Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive/Removed

Arts

Medieval art

Medieval art (July 2)

Nominated June 18 2005; needs 6 votes by July 2 2005
Reason: needs expansionFenice 12:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support

Fenice 12:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
CristianChirita 12:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Milena 11:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

I am working on this article to be a gateway article, containing very (very) high level summary information, mainly serving as a navigation aide to the corpus of Wikipedia articles that cover this vast subject. I've started work on it and plan on working on it over the next few weeks, laying out the article structures based on known fields of study. I would not recomend this article be a COTW at this time. Stbalbach 04:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be turned into a list. Medieval art would make a good overview article. --Fenice 06:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not a "list" it's an outline of what makes up Medieval art. This is a highly specialized field with special terms and areas, its not common knoweldge, there is a reason this article has sat idle for 4 years. If your saying these links could be worked in to a narrative, I would not disagree. Stbalbach 02:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to the latest updates in the article:

In Western Europe there were seven major periods, or movements, of art in the Middle Ages. In approximate chronological order (with overlap) they are Celtic art, Early Christian art, Migration Period art, Pre-Romanesque art, Romanesque art, Gothic art and Trecento art.

You will notice almost none of these major articles has been developed, or even started. I would suggest we do a COTW on one of the major art movements and get those started. Otherwise, the high level summary will not be in line with whatever gets written later in detail. According to the style guidelines, summaries are usually written last, summarizing the detail. I would suggest Celtic art as a good place to start. Once it is done, a summary of the article can be worked into the Medieval art article, and so on. Stbalbach 02:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will support a nomination of Celtic art on the COTW, good starting point.--Fenice 09:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Architecture

Renaissance architecture (July 14)

Nominated July 7 2005; needs at least 3 votes by July 14 2005
Support:

Fenice 7 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)
Phoenix2 July 8, 2005 01:09 (UTC)

Comments:

This important art topic needs expansion. The article is only two screens long.--Fenice 7 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

Cinema

Scream (film) (2 votes, stays until November 27, 2005)

Nominated November 20, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by November 27, 2005

Support:

Comments:

This article deserves a hell of a lot more. After all, it began a new era of the horror genre, took in a gigantic group of new horror fans, and is one of the most important movie of the 90s, of any kind

Pulp Fiction (20 votes, stays until August 25)

Nominated July 7 2005; needs at least 21 votes by August 25 2005
Support:

Litefantastic 7 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
Jacoplane 8 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)
coolmallu 2005 July 8 20:21 (UTC)
DiamondDave 20:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Jmabel | Talk 18:25, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Tarnas 04:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Behun 21:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fieari 04:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Fableheroesguild 05:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Barrettmagic 14:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
furiouscommie 1:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
shuri 08:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bancroftian 9:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
*drew 14:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Trevor macinnis 23:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Richy 14:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Phantom784 22:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
96T 23:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Syrae Faileas 20:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Already experiencing some kind of independent overhaul, I think this isn't that far from FA. -Litefantastic 7 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
It is one of the most populat movies of all time. The article is in need of better language. -coolmallu 2005 July 8 20:21 (UTC)
Case in point, the "themes" section: so much redundancy (there's already a plot summary above), so much opinion (only one "divine" intervention scripted in movie).
Layout is superb; text and analysis needs work. - Barrettmagic 14:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bancroftian 15:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Horror film (10 votes, stays until August 21)

Nominated July 24 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 21 2005
Support:

Niz 13:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Wells 15:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro 15:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
shuri 08:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fenice 07:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jahsonic 12:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Singing Badger 20:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*drew 13:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--DrBat 23:19, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

No Support

Robert Hash 02:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Could easily become a featured article but needs more input and validation from other users: an important subject as its a high-level overview of one of the major film genres, and as such a major "entry point" to wikipedia, providing a host of links to more detailed subgenre pages, director pages, movie studio pages, film and actor pages etc. Niz 13:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto what Niz says above; plus, as a general comment, cultural and arts and entertainment articles need so much more input and work. Science and tech on Wikipedia are naturally strong, politics and history are decent, too, because they at least get a lot of participants and discussion, but culture and arts are neglected, with countless articles dependent on too few people with lots of opinions and little solid info. This article is poised to break away from that pack and become a model, but needs more input! Michael Wells 15:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article, and attendant categories, will always suffer from the cumbersome and illogical inclusion of assorted crime films involving killings, torturings, stalkings and terrorizations by human agents, which are distinguished from other crime films only by the amount of gore, the relatively bizarre nature of the crimes, and/or the psychiatric condition of the all-too-human perps. Attempts to bring about reasonable change have resulted in reactionary reversions and foot-stomping stubborn denials of any intellectual basis for distinguishing these crime films from true, evil-supernatural HORROR films by a small but active coterie of Wikipedia cliquers reared on the "scholarship" of Fangoria and similar fan magazines in genre studies. It would be laughable for this website to promote the results as of "encyclopedic quality" no matter how much tinkering is done with the article, category and subcategories, and innumerable movie stubs (most of which are post-1960 titles, and include several science-fiction films as well). Robert Hash 02:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It gets my vote. -Pedro 15:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Das Boot (6 votes, stays until February 19)

Nominated January 29, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 19, 2006

Support

Comments

References are needed; more information on how the filmmaker wanted to be as realistic as possible could be added. More information could also be added to explain why there are 3 versions (120, 216 and 293 minutes long). With a little effort, this article can be nominated for Today's featured article.

Sculpture

Wood carving (3 votes, stays until October 5, 2005)

Nominated September 21 2005; needs at least 6 votes by October 5, 2005

Support:

Reflex Reaction 14:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Phidauex 14:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Scope_Creep 22:22 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Wood carving is one of humanity's longest-standing artistic, decorative and functional arts and its article needs help. The article is lengthy and detailed, but is horribly outdated and needs some loving care. Reflex Reaction 14:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of sculpture (July 2)

Nominated June 18 2005; needs 6 votes by July 2 2005

Reason: stops at the renaissance, middle ages missing

Support

--Fenice 09:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--Vladdraculdragon 09:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--PET 00:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

This is part of the Medieval art topic above. Once an article on medieval sculpture is created, a summary of it can be worked in to the History of sculpture, and the Medieval art article (and any other appropriate article). But you need a Medieval sculpture article first before you can summarize it :) --Stbalbach 02:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes it works the other way around: the sections in the overview article grow larger and larger, and at some point a new article is created as a spin-off, and a summary plus a link to the main article is left at the overview article. In this case, a section on medieval sculpture would be written in Medieval art or History of sculpture and then an article Medieval sculpture would be created.--Fenice 05:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

we need pictures and more info

Music

American rock (4 votes, stays until January 17)

Nominated January 3, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 17, 2006

Support

RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 03:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Havardj 6:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
RJH 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fenice 19:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A very important type of music in the United States. It deserves a better article than what it has now. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 03:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone (1 vote, stays until December 11, 2005)

Nominated December 4, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 11, 2005

Support:

Comments:

A very influential music magazine with very little information. It could be greatly expanded. Gflores ^Talk 04:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heart (band) (3 votes, stays until December 9, 2005)

Nominated November 25, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by December 9, 2005

Support:

Comments:

Heart was a important hard rock band of the late '70s, and should have a better article. The current one is only about three paragraphs, and gives an extremely short summary of their early career. Carolaman 10:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article really could do with more description and biography rather than just lists of singles and albums. Iotha 04:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stairway to Heaven (7 votes, stays until November 22, 2005)

Nominated November 1, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by November 22, 2005

Support:

Removed:

~~205.250.109.113 19:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)~~ Non-registered user.[reply]
~~NightmareMoogle 18:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)~~ This is this user's first edit... Spawn Man 03:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The greatest song of all time should have an article on it that has the potential to be featured on the front page, or if you don't feel that this song is the greatest, it should still have a correct info box. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 23:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that I would love to see this become a featured article. I think that there is much more information that could be included.

Acoustic guitar (2 votes, stays until October 15, 2005)

Nominated October 8, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 15, 2005

Support:

Comments:

How can one of the greatest instruments of all time, and one of the most influential have an article of this size. I would expect it to be Featured. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 02:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm and blues (4 votes, stays until August 26)

Nominated August 12 2005; needs at least 8 votes by August 26 2005

Reason Needs significant improvement, correction, and formatting, among the weakest of the music genre articles. I've tried a few edits, but I haven't really gotten anywhere. --FuriousFreddy 21:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

--FuriousFreddy 21:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)(sign with four tildes)[reply]
Fenice 06:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Osu8907 17:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Laisak 19:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Horn (instrument) (3 votes, stays until July 23)

Nominated July 9 2005; needs at least 6 votes by July 23 2005
Support:

Horndude77 22:18, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DiamondDave 19:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Fenice 06:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The article is about the instrument better known as the french horn. It has improved much in the last year. I believe for it to get up to the feature article level it just needs some polish that other people can provide. Horndude77 22:18, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Denver (8 votes, stays until February 11, 2006)

Nominated January 21, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 11, 2006

Support

Carolaman 19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Havardj 19:14, 22 January, 2006 (UTC)
Frecklefoot 19:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Youngamerican 17:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mike H. That's hot 08:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joyous | Talk 05:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RomeoVoid 06:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lbbzman 20:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed votes:

199.111.225.136 12:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous votes considered invalid, see above. —Wikiacc • ¶ 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I know music isn't a priority to most Wikipedia editors, but I think one of the few good songwriters deserves a decent article. Carolaman 19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Literature

Greek literature (16 votes, stays until September 6)

Nominated July 26 2005; needs at least 18 votes by September 6 2005
Support:

Eric Forste (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the wub "?/!" 10:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maurreen (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vladdraculdragon 16:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Osu8907 04:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fenice 08:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sesel 06:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Singing Badger 21:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
shuri 07:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Renata3 05:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Encephalon | ζ | Σ 18:20:42, 2005-08-12 (UTC)
-Aranel ("Sarah") 19:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Syrae Faileas 21:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--geraki 15:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--TWaye 08:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whitejay251 17:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This is just a list of links to articles on individual pieces of Greek literature. We can do better than this, can't we? --Eric Forste (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with articles nominated in August, at least four votes will be needed each week to stay active on the list of nominations.

Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner (4 votes, stays until November 7, 2005)

Nominated October 24, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 7, 2005

Support

Comments

The classic duo we all grew up on! -Litefantastic 00:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Beep beep --ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

John III of Portugal (10 votes, stays until August 10)

Nominated July 13 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 10 2005

Reason: The article is in serious need of attention, notably wording and images. The objective is to make it a featured article, and to stop the "English monopoly" of featured articles regarding kings. The material is there but it was translated from Portuguese, it just needs some grammar cleanup. I believe that giving this article more publicity can drastically improve it from the current state it is in.--Gameiro 00:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

Gameiro 00:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fenice 06:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DiamondDave 18:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
-Pedro 21:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LordAmeth 23:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Forste 01:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gito 11:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Carioca 01:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
siafu 21:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

There is no monopoly - anyone can list any article on FAC.--Fenice 06:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. I was just trying to motivate. Glad you're helping. Thanks.--Gameiro 12:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is already FAC worthy. It needs a better Portuguese flag of that time. take this as a example: [1]. it is from the Ministry of Defense, I don't know if it is public domain.-Pedro 21:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Gutenberg (11 votes, stays until August 23)

Nominated July 26 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 23 2005
Support:

Rich Farmbrough 15:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jacoplane 23:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Forste (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bensaccount 16:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fenice 08:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
siafu 21:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Renata3 05:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-Aranel ("Sarah") 19:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DiamondDave 09:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Ben ^T/_C
JoanneB 14:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Very important character in the development of printing. Article is a mish-mash. Needs and is worth some work. Rich Farmbrough 15:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He is a very important figure in World History. By inventing the bookprint he changed a lot. Life magazine considers this event as the most important of the second millenium. In the book The 100 he is considered being the eights most influential person in history after Muhammed, Isaac Newton, Jesus, etc. --Ben ^T/_C 07:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ali Khamenei (11 votes, stays until August 25)

Nominated August 4 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 25 2005
Reason:

Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not someone I admire, but he is someone who has a lot of history. He has been president or supreme leader of Iran since 1981, and he has a relatively small article. This can and should be expanded and improved.

Support:

Osu8907 23:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sesel 06:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
AllanHainey 07:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jacoplane 09:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FrisoHoltkamp 10:10, 5 August 2005 (GMT +1)
Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maurreen (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
siafu 21:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*drew 00:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
naryathegreat | (talk) 00:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
– Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 03:10, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Seeing as how there's a good chance Khamenei will be in the news a lot more in the coming months, it would be good to have a solid article now. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 03:10, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Franz Kafka (9 votes, stays until August 25)

Nominated August 4 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 25 2005
Support:

Prometheus912 23:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sarge Baldy 03:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
shuri 08:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fenice 09:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dom 12:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:08:17, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
Iburneditdown 00:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Renata3 05:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--TWaye 09:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed votes:

~~149.101.1.126 19:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comments:

One of the most important writers of the 20th century, it'd be nice to see this one jazzed up. Sarge Baldy 03:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and it probably won't take too much time to fix this article up. —149.101.1.126 19:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama (2 votes, stays until September 1)

Nominated August 25, 2005; needs at least 4 votes by September 1, 2005

Support:

Comments:

This had previously been a BioCOTW, and did pretty good, but it would be neat to get this article within the reach of FAC's. Falphin 23:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Beecher Stowe (1 vote, stays until September 7)

Nominated August 31 2005; needs at least 4 votes by September 7, 2005

Support:

--Revolución (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

She was a very important abolitionist writer. --Revolución (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vasco da Gama (9 votes, stays until September 20)

Nominated August 30 2005; needs at least 12 votes by September 20, 2005

Support:

Gameiro 19:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*drew 21:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro 01:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jcw69 --Jcw69 06:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
utcursch | talk 10:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
The Ogre 11:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yosri 10:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Brutannica 04:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Malafaya 11:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
200.225.90.7 17:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Such an important historic figure must have a far better article. Gameiro 21:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- personally I agree, it is very disorganized. How about starting an Article Improvement Drive on Portugal-related subjects? There are AID for Poland, Hong-Kong, etc. English would be the main problem, but there are some Portuguese-Americans in wikipedia... and other native wikipedians could also help... If Poles have an improvement drive so can we. -Pedro 01:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- forget it, those coloborations are not very active. -Pedro 02:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I might mention that he may become the next Biography Collab of the Week. Falphin 15:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed he is now the biography collaboration of the week! Excellent news for Vasco, he should probably be removed from this list now to best distribute collaboration manpower I take it? --Fxer 23:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

William Murdoch (1 vote, stays until 3 October 2005)

Nominated 26 September 2005; needs at least 3 votes by 3 October, 2005

Support:

AllanHainey 12:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

William Murdoch is an often overlooked figure in industrial history; invented gas lighting, sun & planets gear, built a steam locomotive & more. I've written most of this article & would like some help in getting it to featured article status AllanHainey 12:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claude-François-Dorothée, marquis de Jouffroy d'Abbans (2 vote, stays until October 20, 2005)

Nominated October 13, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 20, 2005

Support:

Comments:

Important French inventor. The article is too short.

Hillside Strangler (3 votes, stays until October 25, 2005)

Nominated October 11, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by October 25, 2005

Support:

Fxer 02:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Spawn Man 05:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC), Definitely a must-expand![reply]
ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The case against Angelo Buono, Jr. and Kenneth Bianchi became the longest murder trial in the history of American law, not to mention one of the most famous serial killer cases in history, up there with the Son of Sam, the Night stalker and the Green River Killer. While the pages of both perpetrators could use some work themselves, the main page of the Hillside Strangler probably deserves the most attention.

Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina (3 votes, stays until October 27, 2005)

Nominated October 13, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by October 27, 2005

Support:

Comments:

One of the most important and influential composers, contributed to the Roman Catholic church music. His page should be expanded.

John Prescott (4 votes, stays until November 1, 2005)

Nominated October 18, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 1, 2005

Support:

Comments:

Deputy Prime Minister of the UK, has a very long history in politics, and is a controversial figure. Yet the article is barely beyond a stub, can be expanded to at least the length of the Gordon Brown article, most probably even further.
Certain to fail here and would be better off nominated at Wikipedia:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board/UKCOTW.
This is very USA centred so the above comment is probably right, nonetheless we can but try. Frankly I'm amazed there isn't more about him punching that bloke in 2001.

Caravaggio (8 votes, stays until November 4, 2005)

Nominated October 14, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by November 4, 2005
Support:

--Robin.rueth 09:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reflex Reaction 20:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

anetode ¹ ² ³ 05:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Litefantastic 17:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Featured article in French. An important and influental Baroque painter, yet his article is in dire need of a rewrite. Some parts need expansion, ~~and the pictures and lists need to be implemented better.~~ KingTT 15:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have improved a bit with recent changes. KingTT 14:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Gould (6 votes, stays until November 6, 2005)

Nominated October 16, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by November 6, 2005

Support:

cohesion | talk 07:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Palladian 07:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This would be an ideal featured article. Very influential musician Fawcett5 15:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gareth Hughes 15:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Waltwe 13:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

He is an important musician, and the wording right now isn't that great in a lot of areas. cohesion | talk 07:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Marx (4 votes, stays until November 14, 2005)

Nominated October 31, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 14, 2005

Support:

Comments:

Marx was one of the most influential philosophers of the modern age. His economic analysis is not only respected by communists and socialists but also by capitalists. He definately deserves a FA.--Carabinieri 22:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Am I failing to see some gaping hole in the article at present? With an article as notable as Marx's, and already of seemingly good quality, I'd say the best way to get this to FA status would be to try an FAC now and see what feedback is generated. Harro5 04:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are several short sections and short paragraphs in the article, which will probably spark concern in the FAC. FAC is not meant for comments, WP:Peer review is meant for that.

The biographical part of the article is much too short, his philosophical/political views are in the biographical section,--Carabinieri 20:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (8 votes, stays until November 19, 2005)

Nominated October 29, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by November 19, 2005

Support:

Waltwe 12:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wackymacs 13:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-Irmgard 17:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Carabinieri 17:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Brendanconway20:55, 30th October 2005 (UTC)
Smmurphy 22:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zoso 13:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Could be expanded, has a potential to become a FA.
I could contribute with translations from German Wikipedia which has some more sections --Irmgard 17:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzy Osbourne (3 votes, stays until December 3, 2005)

Nominated November 19, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by December 3, 2005

Support:

Comments:

Certainly deserves to be at featured article status. Pretty shameful article, needs lots of improvement. — Wackymacs 23:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Horrible article. Really needs improvement. Carolaman 10:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sports personalities

Dan Marino (1 vote, stays until December 23, 2005)

Nominated December 16, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 23, 2005

Support

Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This article so far in my opinion is a joke. Dan Marino is one of the greatest NFL of all time but it's mostly the normal basics, too much lists, and some fancruft in the article. The article needs better respect than this. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movies

Henry Fonda (2 votes, stays until August 2)

Nominated 26 July 2005; needs at least 3 votes by August 2 2005
Support:

A Link to the Past 23:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Volatile 23:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

A popular and well-known actor. While it's of a decent size, there's so much more to be said about the man. -- A Link to the Past 23:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Qin Shi Huang (4 votes, stays until January 19)

Nominated January 5, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 19, 2006

Support

elvenscout742 23:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 07:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moonstone 21:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiacc • § 17:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Article is simply not of the quality that would be expected of an impartial encyclopedia article on the man who was essentially founder of the oldest and greatest civiliztion on earth. Not especially extensive or well-written, and puts an unusual emphasis on "Qin Shi Huang in fiction". elvenscout742 23:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Loyd (1 vote, stays until January 29)

Nominated January 22, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by January 29, 2006

Support

King of Hearts | (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This article about an extremely significant puzzle author is lacking in information. It needs a decent biography and a general summary of his works. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar (2 votes, stays until February 8 2006)

Nominated February 1, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by February 8, 2006

Support

– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—Wikiacc • ¶ • ∞ 23:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

One of the most important emperors in World History. But our article needs the AID touch. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business and Economics

Developing countries' debt (4 votes, lack 2 votes, Archived on July 22)

Nominated July 7 2005; needs at least 6 votes by July 21 2005
Support:

Fenice 7 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)
Jacoplane 7 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)
Poli 21:55, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
Eric Forste 03:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Needs better referencing and expansion; maybe the article should be moved to a different title, because third world is considered derogatory by some.--Fenice 7 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)
This is quite a current event, considering the G8 is considering what to do with this. Is it ok to have such current articles as improvement drive? I could imagine some time in the future it might be linked to on the front page. Jacoplane 7 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)
- We're the ones making the rules. -Litefantastic 7 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)
- Even more so. If it gets more traffic while it is linked to from the front page it should really be in a better condition than it is in now. The least we can do is let the reader know we are working on it. --Fenice 9 July 2005 10:39 (UTC)

Harrods (18 July)

Nominated 11 July 2005; needs at least 3 votes by 18 July 2005

Support:

Wackymacs 16:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Only several short paragraphs about this popular department store in London. Wackymacs 16:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second Industrial Revolution (July 3)

Nominated June 20 2005; needs 6 votes by July 3 2005
Reason

Support

Fenice 08:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Falphin 01:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Imperialles 09:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Sony (2 votes, stays until October 8, 2005)

Nominated October 1, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 8, 2005

Support:

Comments:

We all know who Sony is, and at one time or another most of us have used a Sony product, wether it be a radio, camera, TV, computer, hi-fi system, or any other piece of electronics they've made over the years. I was hugely disappointed when reading this article, as it doesn't even mention the majority of Sony's products such as their TVs and sound equipment. Sony are a very important brand, and is lacking when compared to other company articles. Come on, let's improve it!!! — Wackymacs 19:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Revolution (1 vote, stays until October 27, 2005)

Nominated October 20, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 27, 2005

Support:

Wackymacs 20:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Seems to be a topic that could be substantially improved, with pictures, sections, references, and more detail. However, all the websites I found so far (on the 1st page of Google results) contained similar info. Maybe there isn't much more to say on this topic, would be interesting to see it as a featured article. — Wackymacs 20:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Cluetrain Manifesto (1 vote, stays until December 26, 2005)

Nominated December 19, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 26, 2005

Support

cohesion★talk 03:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Pretty important online cultural artifact, could stand some editing, and fleshing out. cohesion★talk 03:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of Credit and Commerce International (2 votes, stays until February 8 2006)

Nominated February 1, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by February 8, 2006

Support

– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—Wikiacc • ¶ • ∞ 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

An international scandal that cost people Billions of dollars and involved, in one way or another, the Saudi royal family, Pakistani intelligence, John Kerry, President Bush, the precursors to al-Qaeda, and nuclear proliferation. A fascinating story, and the article needs a lot of help. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early 2000s recession (3 votes, stays until February 16, 2006)

Nominated February 2, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 16, 2006

Support

Comments

Over-generalizes, doesn't provide enough solid facts. Also fails to get into causes and aftermaths and the human effect.
- How can an article with a title like Early 2000s recession not overgeneralise?! - Hahnchen 18:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you prefer it be called 9:00 AM September 11, 2001 - 6:54 PM August 5, 2003 recession? Juppiter 21:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

Spork (July 2)

Nominated June 25, 2005; needs 3 votes by July 2, 2005

Reason: Come on! It's a fork and a spoon! Who could ask for more in a utensil?

Support:

Litefantastic 23:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Roswell UFO Incident (2 votes, stays until January 19)

Nominated January 12, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by January 19, 2006

Support

Harris0 23:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anonunit 21:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

It needs it. I was interested in getting an unbiased account of the topic and it just wasn't available. Harris0 23:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia College Chicago (2 votes, stays until January 20)

Nominated January 13, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by January 20, 2006

Support

Comments

The article is in dire need of a more in-depth description. It needs to be cleaned up and generally re-organized. It could greatly benefit from some help. Anthonyiamurri 06:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnosis (July 9)

Nominated June 18 2005; needs 9 votes by July 9 2005

Reason: This is a long article, but a poor one. It needs a total reorganisation, the input of some experts and more wikilinks and external links. Yes, there are short articles that need to be made longer - but this is a long article, about an important subject, that is not up to scratch yet.

Support

Batmanand 19:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Litefantastic 01:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Exir 01:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Niz 00:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough 20:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fenice 2 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)
Kabads 5 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)
Scott Ritchie 02:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Peruvian cuisine (July 10)

Nominated June 26 2005; needs 6 votes by July 10 2005
Support:

Fenice 18:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
J3ff 23:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jmabel | Talk June 29, 2005 00:39 (UTC)

Comments:

This was translated by the Weekly Spanish Tranlation Collaboration. The history section should be expanded (inca/Aztec cuisine). Some things have to be cleared up: f. i. which foods does Peru import? There is a question on the talk page whether Peru acutally imports cocoa from Africa. Some further economic info could be researched, like what do poor people eat in Peru? There are lots of lists in the article that need to be dealt with: omit? put in boxes? tie into text?--Fenice 18:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Asian values (22 July 2005)

Nominated July 15 2005; needs at least 3 votes by July 22 2005

Reason: Would like to see more info on this topic.

Support:

Comments:

Game (13 votes, stays until July 23)

Nominated June 18 2005; needs 15 votes by July 23 2005

Reason: An entry level article on a vast and important subject that was just a few paragraphs long when I came across it. I've added a few more paragraphs with basic info on the anthropology of games; they themselves could stand expansion. Other views are also needed.
Support

Smerdis of Tlön 23:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fenice 05:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Niz 00:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Litefantastic 16:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Scott Ritchie 05:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Imperialles 23:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Luigi2 | Talk June 29, 2005 22:14 (UTC)
Maurreen 2 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)
Anser 3 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)
Scott Ritchie 02:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bordelon 14:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
bjwebb 18:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Debroglie 12:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

AlMac for what it is worth,
1. I have designed several games in the area of Simulation Games and Board Games
2. I have moderated a variety of multi-player games, mainly back in the 1960's when computer moderation was not affordable.
3. I consider myself knowledgeable about a spectrum of brain games such as (this is by no means a comprehensive list)
  1. Fairy Chess, my favorite being Kriegspiel Chess
  2. Role Playing Games particularly the kinds that existed before Dungeons and Dragons was invented
  3. Military Miniatures
- Well then I think you should definitely advertise your background and not sign it. ;-) RJH 19:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extended family (4 votes, stays until 29 July 2005)

Nominated July 15 2005; needs at least 6 votes by July 29 2005

Reason: Sociology-related article; not enough info. Any takers?

Support:

Quantum bird 22:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Forste 01:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel | Talk 18:34, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
– Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

The Tasmanian Devil (3 votes, August 3)

Nominated July 20 2005; needs at least 6 votes by August 3 2005
Support:

Comments:

I was working on the Tasmanian Devil article and for curesosity sake took a look at the cartoon character's encyclopedia article. From what I can see, this article needs a lot of work. Particullary, it should be wikified, have some pictures added, and be organized a bit better. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wikified the article a bit by adding section headers, expanding the introduction, and adding references. I'm not sure what problems you find with the organization; it's chronological at the moment. Nevertheless, pictures would be a good addition, and expansion of the article may still be in order. BrianSmithson 13:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T shirt (2 votes, stays until August 2)

Nominated July 26 2005; needs at least 3 votes by August 2 2005
Support:

Culture of Italy (3 votes, stays until August 10)

Nominated August 3 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 10 2005
Support

Comments:

Important topic, could be quite easily improved...most of the info is available on pages it links to.Vladdraculdragon 17:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National Football League (6 votes, stays until August 17)

Nominated August 3, 2005; Needs at least 8 votes by August 17
Support:

Falphin 20:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ooryl 23:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Phoenix2 17:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Carbonite | Talk 00:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cmadler 15:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
King Kool 19:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed votes:

~~User:24.171.36.233 23:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

'Comments:

This article lacks history, and could you reorginazation. It wouldn't be the most difficult of jobs either and would be a change of pace. Falphin 20:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Percussion instrument (7 votes, stays until August 20)

Nominated August 6 2005; needs at least 8 votes by August 20 2005
Support:

Fenice 06:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maurreen (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
– flamurai (t)
—Wahoofive (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
siafu 21:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deryc k C. 03:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
David Brooks 16:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This article needs expansion and should be improved to match featured articles on other instruments like the Saxophone and Timpani. Some of the information is already there in subarticles like Timpani.--Fenice 06:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural appropriation (5 votes, stays until August 20)

Nominated August 6 2005; needs at least 8 votes by August 20 2005

Support:

Djbaniel 00:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Eric Forste (Talk) 04:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dvyost 15:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fenice 08:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Soygurl 22:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

A subject that would benefit from contributors of many different cultures.
- There's absolutely nothing herein stated about what specifically is wrong with the article. And, as a matter of fact, it already has had input from people of different cultural backgrounds. I think the listing of cultural appropriation on the improvement page is ridiculous and completely unnecessary. It's a good, solid piece. As a matter of fact, here's a comment on the article posted to my talk page: "I want to complement you on the rewrite you did on this page. It's been a while since I've seen a newer article of its size that well written." deeceevoice 03:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deeceevoice, I think you misunderstand the purpose of this page. The point isn't to list bad articles; the point is to help articles reach featured status.--Pharos 03:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Pharos. Gotcha. Yep. Recently, a couple of people have been complaining about the article -- when their problem has not been with the verbiage, but with the concept (which is downright silly; it is what it is). Still relatively new to Wikipedia, I assumed this was a consequence of their griping. The way the entry here for cultural appropriation was worded, I interpreted it as just another run-of-the-mill complaint about a perceived, but nonexistent, "black" slant to the piece. Thanks for the clarification. Of course, as with many articles on Wikipedia, this one could benefit from additional, constructive input. deeceevoice 08:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a great featured article. There's nothing preventing deeceevoice (or anyone else) from nominating it for featured article as it stands; this kind of situation where articles have been nominated both here and there, during the same span of time, has happened before, I think. --Eric Forste (Talk) 04:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I never said anything about nominating this for featured article status, and I don't think there are any imminent plans to do so. deeceevoice 18:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article should have a history section, and a section on effects on the borrowing culture and effects on the culture borrowed from. It also lacks references. I think this article has the potential to be improved to featured quality.--Fenice 15:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current TV (2 votes, stays until September 11)

Nominated September 4 2005;needs at least 4 votes by September 11, 2005

Support:

Comments:

I know this may seem an unusual nomination, but the world moves quickly and I think Wikipedia readers would be interested. In addition to the article itself, I would love to see a well-rounded article on how younger citizens are receiving information flow. Feel free to leave comments on my (empty) user page. Gchriss 02:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flirting (20 votes, stays until September 12)

Nominated July 25 2005; needs at least 21 votes by September 12 2005
Support:

Jacoplane 18:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:45, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Theycallmemorty 20:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Litefantastic 19:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Djbaniel 00:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
drboisclair 15:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fieari 21:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Polydor 21:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Richy 14:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hillel 12:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Syrae Faileas 21:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ben ^T/_C 07:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Ambi 09:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sbwoodside 23:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mekalika 17:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Debroglie 08:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Behun 21:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Tom 20:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RMG 16:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Elias Bizannes 16:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I think a lot can be added. This is the main mechanism through which our species achieves reproduction and I think it deserves a better article. Jacoplane 18:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I would debate that flirting is the main mechanism for the entire species. For the West, sure, but given that a significant portion of the world throughout the history of the species has relied on arranged marriages or other non-flirtactious means, I wouldn't say flirting deserves that status. The article should mention the difference between "flirting" and other forms of gaining attention from a potential mate. (Of course that's another reason to improve the article.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:45, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  - Flirting isn't only a sexual activity. Flirting is used between hetrosexual people to build rapport. You may live in a country that represses sexual flirtation, but I doubt business flirtation is repressed, nor childhood flirtation betweem you and your friends. It is teasing in a fun way, and sexual flirtation is only one type of flirting. Flirting is an important life skill, and those they understand it, benefit immensley. Elias Bizannes 16:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is the "main mechanism" (a phrase which is not without ambiguity in the context of reproduction in general), I think it would serve wikipedia well to have flirting as a comprehensive article.
added vote and updated count .. Debroglie 08:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latin America (19 votes, stays until September 18)

Nominated August 14, 2005; needs at least 20 votes by September 18 2005

Support:

Maurreen (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Osu8907 04:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fenice 07:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
arkuat (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wackymacs 08:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*drew 08:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SpiceMan 11:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nick_C 14:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Spangineer (háblame) 15:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Carioca 19:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Sarge Baldy 06:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mariano 06:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanguard 21:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Poli 01:46, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
– Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 03:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Milena 17:04, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Xaliqen 05:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-- Rune Welsh ταλκ 11:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
ddlamb 00:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

About half the text is on etymology. Tagged for cleanup. Maurreen (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the info needed for this article is already on Wikipedia in subarticles. This should be easy.--Fenice 07:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, this is the topic of one of the childrens books for WikiJunior. Remember? We could possibly develop some synergy here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 03:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Heraldry (13 votes, stays until September 18)

Nominated August 14 2005; needs at least 16 votes by September 18 2005

Reason

While a very good article, it can be improved. The article could be made clearer for people unfamiliar with the subject.

Support

Mb1000 01:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Syrae Faileas 17:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tyler Mitchell 20:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sadaukar 06:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DiamondDave 09:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Trevor macinnis 18:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Palnatoke 20:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Saswann 22:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Valentinian 10:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
dagamezmasta 4:10, 17 August 2005
Behun 06:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
HJKeats 16:43, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
RMG 16:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This article seems to be referenced moderately often, and I've run into a few times. It might be nice to get it improved. --Syrae Faileas 17:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article has the potential to be improved to featured status. We could also improve it by translating some of the featured material on this topic from the French wikipedia.--Fenice 19:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Venice (8 votes, stays until September 17)

Nominated August 27, 2005; needs at least 12 votes by September 17, 2005

Support:

GhePeU 19:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin 20:17, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Joy [shallot] 19:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*drew 22:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alr 23:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Chan 02:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-Pedro 08:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 16:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The Republic of Venice was a major power in Italy, Europe and in the Mediterranean Sea for centuries. Hundreds of articles link to Republic of Venice or, incorrectly, to Venice (this should be fixed too) but the current article contains only a short summary of the history of the Republic. GhePeU 19:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstock Festival (2 votes, stays until 20 September 2005)

Nominated 13 September 2005; needs at least 4 votes by September 20, 2005

Support:

Comments:

Huge impact on pop culture. This festival was legendary. I think it could use more about the cultural impact of the festival. Also about the running and organisation of the festival. --Richy 18:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seduction Community (1 vote, stays until 7 October)

Nominated 30 September 2005; needs at least 3 votes by 7 October, 2005

Support:

(sign with four tildes)

1 DutchSeduction User has less than 50 edits, all to do with this article or closely related topics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DutchSeduction

2 Strack 18:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC) User:Strack has only two entries, from an account created today, all on this article [2][reply]

3 Puga 08:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC) User:Puga has only two entries, from an account created today, all on this article[reply]

Comments:

Currently receiving media attention after the recent publication of "The Game" by Neill Strauss, which is now on the NY Times Bestsellers List.

This article has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seduction Community.

Ripley's Believe It or Not! (1 vote, stays until 14 October)

Nominated October 7 2005; needs at least 3 votes by 14 October, 2005

Support:

Spawn Man 00:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This is a great article with so much potential. Almost everyone will be interested in Robert Ripley & his company. Spawn Man 00:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religious pluralism (17 votes, stays until November 15, 2005)

Nominated October 4, 2005; needs at least 18 votes by November 15, 2005

Support:

Comments:

This is a rather lengthy article on what I consider a very important subject: What do members of different religions think about the creeds of the others and how do they manage to get on with one another? However, the article so far lacks a clear structure - you can see a proposal for a new outline under talk:Religious Pluralism#New Outline for Rewrite - New version. Furthermore, I have proposed a new conceptual framework to make things a bit clearer, but now the whole article needs reworking to eliminate the loose terminology throughout. Finally, claims in many sections are rather general, badly founded in facts and sometimes, in my opinion, not-NPOV. So lots of work to be done for everyone interested in questions of religion and Clash_of_Civilizations.--Robin.rueth 05:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that articles related to Religious_pluralism are also in bad need of editing, and the articles need to be linked better. Among the related articles, there is Interfaith and Religious_tolerance (with a POV dispute going on).
Robin and I have been looking through potential revised structures, and will be attempting to rationalise the entire topic area - tweaks, rather than overhauls. This includes mild structural overhaul of the main article as well as spawning off some specialization articles (for which there is already precedent for eg Judaism) I advocate a Stay FTM, and possibly a retraction, depending on how well we do. (20040302 11:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
A new outline of the article has now been proposed on Talk:Religious_pluralism. Everyone, especially those who have voted for this page, is invited to give their opinion on it and - if there is agreement - to co-operate in implementing the proposed new outline. (I suppose this is too much work for two people!) This entails a considerable amount of work because I reckon it's rather a complete overhaul than anything else. Expert knowledge is needed on

Concepts, such as: universalism, particularism, proselytism, exclusivism, inclusivism, syncretism
the teachings of different religions,
history of religions,
history of different situations of inter-cultural / inter-religious coexistence and conflict
the Clash of Civilizations theory
Enlightenment philosophy views on religious pluralism
and others

This is going to lead to a series of interlinked articles, with Religious_Pluralism on top, rather than to a single massive article. Expert knowledge is also required on how to organize such rather huge projects. So even if this page has not (yet) been agreed on for Article Improvement drive, I invite everone to participate in improving it.--Robin.rueth 13:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asian fetish (13 votes, stays until November 15, 2005)

Nominated October 11, 2005; needs at least 15 votes by November 15, 2005

Comments:

This article, about a controversial term that brings up important issues regarding ethnic stereotypes and interracial relationships, reads more like a bad freshman sociology paper than an encyclopedia article. In particular, there is an overall lack of scholarly sources and a superfluous amount of POV statements. At the very least, I hope it can benefit from increased visibility which might encourage different viewpoints to edit, contribute, and create a more objective resource on this important subject. --Howrealisreal 04:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess. Scattered among the NPOV observations and statistics is an endless tirade of unsubstantiated assertions about "white" people who happen to be dating a person of Asian descent (and vice versa). Additionally, traits and beliefs are repeatedly attributed to "whites" and "Asians" as if these are homogenous groups. There is a section titled "Social Consequences" which is nothing more than a series of lurid crimes where individuals of Asian descent happened to be the victims. This is, at best, sloppy journalism. All in all, the phrase "POV" doesn't begin to cover the extent of this. This article needs serious work. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 18:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The previous poster is incorrect. The Social Consequences section lists crimes against Asian women who were targeted exclusively because they were Asian. Isn't that what the essence of what an Asian fetish is? You make it sound as if just random crimes were listed. But in each case it is clear that the perpetrator had a clear fixation and obsession with Asian women. Also, it is a fact that Western Culture has exoticized Asian female sexuality. Just type the word "Asian" into Google and see how many PORN sites come up. This article discusses a valid topic and should be kept the way it is. I have a feeling that the people objecting to the article are white people who object to being portrayed as the perpetrators of this fetish. --143.127.3.10 7:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

For the record, if you do a google search for "Asian" it goes for pages and pages without turning up a hit for a pornography site. --Howrealisreal 21:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, search for "Asian Woman," and there's a mail order bride site listed on the friggin first page. -3

To "Howrealisreal", I find it interesting that you chose not to address the points I made in my post. I think it goes without saying that when one types in the word "Asian" in any search engine, there will be an overwhelming number of hits devoted to pornographic sites. You also failed to address my point about how the crimes listed under the "Social Consequences" section were indeed relevant and demonstrative of Asian Fetish.

I think what is being unsaid here is that the people on the 2 sides of this debate fall into 2 clear categories: Asian American men and women who are the victim of Asian Fetishm and White Men who are currently dating or are pursuing Asian women. Reading through the discussion page on this article is clear enough evidence of that. That being said, I find it difficult to give the people opposed to this article much credit. This is analagous to an article on racism where the victims of racism are saying one thing while the perpetrators of the racism are denying it exists. Does that mean that everyone opposed to this article is racist? Of course not. But I think a lot of the misunderstanding over this article is due in large part to the majority (white men) being unable to relate to the experiences of a racial minority.

There is a reason why Asian Female news anchors dominate television. There is a reason why people are yelling "ME SO HORNY" at Asian women on schools across this country. There is a reason why there are a number of successful Asian female actors in Hollywood but almost no Asian male actors. To deny that Asian fetishism exists is to deny that racism exists in this country. --143.127.3.10 7:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 18:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I did not address your comments about the validity of the subject matter because that was not what I had a problem with. I definitely agree that there are things that need to be understood about ethnic stereotypes in popular culture (and even ethnic stereotypes in pornography), but this sensational and accusatory nature of reporting fails to do it adequately. Keep in mind that I am not advocating that everything, including your perspective, is totally incorrect and I want to censor it; I was the one that nominated it here and not at Wikipedia:AfD. I also want to know the answers to the questions you raise in your comment, but using examples like google searches that don't even pan out to be correct just damages the credibility of the topic. Are we trying to get to the bottom of why we make these negative stereotypes and what we all can do to correct them, or are we just trying to perpetuate them? --Howrealisreal 22:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out the aspects of the article that are "sensational and accusatory". Pointing out the fact that Asian Fetishm exists is not accusatory....unless you are the one promoting it. The article goes in depth as to the possible motivations of the people who use this label and discusses the various social and sexual stereotypes that contribute to it. Quite simply, I fail to see what your objection is other than the fact that you don't think Asian Fetishm exists at all. Denying it exists is just another way of perpetuating it. --143.127.3.10 7:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 19:45, 11 October 2005

Please direct this kind of discussion to the article's talk page. Things are getting out of hand and unWP:CIVIL, even here. --Idont Havaname 00:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking the same thing. I am sorry to have complicated this page, I was not expecting it to turn out like this. I also welcome this discussion on the article's talk page and invite other users to join in. I believe the only way we can hope for this article to be improved is with wikipedia consensus. And by "improved", please know that I don't mean it to be understood as censorship, or an Asian fetish cover-up operation. Quite the contrary, by "improved" I would like to see expansion of the topic with sources. --Howrealisreal 00:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usully spot pseudoscience and PoV in articles very easily, but this one just stood out as I was reading a portion of it. It reads a little like the kind of rant one might find here.elvenscout742 20:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The whole page is the subject of a big fight. I'd say that's reason enough to put it up as needing attention. --Orborde 07:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that these court cases are "non-notable" or that the victims "just happen to be Asian" (a phrase that has come up several times) is non-neutral. Rapes and murders may be isolated incidents, "non-notable" to those who are uneffected by the underlying social prejudices, but wanting to base what is including in the article on that single perspective is strongly POV. In fact, there's a strong argument that "race doesn't matter and these people happen to be Asian" in the face of pervasive media stereotyping of Asian Americans is not a viewpoint that warrants "equal validity".

The request for better sources for the article is a great suggestion for improvement. Adding a section that describes the fact that "fetishization" can be unintentional and non-malicious in intent would be a step forward. Omitting discussion of prevailing racial dynamics--"white men", etc.--when dealing with "Asian fetish" would be ridiculous. If you think that's wrong, come up with some solid sources, but remember this passage on the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_Point_of_View#Anglo-American_focus

That entry is not great either. It neglects an important fact--it's hard for non-white males to support their perspective without original research because the means of publishing in the society tend to be white male owned and operated. User:Xian 11:28 AM 10/11/2005

Let's stick to the topic please. Some people here fail at reading comprehension, it's about fetishes, not interacial dating. A lot of the arguments here are based on ad hominem. --Disco crusader 00:57, 14 October 2005

This article needs improvement in the worst way. It's a scattershot POV mess at the moment, and the talk page is mostly aimless rambling and ad-hominems.--Wasabe3543 22:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has more of a diversity of sources. I think this is a notable improvement, because now at least people can read the article and realize it is a credible topic and not just write it off as a subjective rant. --Howrealisreal 13:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva (2 votes, stays until November 22, 2005)

Nominated November 15, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by November 22, 2005

Support:

Comments:

I definitely think that one of the chief deities of Hinduism needs a tidier, better article. This is just one of dozens of messy Hinduism-related articles, and probably the most appalling of them. elvenscout742 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God (6 votes, stays until November 28, 2005)

Nominated November 7, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by November 28, 2005

Support:

--Carabinieri 17:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Trevdna 04:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--splot 14:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CG 19:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
—jiy (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
—Simetrical (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Very important topic, which needs a FA.--Carabinieri 17:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree --Trevdna 04:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Man, this one might start some edit wars! ike9898 00:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy (4 votes, stays until December 19, 2005)

Nominated December 5, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by December 19, 2005

Support

Comments

This is unfortunately very Anglo- and U.S.-centric at the moment. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation (14 votes, stays until January 17, 2006)

Nominated December 14, 2005; needs at least 15 votes by January 17, 2006

Support

Ashibaka tock 06:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
cohesion★talk 03:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Fenice 12:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Csbodine 17:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Melaen 18:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Luis Dantas 18:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Solar 13:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lumiere 03:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Triona 09:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DaGizza ^Chat 00:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NeoJustin 02:36 January 4, 2006 (UTC)
Kaldari 21:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Metta Bubble 04:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
≈ Ekevu ^talk_contrib 18:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is an extensive and important topic, it looks like the core bit is well-written but some of it is an ad-hoc mess. This would make a nice featured article with just a little work. Ashibaka tock 06:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Every day life

Microwave oven (4 votes, stays until December 24, 2005)

Nominated December 10, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by December 24, 2005

Support

King of Hearts 01:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wackymacs 20:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mgm|^(talk) 14:14, 14
Zath42 15:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

This article on an extremely important part of our lives could use more work in several sections. -- King of Hearts 01:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even have a microwave yet...but whatever. — Wackymacs 20:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also needs an image to describe its workings. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Microwave is a fascinating piece of technology that has made its way into the home.

Time management (3 votes, stays until January 16, 2006)

Nominated January 2, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 16, 2006

Support

Fenice 12:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Pamri • Talk 08:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jtneill - Talk 10:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is an important business topic. Wikipedia is still very week on management topics and social sciences in general. This is a hole in our coverage that could be filled.--Fenice 08:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marketplace (7 votes, stays until January 31)

Nominated January 11, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by January 31, 2006

Support

Comment

Cons: Markets have been around for a very long time. I was surprised that this article was mostly bare. Could use some work and expanding.

Classicism (6 votes, stays until February 1)

Nominated January 11, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 1, 2006

Support

In dire need. Renata 05:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Havardj 8:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Fenice 18:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Daanschr 19:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Juppiter 20:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is one of the major art styles and there is almost nothing about it! For those who studied art history it should be pretty clear that this is a high-profile article (especially in architecture - just check the White House). Renata 05:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Very short article for such a significant period. User:Havardj
We have a featured article on Palladian architecture that we could summarize into a section of this article. --Fenice 18:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human sacrifice in Aztec culture (11 votes, stays until February 2, 2006)

Nominated January 5, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 2, 2006

Support

Fxer 02:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TestPilot 06:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel | Talk 02:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Havardj 21:18, 10 January (UTC)
Wikiacc 00:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steven 20:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vitall 22:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugur Basak 23:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Metta Bubble 12:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A large part of Aztec culture, one of the most striking aspects of the civilization to this day. Article has few wikilinks, is completely unreferenced, and a cursory glance shows lots of incorrect info!

Culture of the Ottoman Empire (6 votes, stays until February 6)

Nominated January 16, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 6, 2006

Support

Comments

It was a large and long living empire. Its influence on cultures of Southeast Europe is very noticeable. User:Tommiks makes a formidable effort in a big number of articles about History of the Ottoman Empire, including this one. But he is overwhelmed with work and definitely needs a hand Mukadderat 23:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran and weapons of mass destruction (2 votes, stays until February 19, 2006)

Nominated February 12, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by February 19, 2006

Support

Comments

Somewhat disorganized and weak article on an important topic of current concern in international affairs; often appears on the Main Page. --Neutrality^talk 04:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd draw attention to the fact that Iran is nominated above and would personally focus on that article first. Lbbzman 15:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neolithic religion (3 votes, stays until February 21)

Nominated February 7, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 21, 2006

Support

Comments

Self-nomination, I originally made it as a collection of the deities of the Neolithic, but I did a bad job at it, and the article really needs to be improved. Ghelae 15:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science

Astrodynamics (July 2)

Nominated June 18 2005; needs 6 votes by July 2 2005

Reason: I've tried to rewrite this turkey, but I have come to realize that I am not expert enough to choose a good high-level structure for this article, and I am not novice enough to know what's generally interesting. --P3d0 06:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Support

P3d0 06:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Fenice 18:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Imperialles 19:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Psychotherapy (7 votes, stays until Aug. 6)

Nominated July 10 2005; needs at least 7 votes by Aug. 6 2005
Support:

Fenice 17:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lumos3 19:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Erica1978 14:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
JoeSmack (talk) 22:11, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
siafu 18:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vaughan 09:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
whicky1978 13:14, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

This article which concerns many people consists mainly of lists. Most of the information is there in subarticles, it just needs to be summarized.--Fenice 17:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have watched the list grow for about 18 months with almost no change to the text. Its time an attempt was made to give the article a worthy description sense. The lists could well be seperate articles of their own. Lumos3 19:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been limp for far too long. Considering how valuable psychotherapy is to people I think we should have a concise, comprehensive article on the matter. Not doing so would be as remiss as having a flimsy article on 'medicine'. JoeSmack (talk) 22:11, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

The article could most benefit from a more thorough treatment of the history of theory and practice. siafu 18:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archive note: This was originally removed from the project page without being placed here. It appeared to have been removed early. But the date in the header for removal due was actually wrong. Maurreen (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know. I was wondering what was up... JoeSmack (talk) 15:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear power phase-out (3 votes, stays until August 26)

Nominated August 19 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 26 2005

Support:

Ben ^T/_C 03:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
arkuat (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Howrealisreal 16:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I think the topic of nuclear phase-outs and a discussion of nuclear energy is very important. The article needs still much work. Some tasks are outlined here. I am trying to find as much help as I can and have people from other wikipedias work on the topic also. Besides for German (which was first), an article on that topic exists already in Spanish, Russian, Italian, French, and Japanese (all translated from the English article). A Chinese version is planned. Ben ^T/_C 05: 00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Vulcan (planet) (1 vote, stays until August 29)

Nominated August 22 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 29 2005

Support

Litefantastic 11:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

No, this isn't the planet from Star Trek. It's a hypothetical sphere that, as it turns out, didn't exist. Nifty. -Litefantastic 11:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Autism epidemic (3 votes, stays until August 31)

Nominated August 24 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 31, 2005

Support:

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 14:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mamawrites 14:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*drew 20:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Needs serious all-around help to meet quality of articles such as Autism --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 14:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human genome (14 votes, stays until September 2)

Nominated August 5 2005; needs at least 16 votes by September 2 2005
Reason:

The sequencing of the human genome was one of the most profound achievements in the history of science. I've kicked this article off with a solid basis in technical and scientific fact, but it needs expansion to reach its full potential. --Mike Lin 09:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

Mike Lin 09:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fenice 19:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deryc k C. 03:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:Filur 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Encephalon | ζ | Σ 08:33:18, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
Plociam 05:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zath42 09:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro 11:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Renata3 05:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OtherDave 17:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Lomedae 19:04, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Nicholas 20:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mouvement 21:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
inks 20:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

It's about your genome, people. Come on, vote up.--Encephalon | ζ | Σ 18:22:20, 2005-08-12 (UTC)
Chaqu'un à son goût, but my vote's here because two video game characters are higher on the list. OtherDave 17:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Skin (2 votes, stays until Ocotber 13)

October 6 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 13, 2005

Support:

RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 22:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ech! That picture of the model is awful, with those labels all at angles and hard to read. --bodnotbod 13:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Skin is one of the most important organs in your entire body. I think this article should be at a higher level. I mean without it, no one would be able to survive. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 22:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterrestrial life (1 vote, stays until October 25, 2005)

Nominated October 18, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 25, 2005

Support:

--Revolución (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Could be improved. --Revolución (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crystallization processes (3 votes, stays until 30 January 2006)

Nominated 16 January, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by 30 January, 2006

Support

Comments

needs lots of improvement, Melaen 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crystallization redirects to this article, so it really needs to be expanded. --Tantalum T e lluride 21:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The very first thing to be done is to rename it to "Crystallization". Or to "About basic stages of crystallization processes". It requires an anministrator to do this. Mukadderat 22:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mukadderarat, pray tell, what is an "anministrator"? Carolaman 22:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biology

Walking (2 votes, stays until December 22, 2005)

Nominated December 15, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 22, 2005

Support

Comments

This is one of those things that is really important to people in general, yet has a whole heap of what could be really useful information and topics missing. I've suggested a bunch on the article talk page, as have some other people. Proto t c 16:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most basic topics for an encyclopedia of the sum of all human knowledge. I say, make it sexy. -Silence 13:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bearded Dragon (5 votes, stays until December 24 2005)

Nominated December 10 2005; needs at least 6 votes by December 24, 2005

Support

Comments

This could use a huge reworking. Right now it's not much more than a pet owner's manual. Rampart 19:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. It doesn't even tell me anything about the phylogeny of the bearded dragon, which I would be interested to know. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 19:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pheromone (10 votes, stays until February 12)

Nominated 15 January, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 12, 2006

Support

Comments

This article is pathetic, considering the importance of its topic in biology. #EastNile 03:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks alright to me. Not exactly FA but there are surely weaker articles on more significant topics. Soo 16:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with EastNile. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should say, it's not just biology, it's important in psychology as well. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 18:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veterinary medicine (9 votes, stays until January 24)

Nominated December 28, 2005; needs at least 12 votes by January 24, 2006

Support

Comments

Aside from the section on veterinary education (in the US), this article is a stub. I would have put it on COTW, but it isn't marked a stub and I guess it's not really a stub, but... I originally nominated this as a Medicine COTW, but that's really more geared towards human medicine. Tuf-Kat 05:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It needs some serious improvement. -- Mac Davis ญƛ. 12:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naturopathic medicine (4 votes, stays until February 22, 2006)

Nominated February 8, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 22, 2006

Support

Comments

A very important topic in today's world. Naturopathic medicine has been on a steady incline in recent decades, as a result of modern medicine and its many questionable side effects. The article is in awful shape and in need of cleaning.
"The healing power of nature"? Yay, more New Age bullshit on AID. -Silence 07:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

Babylonia (4 votes, stay until July 12)

Nominated June 28 2005; needs 6 votes by July 12 2005
Support:

Fenice 28 June 2005 08:05 (UTC)
Maurreen 2 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)
Phileas 4 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)
Poli 21:58, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
NatusRoma 01:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Important ancient culture that deserves a better article...--Fenice 28 June 2005 08:05 (UTC)

History of Minnesota (3 votes, stays until August 16)

Nominated August 8 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 16 2005

Support:

A Link to the Past 14:30, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Zath42 09:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mb1000 01:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Decent article as it is, but is definitely in need of improvement. -- A Link to the Past 14:30, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hannibal (8 votes, stays until August 29)

Nominated August 8 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 29 2005

Support:

Paul James Cowie 13:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
siafu 22:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Valhallia 13:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Renata3 05:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fenice 19:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Kirby 06:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dejvid 15:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lomedae 19:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

One of the great personalities of the ancient world and the focus of an upcoming blockbuster movie treatment. Article is really shoddy, based on old encyclopaedia articles and poorly written / documented. A real shame. Paul James Cowie 13:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Paul James Cowie said. He's one of the more interesting personalities in history. Valhallia 13:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Balkans (24 votes, stays until September 5)

Nominated July 4 2005; needs at least 27 votes by September 5 2005
Support:

Litefantastic 4 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)
Maurreen 7 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)
CristianChirita 7 July 2005 06:32 (UTC)
Fenice 7 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)
Tothebarricades July 8, 2005 18:56 (UTC)
Milena 12:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Poli 21:57, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
Eric Forste 00:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel | Talk 18:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 20:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Valentinian 23:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amina 17:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vladdraculdragon 16:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Howrealisreal 16:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Beland 02:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
siafu 21:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Renata3 05:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
E.A 17:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Djbaniel 20:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Ghidra99 10:00, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
ijelisavcic 5:56, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Mamawrites 20:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cmadler 12:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whitejay251 07:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Created from scratch for the COTW, then sponsored as an AID article, I think it's time to send in the TWID. It's just too big for regular maintence to hold together -Litefantastic 4 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)
Great nomination. I think we could bring this up to featured standard if we can add references and inline notes.--Fenice 7 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)
I was the one who nominated it for COTW - I'm very impressed with what's been done. Still needs improvement, though. This might be a good place considering the vastness of the subject. --Tothebarricades July 8, 2005 18:56 (UTC)
Agree with Tothebarricades - Milena 12:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
This article is over 70k and is going to continue to get larger. It needs to be split up into a chronological series, like History of China or History of the People's Republic of China. -- Beland 02:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Beland is right. We need to realize that in many cases the most promising article-improvement drive is going to involve an article that is too long, and that needs to have detail moved off into more detailed, related articles, many of which already exist, in this case. If we decide to vote for History of the Balkans, this is the kind of work that will be cut out for us. That's why I voted for this article in the first place. In the meantime, we can read what's there right now, and start thinking about how to generalize usefully about the details that are going to end up getting moved into related articles. (And, yeah, I changed my sig, hope that doesn't bother any of you.) --arkuat (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with arkuat and Beland; article winning AID would be a great opportunity for reorganization.Djbaniel 20:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) (10 votes, stays until September 5)

Nominated August 15 2005; needs at least 12 votes by September 5 2005

Reason

A very important article which only provides stub section on major events, and doesn't give any proper conclusion of the effects of the movement on American history and society. Could easily become a great featured article if people worked hard.

Support:

Harro5 02:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
EKMichigan 03:29, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Syrae Faileas 21:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
AlMac|^(talk) 23:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 03:04, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Mamawrites 20:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Simesa 08:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alabamaboy 11:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Scott P. 23:15:36, 2005-08-27 (UTC)
Cmadler 12:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

How would you like to see this organized? Osu8907 03:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A history section on the civil rights movement in general, with a timeline linking to articles on various events (eg. Montgomery bus boycott). Then, information on how the movement was received and grew in popularity, with a final section on the legacy of the civil rights movement in contemporary American history. Essentially, a focus on the movement as a whole not just mini-stubs and links to other articles. Maybe see Racism in the United States for some ideas. That's my thoughts anyway. Harro5 08:03, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  - The timeline exists in Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement which is referenced in "Related Topics". This article is already 41kb - we will have to be careful what we add. Simesa 08:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that the addition of a brief subsection describing the mutually supportive relationships during that era between the Racial Equality movement, the Women's Rights movement, the Gay Rights movement, and the Religious Toleration movement would enhance the article. Many of the members and leaders of these various movements would also attend the marches and rallies of the other movements and support one another in the speeches given at their own rallies and marches. Many recognized the mutual benefit experienced by all in the furtherance of Civil Rights.
I have no evidence I can cite to prove any assertions about this claim, but I am a white man who was there ... I was in the march when Martin Luther King Jr gave a great speech about his dream, that a lot of people have memorized today, I participated for a while in CORE (Congress on Racial Equality) until it became neccessary for Black Pride, for the White volunteers to leave its membership. AlMac|^(talk) 23:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great Depression (5 votes, stays until September 9)

Nominated August 26, 2005; needs at least 8 votes by September 9, 2005

Support:

Zhatt 22:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Yabbadab 04:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Harro5 00:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Cmadler 12:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Ehouk1 14:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 16:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

A major global event. This article has been vandalized and is missing a lot of information. This really should be up to Feature Article status considering that it has its own category. Zhatt 22:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
It is unclear whether the article is intended to discuss the global depression, or just the depression in the US. The article mentions a few happenings outside the US, but on the whole seems US-focused. Cmadler 12:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It does focus mostly on the US depression, and should include events outside the US. Most of the information on the article now should be moved over to Great Depression in the United States that is linked in the See also section. Once this article is cleaned up, efforts can be moved over to the Great Depression articles for the individual countries. Zhatt 17:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
This event is genrally consided to be one of the major causes of WWII, this diserves a wider and better article than it curently has. --Ehouk1 14:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Rome (5 votes, stays until September 13)

Nominated August 30, 2005; needs at least 8 votes by September 13, 2005

Support:

Comments:

This article was the product of a Collaboration of the Week, a while back. Reviewing it, I believe that we can make it into a featured article, after some work through the Article improvement drive. For starters, there is not one referance cited in this article, there is a few section stubs that need to be filled in, and just general maintance to the article would be good. I believe after the article goes through this drive, that it will be ready to be sent to a peer review. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egypt (9 votes, stays until September 14)

Nominated August 24 2005; needs at least 12 votes by September 14, 2005

Support:

Magicmonster 02:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Litefantastic 15:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 21:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Paul James Cowie 10:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro 01:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Renata3 00:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
naryathegreat | (talk) 00:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Tsm1128 17:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This Article needs serious rewriting. This is such an important civilization that nothing less than a feature article will do. Magicmonster 02:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Good work has been done, but the article is incomplete and the style is dodgy in places, and the topic definitely deserves an FA ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 21:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great Retreat (5 votes, stays until October 19, 2005)

Nominated October 5 2005; needs at least 6 votes by October 19, 2005

Support:

Comments:

I think this forgotten article could do with a bit of TLC.Spawn Man 07:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Information Age (4 votes, stays until November 6, 2005)

Nominated October 23, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 6, 2005

Support:

Comments:

Its the current age whice we are in now. It could be expanded to reflect what is going on in the world today when it come to technology and the modern day economy. I added some pictures and information but it could still use work. It could also talk about the future. Tarret 13:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egypt (2 votes, stays until November 15, 2005)

Nominated November 8, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by November 15, 2005

Support:

Comments:

If we're going to be reviving old nominations, I might as well return this old one. It brings back such memories...Magicmonster 03:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Rome (4 votes, stays until November 17, 2005)

Nominated November 3, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 17, 2005

Support:

Attilios 3 November 2005
Spawn Man 03:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
JDH Owens^{talk | Esperanza} 19:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Former article was almost merely a sequel of dates. Rome needs a more in-depth history. Missing mainly Renaissance and modern era details. I'm working sometimes on it, but if you can help you're welcome.

1998 U.S. embassy bombings (4 votes, stays until November 21, 2005)

Nominated November 7, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 21, 2005

Support:

Harro5 04:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 12:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wackymacs 19:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*drew 23:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

A good article with the potential to be a first-rate historical page on a major event that really brought Osama bin Laden to the global intelligence community's fore. Harro5 04:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal from the Restoration to the 1755 Earthquake (1 vote, stays until November 23, 2005)

Nominated November 16, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by November 23, 2005

Support:

Gameiro 21:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Colonialism (11 votes, stays until November 28, 2005)

Nominated October 31 2005; needs at least 12 votes by November 28, 2005

Support

Comments

This article and many related articles are INMHO worthy of the improvement drive. (Colonization:Spends too much time on history nothing on how its done), (Dutch Colonial Empire-Needs clean up) (Italian Colonial Empire]-Need expansion) etc. This article could particullarly use it. We need to start with Colonialism in Antiquity(no article) move on to the Middle Ages, etc. Specifically, it would be important to go over the Phoenecians, Greek, Romans, and then European Colonial Empires. There is really a lot that could be done. Falphin 00:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Arts dept's don't spend half their time yapping about it for no reason. Marskell 03:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Iceland (5 votes, stays until December 1, 2005)

Nominated November 17, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by December 1, 2005

Support:

Zoso 15:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to chip in. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bjarki 15:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tarret 21:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Iotha 04:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

In my opinion, this article could well be worthy of FA status with sufficient attention. I have been editing it sporadically but it could definitely bear a lot of improvement.

Pilgrims (1 vote, stays until December 3, 2005)

Nominated November 27, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 3, 2005

Support:

Bkwillwm 00:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It will be an interesting NPOV challenge. — David Remahl 20:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

A very important historical subject to the history of the United States, at least to US cultural identity, but this article does not do a good job relating the Pilgrims' story and is far too short considering the available information.--Bkwillwm 00:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Quebec City (2 votes, stays until February 23)

Nominated February 16, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by February 23, 2006

Support

Comments

I've exhausted internet sources on the subject. Much of the article was directly translated from the french version and reads somewhat awkwardly. Could be a featured article but I need more stuff. I need all of you. Juppiter 03:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Tunisia (9 votes, stays until February 25)

Nominated January 28, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 25, 2006

Support

Darwinek 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
gren グレン ^? 10:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Havardj 12:33, 29 January (UTC)
—Wikiacc • ∂ 23:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vir 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpacemanAfrica 04:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*drew 12:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Juppiter 03:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Tunisia is small country but very rich in history. Carthage, Romans, Phoenicians, Numidians, Berbers and Arab tribes shaped Tunisia's history and this article is just a medium tiny article. It's sad. - Darwinek 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's more about Togo than Tunisia... needs more definitely. gren グレン ^? 10:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

Black Consciousness Movement (10 votes, stays until January 10, 2006)

Nominated December 14, 2005; needs at least 12 votes by January 10, 2006

Support

Harro5 11:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ban e s 11:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Revolución (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dvyost 17:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fenice 07:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Totallycrazyman 22:06, 1 January 2006 (GMT)
JohD 09:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Howrealisreal 02:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 07:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Recently saw huge improvements as the African COTW, but could really use some extra editors to make it into a valuable FA. Harro5 11:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely important topic for world history, in an area often neglected by WP. --Dvyost 17:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prison farm (1 vote, stays until January 2, 2006)

Nominated December 27, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by January 2, 2006

Support

Comments

Important part of history currently a stub, Waltwe 12:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Stubs shouldn't be here, according to the top of the page. --AySz88^-^ 16:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is worthy, simply listed in the wrong place. I made a nomination for it at Collaboration of the Week. Aaronwinborn 02:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-profit organization (July 6)

Nominated June 29 2005; needs 3 votes by July 6 2005
Support:

Fenice 29 June 2005 10:12 (UTC)

Comments:

Should be expanded. --Fenice 29 June 2005 10:12 (UTC)
How much overlap or differentiation between this and NGOs? Maurreen 3 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

Agricultural policy (3 votes, stays until 28 July 2005)

Nominated July 14 2005; needs at least 6 votes by July 28 2005
Support:

Beland 00:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Howrealisreal 16:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel | Talk 18:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

This article includes agricultural subsidies, a current issue of great import. It seems to need some internal integration, and it is flagged for cleanup. -- Beland 00:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. detention (July 15)

Nominated July 8 2005; needs at least 3 votes by July 15 2005
Support:

Maurreen 9 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)
Fenice 19:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Badly out of date. Maurreen 9 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)
I agree, it should be up to date.--Fenice 19:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidy (August 18)

Nominated July 14 2005; needs at least 15 votes by August 18 2005
Support:

Beland 00:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fenice 05:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sherool 14:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-- BDAbramson ^talk 20:15, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Scott Ritchie 09:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Benjamin Gatti 15:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Howrealisreal 16:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Poli 05:29, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
– Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Joefu 20:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RedWordSmith 22:43, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Eric Forste (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cryoboy 12:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Sesel 06:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

There is also a lot of dispute between wealthy nations as to who can subsidize which of their products - this is dealt with under the GATT, which allows countries to take action against other countries who oversubsidize domestic industries, but there are exceptions. -- BDAbramson ^talk 20:15, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

American Empire (9 votes, stays until August 24)

Nominated August 3 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 24 2005
Support:

Jacob 20:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 20:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
EatAlbertaBeef 21:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Punkmorten 21:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Howrealisreal 12:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Trevor macinnis 21:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WiseSabre 09:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rfredian 16:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alr 23:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This article touches on several broad political topics and they all should be signifigantly improved, made NPOV and wikified, such as Hegemony, Americanisation and History_of_United_States_Imperialism among others. --Jacob 20:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about the countries which are indirectly ruled by America i.e Afghnistan,Iraq...WiseSabre

Advertising regulation (5 votes, stays until 22 September 2005)

Nominated 8 September 2005; needs at least 8 votes by September 22, 2005

Support:

Comments:

A large topic which could draw on details from articles such as tobacco advertising and alcohol advertising as well as the numerous (easily-accessible) rulings online. violet/riga (t) 19:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being stickler stub status again: AID isn't necessarily the place for this. I strongly encourage you to take this to COTW.(And I'm voting for it anyway). Whitejay251 17:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Election judge (3 votes, stays until October 3, 2005)

Nominated September 19, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by October 3, 2005

Support:

EdwinHJ | Talk 22:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whitejay²⁵¹ 15:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-- MicahMN | μ 21:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Important and timely as US reviews election procedures and voting. EdwinHJ | Talk 22:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we'll continue to get stubs nominated, even though it says this project is for non-stub articles in the very first sentence of the page. I'll continue to point out they belong at WP:COTW, and vote for them anyway, as they are usually pages that should have much better coverage. Whitejay²⁵¹ 15:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corporatism (4 votes, stays until October 11, 2005)

Nominated 27 September, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by October 11, 2005

Support:

Comments:

This is a fairly important concept in political science, but this article's definition is still rather muddled in places, although I have made an effort to restructure it in a number of parts. More references are probably needed, as is some careful copyediting to distinguish the various aspects of corporatism from each other. MC MasterChef

Green Party (United States) (10 votes, stays until November 26, 2005)

Nominated October 29, 2005; needs at least 12 votes by November 26, 2005

Support:

Carabinieri 17:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Revolución (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Howrealisreal 21:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Squideshi 14:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ben Manski 8 November 2005
Deirdre 23:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Waltwe 19:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Celestianpower ^háblame 12:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
TrafficBenBoy 02:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed:

~~mesoandy 18:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC) ~~(see talk)~~~~[reply]

~~~~dbreuer 17:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC) ~~(see talk)~~~~[reply]~~

~~Comments:~~
This party is gaining in relevancy, yet the article is still pretty poor.--Carabinieri 17:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History section needs improvement. Deirdre 00:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient recent sources; history section demonstrates lack of perspective. kakistocracy (Unsigned entry by 12.221.104.128 (Talk; Contribs) @ 00:28, 9 November 2005)

~~Kurdistan Workers Party (6 votes, stays until January 28)~~
~~Nominated January 7, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by January 28, 2006~~
~~Support~~

FrancisTyers 03:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 10:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duran^talk 15:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iotha 20:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiacc • § 19:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khoikhoi 02:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~

~~Cons: A lot of uncited information, speculation, POV, not particularly useful structure. Pros: Could easily be improved with a little work.~~

~~Palestine Liberation Organization (3 votes, stays until January 30)~~
~~Nominated 16 January, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by 30 January~~
~~Support~~

Carabinieri 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CG 17:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiacc 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

~~needs lost of improvement--Carabinieri 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Post-Soviet states (11 votes, stays until February 13)~~
~~Nominated January 16, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 13, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Juppiter 20:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fenice 20:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—Nightstallion (?) 21:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiacc 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mikka (t) 07:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 23:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobird 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 22:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jhohenzollern 03:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TwilaStar 08:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpandX 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

COTW candidate that failed and has since developed into little more than a stub. An important, current article that could be 10 times as long. Needs more images, important names, and solid facts. Juppiter 20:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very suitable for this collaboration - some information should already be there is subarticles.--Fenice 20:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important topic, help always welcome. —Nightstallion (?) 21:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~German law (8 votes, stays until February 22 2006)~~
~~Nominated February 1, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 22, 2006~~
~~Support~~

// paroxysm (n) 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 22:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jhohenzollern 03:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TwilaStar 08:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rokafela 19:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpandX 17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanAfrica 04:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

This is an important topic with a subpar and incomplete article. We might be able to get a headstart from the de: article, if there is one. // paroxysm (n) 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one needs so much work. --SpacemanAfrica 04:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Federal Bureau of Investigation (13 votes, stays until February 24)~~
~~Nominated January 20, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by February 24, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Carabinieri 22:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silence 23:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finnegar 00:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carolaman 05:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gflores ^Talk 03:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJH 15:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous | Talk 05:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UmbrageOfSnow 03:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Un sogno modesto 08:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanAfrica 04:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sertrel 00:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jdcooper 12:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Still a very short (and in many parts not very good) article for one of the most relevant and famous institutions in the US.-Carabinieri 22:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shockingly incomplete. Barely beyond stub-level. -Silence 23:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is the most skeletal section, but none of it is sufficient.Jdcooper 12:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Technology~~
~~Textile (July 2)~~
~~Nominated June 18 2005; needs 6 votes by July 2 2005~~
Reason

A broad topic with technological and cultural aspects. This article is off to a good start, but is stagnating. Alot of the article is lists. People from many backgrounds will be able to contribute to this - maybe some good pictures of textiles from different parts of the world.
~~Support~~
ike9898 19:44, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Fenice 09:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Kohninater 04:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Loggie July 2, 2005 15:01 (UTC)

Maurreen 2 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)
~~Comments~~
~~This topic is a sub-set of Trade but there is also the Arts and Crafts angle. Import / Export of the fabrics used to make Textiles. AlMac 3 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)~~
~~---~~
~~Hummer H2 (12 votes, stays until July 23)~~
~~Nominated June 18 2005; needs 15 votes by July 23 2005~~
Reason

Love it or hate it, the Hummer H2 has become an icon of American society. The article itself seems to be under the control of editors pushing to demonize the vehicle and even the drivers (quote: For USA taxpayers with substantial income other than salaries (e.g. private practice income such as medical practitioners, attorneys, and real estate agents or other independent professionals).... Needless to say, this is far from being NPOV. I believe that this is a worthy article that can be improved to Featured Article status, but it needs a lot of love and dedication before it can come anywhere near being a good article. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:32, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
~~Support~~

Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:32, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Jacen Aratan 15:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fenice 16:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SFoskett 16:04, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Harmil 13:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rentastrawberry 02:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Flgook 30 June 2005 22:27 (UTC)

Eriknikel 30 June 2005 22:40 (UTC)

Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 04:47 (UTC)

500LL July 5, 2005 19:36 (UTC)

Dare Devil 03:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malas 03:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

This article really has a neutrality-problem, and nobody is working on it, there doesn't seem to be an edit war going on right now.--Fenice 16:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We have been working on improving this article. Please see Talk:Hummer H2 for details. However, to characterize any editor as "pushing to demonize the vehicle" smacks of a personal attack and is not supported by facts. That being said, I would welcome any improvements to the article and support this improvement drive. --SFoskett 16:04, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
~~Multimedia (24 July)~~
Nominated 17 July 2005; needs at least 3 votes by 24 July 2005

Reason:
I was expecting more content in this article such as a history section, multimedia examples and details of more uses of multimedia. The article is quite stubby and needs a lot of improvement (sections, pictures, more external links and see also links). Multimedia is a very broad and popular topic, it deserves a better article.
~~Support:~~
Wackymacs 08:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maurreen 20:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~

~~Sysop (August 17)~~
~~Nominated 10 August 2005; needs at least 4 votes by 17 August 2005~~
~~Support~~
Newguineafan 17:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Fenice 06:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Technology (17 votes, stays until August 23)~~
Nominated July 12 2005; needs at least 18 votes by August 23 2005

Support:
Fenice 13:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maurreen 16:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jacoplane 09:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deryck C. 03:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pentawing 01:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Forste 00:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZeWrestler 02:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ike9898 15:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Magicmonster 15:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro 15:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beland 01:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toothpaste 10:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

naryathegreat | (talk) 00:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Steven McCrary 21:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Zath42 10:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Aranel ("Sarah") 19:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syrae Faileas 20:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
The article lacks a history section, as well as some information on where innovation takes place nowadays. Much of the text for this article could be mined from other wikipedia-articles. Then there is the section on ideology which needs a pov-check: some of it is sourced, some is not.--Fenice 13:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is it appropriate for me to say here that I added a skeletal outline to the Technology page, and put some "meat on those bones." If anyone is comfortable with this topic and not the other collaborations (like me), I could sure use some help over there. If inappropriate, please advise. Thanks, Steven McCrary 18:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

~~Multimedia (6 votes, stays until August 25)~~
~~Nominated August 11 2005; needs at least 8 votes by August 25 2005~~
~~Reason:~~
This is a renomination, I was surprised to see this article only get 2 votes last time. Multimedia, as a term, covers a wide variety of different things. Multimedia had an outburst in the 1990s, and is seen in TV, radio and computing. Multimedia has changed entertainment and business as well as society. This article lacks images, sections, references and doesn't show examples of different multimedia. With lots of work this article could make a good read. I'm sure that most users who load this page are disappointed with the lack of information on such a notable and popular subject. — Wackymacs 20:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support:~~
Wackymacs 20:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fenice 20:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Osu8907 19:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maurreen (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Aranel ("Sarah") 19:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~shuri 11:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~

~~SpaceShipOne (3 votes, stays until August 25)~~
~~Nominated August 18 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 25 2005~~
~~Support~~
Litefantastic 23:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cmadler 12:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AllanHainey
~~Comments~~

~~Spyware (5 votes, stays until September 1)~~
~~Nominated August 18 2005; needs at least 8 votes by September 1 2005~~
~~Support~~
Syrae Faileas 21:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FOo 23:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Litefantastic 23:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

arkuat (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DFH 16:16:36, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
~~Comments~~
Good article but could be improved. I would like to see this as a featured article.
This is a featured article. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the major contributors to this article, I would like to invite everyone with knowledge of the subject to contribute. There has been a specific request (in a featured-article nomination) for more screenshots of spyware in action. --FOo 23:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would be helpful to have a section on potential conflicts when more than one anti-spyware programs have been installed. DFH 16:16:36, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

~~History of technology (3 votes, stays until September 12)~~
~~Nominated 5 Sep 2005; needs at least 4 votes by September 12, 2005~~
This article is in bad shape. First, content inappropriately put in History of science was dumped into it. It has been sitting around for many months, fairly neglected and fairly disorganized. I have recently attempted to impose a structure roughly parallel to "History of science", but most of the sections - indeed most of the main articles on histories of sub fields - remain entirely unwritten. This is core encyclopedic content which is sadly missing from the wiki. This topic is big enough to benefit from an entire WikiProject, but a collaborative repair effort would be a good start. -- Beland 05:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support:~~
Beland 03:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 03:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whitejay251 17:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
~~Moved from WP:COTW. -- Beland 05:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Hydrogen highway (3 votes, stays until September 15)~~
Nominated 8 Sept 2005; needs at least 4 votes by September 15, 2005

Support:
Behun 02:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zhatt 16:55, September 8, 2005 (UTC) Sounds intresting.

Whitejay251 18:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
While yes, this is an interesting topic that would be great to see expanded upon, AID is for non-stub pages. Stubs may be nominated at the COTW. Whitejay251 17:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just contributed about as much as I know to the article and removed it's stub status because of the dramatic increase in size and content. If you feel it should still be a stub, I will re-add the stub and later move to the Collaborations site if it does not get enough votes. Behun 21:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a stickler about the stub thing, but I think it may have been why this hasn;t garnered many votes yet. Looks like there's more to work from now. Seems to me I may have some articles on the filling station infrastructure that would be needed to implement hydrogen highways. So if I can find them I'd be glad to work on this article. Whitejay251 18:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~American Motors (2 votes, stays until October 2, 2005)~~
~~Nominated September 25, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 2, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
Litefantastic 22:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AllanHainey 12:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
~~Come on! This has to be the most original automaker of its generation. -Litefantastic 22:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Hoverboard (2 votes, stays until 4 October, 2005)~~
~~Nominated 27 September 2005; needs at least 3 votes by 4 October, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
Fxer 19:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whitejay²⁵¹ 16:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
What's more fun than the Hoverboard from Back to the Future Part II? The science to attempt to create a real Hoverboard is quite interesting (possible?), and personal hovercraft resembling the Hoverboard are pretty awesome too! Not many fictional articles get nominated here, it'd be awesome if this one could get on the Main Page someday!

~~Landmine (6 votes, stays until October 23, 2005)~~
~~Nominated October 2, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by October 23, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
MC MasterChef 15:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Robin.rueth 15:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C-squared 15:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ciraric 17:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Behun 19:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Hughes 15:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
This could be a very rich subject, with political-moral, military-strategic, and technical angles to it. It was listed previously on Peer Review, where I found it and gave it something of an organizational makeover; there is still substantial room for improvement. The German wikipedia article looks quite impressive, can we develop ours further? MC MasterChef 15:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~The German article you quoted is very technical (very exhaustive about that), with comparatively little about the political-moral aspect. --Robin.rueth 15:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Filling station (10 votes, stays until October 29, 2005)~~
~~Nominated October 1, 2005; needs at least 12 votes by October 29, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
Whitejay²⁵¹ 17:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

11:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC) (Unsigned vote by User:AllanHainey)

Ciraric 16:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Litefantastic 23:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*drew 00:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luath 02:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ganymead 02:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benbread 18:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wackymacs 21:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri 17:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
It was on the main page as part of an in the news item a bit back. Imagine readers' surprise when confronted with an {{attention}} tag. Tysto (on the talk page) nailed the main problem with the article: "The original editor seems to be relating personal experience, which probably varies greatly from region to region." Whitejay²⁵¹ 17:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wiki (8 votes, stays until November 4, 2005)~~
~~Nominated October 14, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by November 4, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
Squideshi 21:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cohesion | talk 07:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sysys 18:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freiberg 15:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tarret 13:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

gflores 14:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Litefantastic 12:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
If any article deserves featured article status, it's this one. This article is about the technology that we're all using right now. We want Wikipedia to be the best possible encyclopedia, and that means that we should be able to feel confident sending people to this Wikipedia article to explain wikis. The article needs a lot of work. For example, it barely touches upon the philosophy of a wiki, the language does not flow, and it is not organized very well. Let's collaborate on this important article! Squideshi 21:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

100% agreement. Freiberg 15:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in wasting a week improving this article, as it is not as important as some of the other nominations that are currently up here. For example, how many people are going to want to read a Wiki that is about Bill Gates or Dinosaur? At the moment, Wikipedia has a serious quality problem (as discussed by The Register in an article of theirs, also linked to from this page in the Bill Gates nomination), and the majority of the most important subjects either have cleanup tags, tone problems, or need major rewrites, or they might need references, and it goes on and on. I'm not saying the Wiki article is not important, but it's not as important as some of the other articles that are in more need. — Wackymacs 12:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it's critical to provide readers with information about the process used to create Wikipedia articles. Wiki technology is central in this explanation. Why should anyone trust an article about Bill Gates or dinosaurs if they aren't familiar with the source of the information? Do you believe everything you read, or do you sometimes check sources? The absence of this explanation undermines the credibility of all other articles; and that makes this article very important, indeed. Squideshi 21:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well what do you think Wikipedia:How to edit a page is for? The Wiki page is not meant to describe how to edit Wikipedia specifically, and shouldn't even describe how to use the Wiki software, because according to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. — Wackymacs 18:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that this article describe how to edit Wikipedia or how to use wiki software. I am suggesting that people have an opportunity to learn what a wiki is and, in theory, how a wiki is expected to produce quality articles. This is not tied to any specific implementation. Wikis are used on a variety of sites other than Wikipedia, so an article about Wikipedia is not sufficient--this is only one implementation of a broader technology. Squideshi 19:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Cybernetics (10 votes, stays until November 8, 2005)~~
~~Nominated October 11, 2005; needs at least 12 votes by November 8, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
Joel Russ

Jwdietrich2 23:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David HC Soul15 October 2005

James Howard (talk/web) 18:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wackymacs 19:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tarret 13:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cohesion | talk 01:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

moxon 22:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sempron 05:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smmurphy 15:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
The Wiki article is incomplete or inconsistent on its own terms. It alludes to the fact that Weiner was interested in aspects of how organisms function, as well as in the "governing" of devices and machines. The mention of this biological interest is little more than Weiner's first book title - which is Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and machine. Weiner discovered some principles functioning in the biological world and relevant to the discipline of biology - but this is not developed at all in the Wiki article (which will be many people's introduction to the subject of cybernetics). The article as it stands now is lopsided. Digi tech and computers etc have obviously become important in our world, but humans and other organisms utilize cybernetic principles in their physiology, and have been doing so for millennia and epochs. We shouldn't allow enthusiasms for bionics and "cyborgy stuff" (however interesting or valid these related topics) to obscure the more fundamental and encompassing insights that Weiner had. Here are some homely examples of the biological aspect ... Your your hand snaps back if you accidently touch a hot frying pan. Your house cat gets into the sunlight coming through a window for the added warmth. Cybernetics. I'm nominating the article because I couldn't learn enough from it, but the article should be fleshed out by people much more knowledgeable about this than myself.

~~Mac OS X History (5 votes, stays until November 22, 2005)~~
~~Nominated November 8, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 22, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
Support - TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that I don't know much about Macs in general, but enough that even my non-Mac friends think the OS X is solid. Working on this article would teach me a lot. Jacqui^★ 04:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul James Cowie 22:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spawn Man 03:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

of course! Wackymacs 10:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~

~~Rubber (5 votes, stays until November 30, 2005)~~
~~Nominated November 16, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 30, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
—Simetrical (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ike9898 21:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spawn Man 03:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waltwe 22:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tarret 21:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
~~Unbelievably poor quality for such an important substance. —Simetrical (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Motorized bicycle (2 votes, stays until December 3, 2005)~~
~~Nominated November 26, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 3, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
CyclePat 18:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Wackymacs 13:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
Article needs NPOV to be able to include more facts. Article has a Timeline of Motorized bicycle history that is nominated for deletion. At the same time perhaps that article could be improved to be part of the [[Category:motorized bicycle]]. Article of Moped is nominated to be merged with Motorized bicycle. This article needs more recent products such as the electric bicycle article from where it originated. We're not that far off from a featured article 18:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Article has a number of active editors and is improving steadily. I am unable to identify the supposed POV issues in the article; perhaps the nominator could start out by stating these issues on the (already well used) talk page? The timeline's creation was contentious and there is an emerging consensus to refactor this into a wider timeline of powered two-wheel transport (or maybe just light motorcycles). I don't know who proposed merging moped (it was an anon drive-by, by the looks of it), I see is no significant support for this and several pertinent reasons not to, all of which have been discussed on the Talk page. My view is that motorized bicycle is proceeding well and not in pressing need of massive additional effort, but of course I welcome anyone who wants to come and help. Nominator has already solicited support and help from external moped forums, resulting in at least one new and knowledgeable editor. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~House (8 votes, stays until December 3, 2005)~~
~~Nominated November 13, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by December 3, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
Tarret 00:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*drew 12:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

splot 14:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri 15:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wackymacs 07:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

—Simetrical (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waltwe 09:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pylon 20:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
~~It the everyday shelter we live in. Certainly deserves featured article status. Tarret 00:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Central processing unit (13 votes, stays until December 25, 2005)~~
~~Nominated November 20, 2005; needs at least 15 votes by December 25, 2005~~
~~Support~~

Djbaniel 02:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZeWrestler ^Talk 06:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wackymacs 08:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh yes. Jacqui ^★ 18:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waltwe 22:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

—Simetrical (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tarret 21:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JustinWick 06:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC) - Not sure my vote counts, but I'd love to see this article in better shape.[reply]

Gflores ^Talk 20:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 20:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jcmaco 00:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 02:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~removed votes:~~
23:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC), by IP 66.69.158.47. Only registered users can vote. vote removed by --Fenice 11:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--80.189.232.35 15:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)vote removed by--Fenice 11:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Has been tagged for quality since August 2005.
I don't see why it is tagged for a cleanup because it looks pretty clean to me, but it needs a lot of expansion and possibly a copyedit. — Wackymacs 08:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was tagged for cleanup because it was in a condition that I generally refer to as a "blitering mess" before I completely rewrote it. I had planned to finish fleshing out all its sections and make it flow well myself, but things got real busy and I never removed the tag. I'll still eventually finish the article myself, but if there are other folks with enough knowledge to write a good article on the subject who want to help out, I'd be happy to have the help. -- uberpenguin 00:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should probably point out that at this point I've finished writing the article and all that it lacks is some copyediting, flow consideration, and a bit of fact checking. -- uberpenguin 01:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Since this is such a good article, and is going through peer review, shouldn't it be removed from here? --liquidGhoul 23:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Computer (5 votes, stays until December 16, 2005)~~
~~Nominated December 2, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by December 16, 2005~~
~~Support~~

Tarret 20:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri 21:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ike9898 21:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Estrellador* 18:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Without it we woun't even have the Wikipedia. So it truly should have featured article status. Tarret 20:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. -Estrellador* 18:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia would not exist without the Internet either. --Revolución (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Geography~~
~~Alps(July 5)~~
Nominated June 21 2005;needs 6 votes by July 5 2005

Reason

~~Support~~
Falphin 01:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fenice 05:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Martg76 21:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guus June 29, 2005 20:35 (UTC)

Phlebas July 5, 2005 12:23 (UTC)
~~Comments~~
~~The article and its subpages are in urgent need of improvement. It might be a good idea to translate some of the pages from the German Wikipedia. Martg76 21:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)~~

~~Amsterdam(July 10)~~
~~Nominated on 03:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC); needs 6 votes by 10 July.~~
I know this is not a stub, however, this article is surprisingly short compared to other city articles. As mentioned on the talk page by User:Big Brother is Watching, "The Rotterdam article is quite a bit longer. Rotterdam has more than 100,000 people less than Amsterdam and it is commonly reffered to as The Netherlands' second city." Also the article is quite messy and is nothing compared to Paris, for example. ---Hottentot
Support:
Hottentot 03:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fenice 08:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dystopos 20:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jacoplane 21:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
If this were to become the improvement drive article, I'm sure we'd be able to get a lot of people from the dutch wikipedia to come and help out. Jacoplane 23:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is this listed for the second time in as many weeks? The first time it was obvious there was no interest. I also strongly contest Hottentot's characterization that article is "messy"; that is nonesense. As for the Paris article, its length appears to be largely due to numerous lists, such as "List of Paris mayors since the French Revolution" and "Boutiques, department stores and hotels", which IMO doesn't necessarily consititute good encyclopedic writing. This listing was frivolous the first time around, and it is frivolous this time. -- Viajero | Talk 15:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Gaborone (4 votes, stays until July 23)~~
Nominated July 9 2005; needs at least 6 votes by July 23 2005

Support:
NatusRoma 9 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)

Revolución 9 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)

--Dvyost 12:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DiamondDave 20:00, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
~~Comments:~~
~~This is a national capital, but the article is incredibly short. NatusRoma 9 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)~~
~~Brunei (8 votes, stays until August 14)~~
Nominated 24 July 2005; needs at least 9 votes by 14 August 2005

Support:
Maurreen 09:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Osu8907 21:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Eye 12:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinek 10:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fenice 07:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

__earth 10:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

*drew 00:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renata3 05:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~

~~Rock cycle (6 votes, stays until August 19)~~
Nominated August 5 2005; needs at least 8 votes by August 19 2005

Reason: Recent Science Collaboration of the Week, the article has a great base, but still can be significantly expanded. There are two blank sections on the article, plus a color diagram could be added to it as well. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 12

26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Support:
ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Eye 19:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Forste (Talk) 04:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deryc k C. 03:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fenice 18:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syrae Faileas 21:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
~~The blank sections have been filled up, but this article should still be voted for because it has featured article potential written all over it. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Natural environment (2 votes, stays until August 19)~~
~~Nominated August 12 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 19 2005~~
~~Reason~~
~~This article is in a state of severe neglect, and this topics can easily be made feature article quality, with such things such as dangers and a summary of it missing, it is barely not a stub.~~
~~Support:~~
Magicmonster 06:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agentsoo 12:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
Really basic topic that could really benefit from improvement. Agentsoo 12:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a stub and should be nominated at Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week.--Fenice 19:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for this mix-up and will instead nominate this at Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week . --Magicmonster 05:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tunis (11 votes, stays until September 7)~~
~~Nominated August 17 2005; needs at least 12 votes by September 7 2005~~
~~Support:~~
AlbertR 04:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red Star 21:13, 17 August 2005 ET

– Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 03:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Dejvid 15:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lomedae 19:09, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

*drew 12:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sbwoodside 23:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joy [shallot] 19:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renata3 00:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Chan 01:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wackymacs 16:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
Pathetically short article. A capital city deserves more than this. The history section contains no details and is only a brief summary (the only mentioned event mentioned after 1956 is the Arab League's use of the city). The geography section also deserves more information. The sights section could be expanded into something bigger. A transportation hub, this city has more than just an airport, in fact it is actually one of only two cities in Africa with a rapid transit system. AlbertR 04:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this article pathetically tiny, it's also important as Tunis will be the site of second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society from 16 to 18 November 2005! Sbwoodside 23:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tongass National Forest (2 votes, stays until September 10)~~
~~Nominated September 3 2005;needs at least 4 votes by September 10, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
Falphin 15:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luigizanasi 18:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
~~Its the largest national forest in the United States. Denali National Park and Preserve needs expansion too. Falphin 15:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Rome (6 votes, stays until September 13)~~
~~Nominated August 30, 2005; needs at least 8 votes by September 13, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
Magicmonster 00:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Litefantastic 13:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*drew 21:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Osu8907 03:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jdhowens90 18:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tsm1128 04:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
~~This one is really quite self explanatory, and the article really should be much better for such an important topic. Magicmonster 00:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Lena River (1 vote, stays until October 20, 2005)~~
~~Nominated October 13, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 20, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
~~Waltwe 23:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Comments:~~
~~One of the world's largest rivers, flows in Siberia. The article need to be expanded.~~

~~Cusco (3 votes, stays until November 2, 2005)~~
~~Nominated October 19, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 2, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
--Revolución (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KingTT 13:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AKeen 18:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RJH 22:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
Important city --Revolución (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Former capital of the Inca Empire before the Spanish trashed the place; currently a frequent tourist's gateway for trips to Macchu Picchu; UNESCO World Heritage Site; it's also located at an altitude of 11,600 feet. They have a tradition of serving coca leaf tea to visitors to help counteract the altitude effects. — RJH 22:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Omaha, Nebraska (2 votes, stays until December 9, 2005)~~
~~Nominated December 2, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 9, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
Swid 17:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mbeerman 17:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Removed:~~
~~~~Davereid 19:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)~~(see talk)[reply]~~
~~Comments:~~
This article could be a FA candidate down the road with some work. Right now, the Omaha article is quite long, relies too heavily on bulleted lists, is VERY hit-or-miss on the information it provides about the city, and needs to be brought up to WikiProject Cities standards. Many of the sections can be expanded into their own articles; much of the information about the metropolitan area (not Omaha proper) should be moved to the Omaha-Council Bluffs metropolitan area article. I reworked the Lincoln, Nebraska article a while back; however, improving the Omaha article is a task I don't want to venture into alone. –Swid 17:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Lake Texcoco (4 votes, stays until January 18)~~
~~Nominated January 4, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 18, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Fxer 22:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iotha 00:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fenice 07:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 03:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

The Aztec empire had their capital, Tenochtitlan, in the middle of the lake! Hernán Cortés had to flee across the causeways to escape the city! Mexico City is now on top of the lake after it was drained! --Fxer 22:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite interesting but I think there are more worthy candidates at the moment. The article isn't even that bad. Soo 15:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wilderness (8 votes, stays until January 26)~~
~~Nominated January 5, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by January 26, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Jtneill - Talk 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--MONGO 04:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Eoghanacht ^talk 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*drew 02:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youngamerican 16:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty2005 05:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderforge 22:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~

Wilderness is a vital and globally-relevant concept for the 21st century, yet this is an impoverished article in need of attention. - Jtneill - Talk 02:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, just in the U.S., there are almost 700 wildernesses within just U.S. Government lands. Surely on a worldwide scale, there must be 10 times that many, even if not designated as such, they probably meet the criteria.--MONGO 04:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: I guess I am in favor of the wilderness article, but when you really think about it. Wilderness is a such an expansive topic, I think it needs to be decided wants needs to be covered. CuBiXcRaYfIsH 05:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the entire article needs a rewrite, explaining the loss of habitat, the conservation movement, how it has progressed and that areas that were still pristine were converted from a former status to a highly protected wilderness zone, where no improvements will be made ever. I'm not familiar with the designations outside the U.S., and since this deals with all areas that can be wilderness, it would be nice to get everyone involved.--MONGO 06:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs work, something just does not seem to be encyclopediatic about it. Also needs clarification in terms of the common idea of wilderness, and the legal concept (particularly in terms of related articles nature reserve, wilderness area, and other IUCN categories). — Eoghanacht ^talk 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major clean up needed 100% support! Empty2005 05:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is an important concept and does need to be a project cleanup article some time. Thunderforge 22:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Albany, New York (3 votes, stays until February 18, 2006)~~
~~Nominated February 4, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 18, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Juppiter 21:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—Wknight94 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiacc 20:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Capital of New York State, historical site of the Albany Plan of Union, host of many important sites, location where the Thruway becomes I-87 instead of I-90. An important city (and my hometown) whose importance has been too overlooked for too long! Juppiter 21:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Luxor (4 votes, stays until February 15)~~
~~Nominated February 1, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 15, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Paul James Cowie 14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—Wikiacc • ¶ • ∞ 23:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duran^talk 11:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanAfrica 04:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

An absolutely appalling article for what is one of the premier tourist destinations within modern Egypt. As the ancient capital of Egypt over several dynasties and a showcase of ancient religious and funerary architecture, possibly uneuqalled anywhere in the world, Luxor definitely deserves a campaign of concerted improvement. Paul James Cowie 14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia (10 votes, stays until February 16, 2006)~~
~~Nominated January 19, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 16, 2006~~
~~Support~~

TwilaStar 08:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youngamerican 14:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jhohenzollern 18:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rokafela 04:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike H. That's hot 08:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpandX 19:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skurrkrow 06:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vir 16:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukobe 05:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

I believe the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia would make a wonderful featured article because of its unique geography, culture, and place in American history. It is the "oldest" part of West Virginia and played a major role in the French and Indian War, the American Revolutionary War, and the American Civil War. The panhandle has a strong connection with the Washingtons. Most of it was surveyed by a young George Washington for Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron in the mid 18th century. Washington's brother Charles Washington founded Charles Town. Romney and Shepherdstown in the panhandle are the state's two oldest chartered towns (1762). The town of Romney would later change hands between the North and the South 56 times during the American Civil War and it is home to the First Confederate Memorial and an Indian Mound in the same cemetery. Berkeley Springs is regarded by many as the nation's first spa. The Panhandle is also home to both West Virginia's highest (Spruce Knob) and lowest (Harpers Ferry) points. Harpers Ferry, another of the panhandle's oldest towns, was the site of John Brown's raid. This very proud historic region is also the fastest growing region of West Virginia due to its proximity and affinity for the Washington, D.C.-Northern Virginia metropolitan area. With my limited knowledge and the help of a wikiteam, this region is definitely set to become a featured article. There is no other region in the United States like it. --TwilaStar 08:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~West Virginia (11 votes, stays until February 27)~~
~~Nominated January 30, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 27, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Caponer 18:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpandX 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TwilaStar 19:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juppiter 19:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jhohenzollern 21:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youngamerican 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rokafela 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jay 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skurrkrow 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vir 18:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO 20:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

The U.S. state of West Virginia was recently the U.S. Collaboration of the Week and was greatly improved to the status of "Good Article". I believe that with some more hard work through the Article Improvement Drive, the West Virginia article will be given featured article status. --Caponer 18:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. I'd rather work on getting United States up to Featured Article status first; wouldn't you? Despite being an infinitely more important article and one of the most widely-linked-to-pages (115,788 pages link to United States, making it the 7th-most-widely-linked page and the most widely linked page on Wikipedia other than fair use and various Wikipedia-namespace pages) and widely-visited articles on all of Wikipedia, it's not even up to "Good Article" status yet and has countless deficiencies. In particular, since West Virginia has already recently received a lot of improvement and has risen in status, it's not really necessary to give it even more attention so soon. Rushed FAs are often too unstable. -Silence 19:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Nominate it, and it shall receive my support. youngamerican (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
Actually the U.S. page looks pretty good already. It just needs a bit of fine tuning, some in-line references instead of the external links, and a peer review. Has anybody actually tried taking it through for FA? — RJH 19:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Miscellaneous~~
~~Survival skills (6 votes, stays until July 24)~~
~~Nominated July 10 2005; needs at least 6 votes by July 24 2005~~
Reason

The article is in serious need of attention, notably wording and images. Much of it is incomplete, with some portions consisting of headings with no corresponding passages. Furthermore, the subject is not only interesting, but could also be useful in many circumstances (e.g. first aid). I believe that giving this article more publicity can drastically improve it from the current state it is in. Pentawing 18:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support:~~
Pentawing 18:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fenice 19:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maurreen 19:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xperment 18:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jacoplane 23:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
The German version is very detailled, if it fails we could put up a translation request at WP:TIE.--Fenice 19:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would need to be made less of a how-to and more encyclopedic. Also, I think a better name would be "Wilerness survival." Maurreen 19:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to become a "how-to" guide, the topic may be a better fit for Wikibooks. — RJH 18:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wikimedia (1 votes, stays until August 23)~~
Nominated August 16 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 23 2005

Support:
~~Wikinerd 03:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Comments:~~
This article needs immediate attention to add criticism, remove bias and generally improve it. MediaWiki developer User:Tim Starling said "The Wikimedia Foundation is undemocratic. Its bylaws were determined by one man. Its statement of principles is arbitrary, and does not agree with my own. Elections just give the appearance of democracy, the board will remain stacked regardless of the outcome. This is fake democracy, it is democracy executed without commitment to democratic principles. I don't believe this is a problem which can be fixed in small steps." My edit which added Tim Starling's criticism was removed, and I'm not going to fall into an edit war. Wikinerd 03:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I don't believe this is where you'd go to resolve conflicts regarding edits. If there is some activity on the article, I'd suggest Talking about it rather than suggesting that it needs improvement because someone reverted one of your edits. If it the conflict in POV is severe, then I'd suggest looking into arbitration as a solution. Syrae Faileas 21:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Graphics (15 votes, stays until August 24)~~
~~Nominated July 13 2005; needs at least 18 votes by August 24 2005~~
Reason

A very popular topic that deserves a better article, I was surprised to see this as a stub. The article currently only has two short paragraphs, and only one sentence for the History section. It should talk about some of the most popular artists of all time, and maybe explain the different types of graphics in detail and how graphics are used around the world (business, advertisement, education, in work, to symbolize things, etc). I'd love to see this become a featured article because it would be an interesting read.
~~Support:~~
Wackymacs 17:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EKMichigan 18:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Naha|^(talk) 18:28, July 13, 2005 (UTC) I've done work on this one! :) Thanks for the nomination, I plan to do more!

Christiant 23:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maurreen 06:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fenice 06:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Forste 01:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kyleca 00:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the wub "?/!" 08:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deryck C. 17:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beland 01:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conce 02:50, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

-Aranel ("Sarah") 19:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor macinnis 18:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syrae Faileas 21:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~

~~World Youth Day 2005 (1 vote, stays until August 24)~~
~~Nominated August 17 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 24 2005~~
~~Support~~
~~Newguineafan 15:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)~~
~~Comments~~
In the News section on the Main Page has a link to this article, but yet the article is amazingly short. If we really want to show how awsome Wikipedia is, we should make this article longer. It is also a current event, which almost entitles it to featured article status because of the high traffic. This article definitly needs to be improved. Newguineafan 15:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

~~Pilgrims (1 vote, stays until August 26)~~
~~Nominated August 19 2005; needs at least 4 votes by August 26, 2005~~
~~Reason:~~
~~Shockingly short article. Must be expanded. Very important historical topic.~~
~~Support:~~
~~Osu8907 03:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Transport (11 votes, stays until August 27)~~
~~Nominated August 6 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 27 2005~~
~~Support:~~
Maurreen (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fenice 09:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor macinnis 10:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wackymacs 11:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PRueda29 16:46, 8 August 2005

Deryc k C. 03:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

shuri 11:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richy 14:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laisak 15:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Mackensen (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Aranel ("Sarah") 19:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
Needs history and overview of different types of transportation. Maurreen (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Important business topic that needs expansion.--Fenice 09:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Pac-Man (11 votes, stays until August 28)~~
Nominated July 31 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 28 2005

Support
Toothpaste 08:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Eye 12:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ike9898 16:44, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

A Link to the Past 10:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Pedro 10:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 12:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richy 14:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Locarno 20:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Croat Canuck 02:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
Pending tasks for this include incorperating the trivia section into the main body and also expanding the lead. It also, perhaps, needs book references and inline citations. As far as the history of video gaming goes, this is almost as important as Mario, and significantly more important than Wario. Toothpaste 08:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For one, Pac-Man is NOT near Mario's popularity. For another, while Pac-Man once could claim he's more important than Wario, I'd say that Wario has easily surpassed him nowadays. -- A Link to the Past 19:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think pesent popularity should really play any part in deciding which game is more important. Polularity changes as things advance. What I would say shouldn't be in dispute is the greater importance and impact to the world of video games that Pac-Man has had over the years and the greater idenification the general public has with it when compared to Wario. Maybe presnetly in the video game world Wario might be more poular, but wikipedia isn't about cataloguing present trends, but in this instance is about ensure top quality articles for something which has had great influence in a particular area. For this reason I believe that Pac-Man article should improved well before the Wario aricle.(But really it doesn't matter too much which is first, and I took the original comment to mean that seen as Wario is on this list, then surely so should Pac-Man. Evil Eye 08:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Difference is that Mario was more important back then, continued to become even more important, and is still very important, while Pac-Man has pretty much become an after-thought lately. -- A Link to the Past 13:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Isn't this a rather silly argument? Obviously, both of them have significant pop-culture impact, and both articles are far from fan-only subjects of interest. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 12:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that if you asked 100 people, nearly everyone could tell you what Pac-Man is, and hardly anyone could tell you who Wario is. I wont vote for Wario because I don't think it's important and it still has a good article, and I won't vote for Pac-Man because it arleady has a good article and other articles are more in need of attention. Osu8907 17:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wario is much more popular than you think. You play any Mario Party game, he's there. Mario Kart? He's there. Mario Tennis, Golf, Baseball? He's there. People who know Mario just happen to know Wario. And that's just that crowd, there is a very large following of his games. Also, I now support this article - and suggest a Pac-Man products section be implimented, and the Trivia section be removed. -- A Link to the Past 10:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

~~Casino (5 votes, stays until August 28)~~
~~Nominated August 14 2005; needs at least 8 votes by August 28 2005~~
Reason: This is still a short article. I think a lot more could be added. More information of the major casinos, the history of the casino, security mechanisms used against cheaters, etc.
~~Support:~~
Jacoplane 00:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vegaswikian 00:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wackymacs 08:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Aranel ("Sarah") 19:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ike9898 01:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
~~Comments:~~

~~Obesity (9 votes, stays until August 29)~~
~~Nominated August 8 2005; needs at least 12 votes by August 29 2005~~
~~Support:~~
JFW | T@lk 20:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deryc k C. 03:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Encephalon | ζ | Σ 08:34:50, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

Kpjas 09:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve espinola 10:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

♥purplefeltangel 23:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mokgand 22:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

– Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 03:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Richy 15:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
This topic now has a long page, but certain essential points are still missing or too brief: cultural significance of obesity, psychological impact, statistics in various countries and whether they correlate with complications. The policy section needs to be tidied up. JFW | T@lk 20:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~---~~
~~Teenage pregnancy (12 votes, stays until September 1)~~
Nominated August 4 2005; needs at least 16 votes by September 1 2005

Reason:
~~One of the 10 most notable social issues in industrialized countries. The quality of the article is embarrassingly shoddy.~~
~~Support:~~
lots of issues | leave me a message 06:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

tonibella | leave me a message 21:19, 8 August 2005

Fieari 21:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Deryc k C. 03:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fenice 05:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renata3 05:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richy 14:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Aranel ("Sarah") 19:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syrae Faileas 20:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howrealisreal 21:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alr 23:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~

~~Public education (21 votes, stays until September 8)~~
Nominated July 14 2005; needs at least 24 votes by September 8 2005

Support:
Beland 01:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fenice 05:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theaterfreak64 20:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel | Talk 18:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Eric Forste 22:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bhuck 11:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

– Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Behun 16:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howrealisreal 16:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sesel 06:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Menchi 21:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cryoboy 18:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

A Link to the Past 18:04, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Richy 14:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 18:19:15, 2005-08-12 (UTC) - One more week for ya.

-Aranel ("Sarah") 19:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syrae Faileas 20:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JoanneB 21:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alr 20:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

naryathegreat | (talk) 19:17, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Silverfish 21:04, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
~~Comments:~~
I'm dissapointed with the information we have on this subject, in general; all articles are incomplete, for the most part. This would be a great start. --Theaterfreak64 20:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. It's especially interesting when comparing it to the article on Homeschooling. --Bhuck 11:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What this article really needs right now is more information about public education outside the United States. Either that or a name change to Public education in the United States, but that's not the article I voted for in the improvement drive voting. --arkuat (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Royal Canadian Mounted Police (6 votes, stays until September 13)~~
~~Nominated August 30 2005; needs at least 8 votes by September 13, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 17:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zhatt 17:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The Tom 20:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Gray 03:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luigizanasi 06:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Litefantastic 14:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
This article nearly good enough to be an FA, and one of the first things anyone thinks of when they think of Canada. After an improvement drive (if it gets one) I will send it to peer review and FAC. - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs)

~~United Nations (3 votes, stays until September 15)~~
~~Nominated 8 Sept 2005; needs at least 4 votes by September 15, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
CG 13:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Spawn Man 13:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nik 00:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
Highly prominent article.
What actually needs improving ? , this article is long and detailed, includes plenty of pictures and information, and looks like it hasn't got POV or grammar problems. — Wackymacs 17:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it isn't a featured article yet. And look at its todo box. CG 18:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
~~I voted for this (by putting my name on here), but I don't think it's actually worked. Will someone tell me how to on my user talk pleeeeease? Spawn Man 13:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Nutmeg (6 votes, stays until September 19)~~
~~Nominated 5 Sept 2005; needs at least 8 votes by September 19, 2005~~
There is a good amount of info on the page, but no references at all! Myriad cooking uses, eggnog, pumpkin pie, and especially questions surrounding the toxic/hallucinogenic properties of Nutmeg could be fleshed out. Hopefully wouldn't take a ton of work to bring it up to Featured Article status, given what is already there.
~~Support:~~
Fxer 22:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

JFW | T@lk 00:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC) C'mon, let's to nuts with nutmeg.[reply]

Litefantastic 11:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jdhowens90 18:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*drew 14:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Richy 18:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~

~~Habitat for Humanity International (1 vote, stays until 18 September 2005)~~
~~Nominated 11 September 2005; needs at least 4 votes by September 18, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
MC MasterChef 08:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AlMac|^(talk) 02:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
A major international charity approaching its 30th anniversary in 2006; I've attempted to flesh out this article some but I think much more can be said about Habitat and its mission. (I have lots more pictures from my own volunteering experience I could add as well.) --MC MasterChef 08:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Girl (1 vote, stays until 20 September 2005)~~
~~Nominated 13 September 2005; needs at least 4 votes by September 20, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
~~Djbaniel 02:25, September 13, 2005 (UTC)~~
~~Comments:~~
~~Made good progress from COTW, and much work is left to be done for such a fundamental topic.~~

~~Noise (environmental) (4 votes, stays until October 5, 2005)~~
~~Nominated September 21, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by October 5, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
Whitejay²⁵¹ 15:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wackymacs 17:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*drew 03:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NeoJustin 10:37, October 2, 2005 (UTC)
~~Comments:~~
It's ironic that an article on environmental noise is getting signal noise from noise music. Beyond fixing that, much more can be said on the effects of noise and methods of noise reduction. Whitejay²⁵¹ 15:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Shoe polish (3 votes, stays until 11 October 2005)~~
~~Nominated 27 September 2005; needs at least 6 votes by 11 October, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
Proto t c 09:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wackymacs 15:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C-squared 15:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
I took it to peer review, and had lots of useful comments, and implemented them. But it's still not quite there, and it would be truly awesome if we could get an article on shoe polish to FA status. It is so damn close. Proto t c 09:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wikipedia: Articles which are number one for one word Google searches (1 vote, stays until October 25, 2005)~~
~~Nominated October 18, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 25, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
~~Freiberg 00:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Comments:~~
This is an important article, because it shows the popularity of Wikipedia. Deserves more than what it is currently.

This isn't an article. --Revolución (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the Article Improvement Drive should be working every week to improve the overall quality of the Wikipedia, especially through notable topics that are likely to be visited. This is more of a curiosity point (in the Wikipedia namespace, no less) and is not worth a week of AID's time. KingTT 02:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Enlightenment (concept) (1 vote, stays until October 27, 2005)~~
~~Nominated October 20, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by October 27, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
~~Jules LT 16:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Comments:~~
Needs reference paragraphs to the various particular cases in precise philosophies (Hinduism, Buddhism, Zen, Yoga), but the general concept is fundamental to most kinds of spirituality, and deserves an article of quality. Jules LT 16:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~LOL (Internet slang) (4 votes, stays until October 30, 2005)~~
~~Nominated October 16, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by October 30, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
Sysys 08:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harmil 14:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tarret 13:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
I would say 'LOL' is one of the most used of all internet lingo, and the current page contains very little interesting or sourced information. Currently the only sources are blogs, forum posts, and one remotely related editorial article. About half of the article consists of people listing their favourite 'LOL'-related acronyms. I'm sure this article could be much better. Sysys 08:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There have been criticisms of the lack of sources for both LOL (Internet slang) and Pwn. If anyone has good sources for those articles, it would be a huge help! -Harmil 14:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much you could say about "LOL" that isn't already said in this article. --Revolución (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I beg of potential voters not to encourage the waste of precious man hours on a subject that should be way down the list of anyone's priorities. In fact this is an example of an article that would probably be made miserable the more people add to it, since it's liable to be the addition of lots more obscure variants that people involved only in any one particular newsgroup or forum have ever heard of. --bodnotbod 09:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the point, this article is always getting filled up with crap. If we took the time to make it better, people would probably be discouraged from adding stupid things like that. I'm sure with a bit of searching we might be able to track down the history of it, why it's used in so many different languages, etc..Sysys 01:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~National Collegiate Athletic Association (2 votes, stays until November 12, 2005)~~
~~Nominated November 5, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by November 12, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
??????t? 00:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harro5 04:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
Pitifully short article on an organization that runs basically all the major collegiate sporting events in the United States. I want to improve it, but I'm not sure where to begin.

Needs more on why its so notable and important, especially compared to any other collegiate sporting network around the world. This needs some work, as it really is a parent article for anything about US college activities. Harro5 04:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hells Angels (3 votes, stays until November 19, 2005)~~
~~Nominated November 5, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 19, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
bodnotbod 16:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ALKIVAR™ 21:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Mceder 05:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
It's a mess. --bodnotbod 16:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The history is rich and should be fairly well documented, perhaps lots of POV issues to resolve but sounds like a good candidate. --Mceder 05:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Kitchen (1 vote, stays until November 26, 2005)~~
~~Nominated November 19, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by November 26, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
~~Waltwe 11:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Comments:~~
~~A very good article that could be expanded, has a good chance of becoming a FA.~~

~~Eagle scout rank (Boy Scouts of America) (7 votes, stays until November 28, 2005)~~
~~Nominated November 7, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by November 28, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harro5 02:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trevdna 04:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Gadget850 14:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

卫weizhe哲^{Talk to me!} 23:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ike9898 21:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 01:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
Rather short article about the highest honor in scouting. Much can be done to improve this article, and because of that, I believe this should be worked on by editors here. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concurr. IMHO, length is not the issue, but it does need some organization. --Gadget850 18:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a vote? if so, sign your name on the support list.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Stanley Williams (3 votes, stays until December 6, 2005)~~
~~Nominated 29 November 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 6, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
^Blank ^Verse 12:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 03:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
Stanley "Tookie" Williams, one of the founders of the Crips street gang is currently in the news because of his pending 13 December 2005 execution date, and the consideration of his clemency appeal to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. That means that many people will be looking at the Wikipedia article to find out more information. The current article is not bad, but I'm sure that it could be much better. Among other items, the handling of citations needs to be upgraded to current Wikipedia standards. ^Blank ^Verse 12:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Case-control (2 votes, stays until December 6, 2005)~~
~~Nominated November 29, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 6, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 14:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Pat 17:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
This article is currently a bit meandering, but has great potential. The subject itself is very important: the known fact that case-control helped identify the link between smoking and cancer means that a lot of people believe this is a very reliable type of study, when actually most highly-cited studies of this type subsequently turn out to be highly overoptimistic, or even flat wrong. The point about smoking and cancer is that the case-control studies were subsequently confirmed by other, more robust kinds of evidence. As it is, case-control is used to push all kinds of dodgy "remedies" which would never pass a clinical trial. Some doctors even misrepresent case-control as a clinical trial, which it emphatically is not. This is the best kind of article: one which has the potential to extend what is common knowledge among specialists in the area, to a wider population. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 14:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no specialist on this subject. Article could use a better introduction, no? I just skimmed through the article. A little confusing but indeed there is room for turning this into the "best kind of article." --Pat 17:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Terra cotta (1 vote, stays until December 7, 2005)~~
~~Nominated November 30, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by December 7, 2005~~
~~Support:~~
~~KingTT 05:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Comments:~~
~~Lots more could be written about this significant material. KingTT 05:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Button (5 votes, stays until January 17, 2006)~~
~~Nominated January 3, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 17, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Hahnchen 01:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mgm|^(talk) 13:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven 23:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fenice 18:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melaen 18:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Buttons have been around for ages, everyone knows what they are so it can probably do quite well for an Improvement Drive candidate. I'm sure this could be extended and improved, at least to the length of Jenson Button's entry. - Hahnchen 01:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the simplest of things should be covered better. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YA buttons!!! I loved buttons when I was a kid, but thats beside the point. The article seems too empty for something so important andso common in day-to-day life. Steven 23:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Privacy (2 votes, stays until 23 January)~~
~~Nominated 11:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC); needs at least 3 votes by 23 January, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Talrias (t | e | c) 11:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DanielCD 12:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Important philosophical concept with current practical concerns. This important topic should be featured-status. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that privacy is an important topic, I'd say most of the other articles put forward here are in greater need of help. So count that as a half-vote. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 04:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Now, privacy software is an article that's in a really bad state! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 04:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Hillman Avenger, (2 votes, stays until January 24)~~
~~Nominated January 17, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by January 24, 2006'~~
~~Support~~

User:GT-11 IDRIVE --GT-11 IDRIVE 13:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kierant 15:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Many exotic and sporting vehicles have considerable articles; it would be nice to recognise and describe some of the more prosaic models which in fact impacted more people's lives. This kind of article isn't just for "petrol-heads", it also informs research into industrial heritage and social trends. Also, in this specific case, there is a fair bit of info to be linked to regarding the complex history of the manufacturer and its relationship with the British government and trades unions. Kierant 15:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Treason (7 votes, stays until February 19)~~
~~Nominated January 29, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 19, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Empty2005 04:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—Wikiacc • ¶ • ∞ 22:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metta Bubble 13:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lbbzman 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanAfrica 04:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukobe 05:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

~~The article needs major work on both copy editing and needs more in depth historical explanation besides it's effect in England, Empty2005 04:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Naturopathic medicine (4 votes, stays until February 22)~~
~~Nominated February 8, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 22, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Un sogno modesto 06:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vir 17:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukobe 05:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgens 14:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

A very important topic in today's world. Naturopathic medicine has been on a steady incline in recent decades, as a result of modern medicine and its many questionable side effects. The article is in awful shape and in need of cleaning.

"The healing power of nature"? Yay, more New Age bullshit on AID. -Silence 07:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Child Support Agency (1 vote, stays until February 26)~~
~~Nominated February 19, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by February 26, 2006~~
~~Support~~

~~MartinRe 00:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Comments~~

Expanded the article myself as best I could on Feb 9, did my best with footnotes and citations, but could really use some help with expanding sections and creating new ones as the amount of referenced material is quite large, and my prose writing skills aren't the best! Also, lots of stats available, but not easy to translate into english! MartinRe 00:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]