry!). It becomes a very long list-like chronology of PGP's legal statuses and various versions. I may be dead wrong (I expect I am), but I think the article could be improved either by cutting out details of versioning, etc., that are relatively unimportant, or else going into much greater detail (giving the expanded stories that might make it more engaging). I think slightly more frequent sectioning would aid this also. Seems like a really good article factually, but one that needs a little prose work. Hope no one takes offense, Jwrosenzweig 22:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much of your "debt" is hereby discharged by the commentary above. For which thanks. Most of your comments have been implemented in the article. I trust you will find it improved, and that you will approve. ww 15:42, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Goodness I have to be careful about what I say! :-) You really did work that article over, based on my remarks: sorry for making so much work. I have to say, though I find the article much improved and more readable. I think you've got a very nice article on a technical subject that is well worthy of featured status. Bravo! Jwrosenzweig 16:37, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly oppose: I'd love to see PGP featured, as it's a good topic (and it's cryptography!), and the article is chock-full of excellent and careful detail. My concern is that the article is not polished enough yet. I can point out petty criticisms like: broken links to three articles which we do have; a few spelling mistakes; it's not immediately obvious whether "Ståle" is a person or a company; what does l'affaire Zimmermann mean?; awkward phrases like neither it (PGP), nor any other, is either fool, or goof, proof.; and so on. Rather than just moaning, I'm happy to go and fix these, but my point is that the article seems rough around the edges still, and could do with work to become "brilliant prose". — Matt 15:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein

A very thorough, interesting piece. This is a topical article with useful references as well. 4.247.239.4

Oppose - it needs to get below 30KB in size and needs an expanded lead section. --mav 10:39, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I added an abstract/lead section. See my comments below. 172 12:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
It is still 42 kilobytes long. --mav
So what? There are many featured articles that go over 30K. Please change your vote to abstain so that this section can move up to the unopposed nominations sections and where it can attract copyeditors. Afterwards, we can both change our abstain votes to oppose votes at the last minute. 172 11:25, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very thorough and surprisingly well sectioned and laid out. The length is of benefit if anything (keep under 30kB? Why? Are Wikipedia running out of storage space?) Zoney 20:09, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks comprehensive Oppose - abstract/lead section is too short. Many readers want to know the essential without have to browse thru the whole article. Andries 20:13, 11 May 2004 (UTC) Andries 21:06, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I added an abstract/lead section. See my comments below. 172 12:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The article is very informative. The lead is very brief, but it contains the essentials. Compare George W. Bush. Acegikmo1 21:09, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain (as main author) - I think that a couple of sections need work, so I cannot vote in support of the feature just yet. But I'd like to promote the features process, which would provide incentives for further copyediting, once the two opposition statements are withdrawn. 172 12:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This article has been the site of too many conflicts lately, which seem to have ended mostly through exhaustion, not a good editorial strategy. It should have time to settle and attract contributors, such as the ones who were driven away and had valid concerns. VV 12:10, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
V formulated his objection in an awkward way, I think. Only the end result counts, I believe. If the current article is not good then state these valid concerns (where and why), otherwise I think the objection is unfair and needs digression. Andries 12:20, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze Starr

Withdrawn. I'll work to fill out the article and see what I can do about an image, but it's not going to happen within a week. Self nomination. The article could use an image -- and if anyone can provide one that's not a copyvio, it'd be appreciated -- but I think it's well-written and compiles a lot of information that's around in dribs and drabs elsewhere on the Web. Also, Blaze has led an interesting life. -- Scarequotes 02:09, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object - for a (potential) featured article, it's pretty short. It's lacking the biographical birth and death dates, it has no picture, and some of the formatting is iffy. →Raul654 02:14, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • She's still alive, and I can't find any record of her birthdate (only the year -- nor can the reference librarians I've asked about it). Any suggestions for formatting fixes? Scarequotes 02:33, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • Ok, I gave it a once over. For future referece - in general, the article name should be in the first sentence, and it should be bolded. The only things in the article that should be bolded are the article name, and any terms that redirect to it. (I have redirected Fannie Belle Fleming, so I left that bolded). But with that said, it's still fairly short and still lacking a picture.

→Raul654 02:47, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

      • Thanks for the copyedit -- the article's better for it. Perhaps the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style should be updated with the rules for bolding, however; it makes no mention of redirect terms, and I was following the "If the subject of the article has more than one name, each new form of the name should be in bold on its first appearance" suggestion. -- Scarequotes 22:40, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

British East India Company

Self nomination. I was involved in expanding the History section considerably. I have tried to add everything that is credibly known about the company's long and influential history. Many users have also done some great copy-editing. Hope the article has shaped up well. If you have any objections/suggestions for additions, please go ahead/let me know about them. - Chancemill 07:06, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent; well-written and very thorough looks at the Company's ups and downs, its influences and key players. I would, however, hope for another picture or two, perhaps illustrating some of their work, good and bad (famine, etc.). --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:31, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • I too feel that the article would be so much more complete with a few balancing images. unfortunately, I am unable to find any more relevant images in the public domain. Any help in this will be greatly appreciated. Chancemill 14:00, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, with minor reservations. The article's content is excellent, but I think it could use some copyediting. I made one pass over it, but it still has a strong tendency towards run-on sentences and overuse and misuse of commas. A pitcure of a trading post or of a sailing ship would be nice next to the intro paragraph. --Andrew 15:29, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now- it needs some work. I've left some questions on the talk page. Markalexander100 03:18, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The East India Company played a MAJOR role in some 150 years of India's history and this article is pretty good. -- Kishore
  • Support. Sundar 06:04, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Have recieved a lot of good suggestions for refining this article in the past few days. I am working on these changes right now. Will indicate it here, when I am done. Chancemill 13:43, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Markalexander100's questions addressed. Great progress made in copyediting. 172 19:55, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess, the article is pretty much okay now. Mark's questions have been pretty much addressed. Thanks all for great content addition and copy-editing. Chancemill 15:41, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=3666698"