Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeronimo (talk | contribs) at 07:02, 24 June 2004 (→[[Separation of powers under the United States Constitution|Separation of powers (US)]] (21 Jun): object). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

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

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

Please read any nominated article in full before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. (Note - all objections must be actionable. That is, they must give a specific rationale for the objection. If nothing can be done to "fix" the objected-to matter, then the objection is invalid.) If there are no objections after at least one week, candidates can be added to FA. If there are objections, a consensus must be reached. If enough time passes (approximately two weeks) without objections' being resolved, an article may be removed from the candidates' list. Anyone may add approved pages to FA or remove prospects that have failed.

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

Archive unsuccessful and withdrawn nominations on: /Archived nominations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

Nominations without objections

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

Kylie Minogue (24 Jun)

Very complete and thorough with lots of information and pictures to boot. CyclopsScott 03:31, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. One of the images has no copyright information supplied. Jeronimo 07:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

X Window System (23 Jun)

Self-nomination. It's technical, but we've tried to keep it as clear as possible. The technical detail is put at the end after the explicatory text, so as to supply the detail to those who care without exploding the heads of those who don't - David Gerard 23:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) Oh yes, and it already rated a press citation - David Gerard 00:52, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Humpback Whale (23 Jun)

Self-nom. I am sure there are typos (I am terrible at spotting my own), but I think the topic is covered fairly well now, and it has the all important pics. Pcb21| Pete 22:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. That's a nice article! - David Gerard 23:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -Sean Curtin 06:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Separation of powers (US) (21 Jun)

Self-nomination. (Note: The above title has been shown in a condensed form so that this page's TOC is not too wide.) -- Emsworth 19:50, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Another gem. I've added two sections to the end that somebody might want to look over. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:16, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article - Taxman 20:55, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. The section on presidential powers mentions Nixon and the first Roosevelt, but for some reason it overlooks FDR, who I had understood to be the most powerful president of the 20th century. Isomorphic 02:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression that FDR did not hold an extreme view of Presidential powers (like TR) or expand the constitutional power of the Presidency (like Nixon). I think that FDR expanded political power, while Nixon and TR attempted to expand the constitutional power of the presidency. (The nineteenth century Presidents are also noted, but for their struggles with Congress.) In any event, I will look into the matter and add any information that I might find about FDR. -- Emsworth 03:02, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Two of the pictures have no source listed. One is a painting, and probably in the public domain. Jeronimo 07:02, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kuru epidemic (16 Jun)

This is a self nomination. But the article I used as a source was pretty good as an encyclopedia article to start with. User:Viz 21:01, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • The capitalisation and punctuation are a bit erratic, and the intro needs organisation and tightening. I'll have a go later. - David Gerard 19:43, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Considerable copyediting and reshuffling. The content itself is good (and the references impeccable!), but it needed considerable clarification. How is it now? Could do with a picture - David Gerard 20:59, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Corrected the capitalization of kuru. Uncopyrighted images are harder to find though. User:Viz 15:00 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: 1) A sentence introducing the "South Fore", who are mentioned at the beginning and end of the article, would be helpful, particularly as we don't have an article on them. 2) We should use only one capitalisation style: "kuru" or "Kuru" — currently there's a mix. 3) Minor (IANAL) concern: Talk:Kuru epidemic gives us permission to include the article; do we have explicit permission to include it as GFDL? 4) Why's it called "laughing sickness"? 5) The article says things like "all but disappeared in New Guinea" — was kuru exclusively restricted there, or did it occur elsewhere? — Matt 23:27, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I have dealt with the issues you mention here. As for the GFDL, It was explained in the previous email. However from the author's email we can see that she was very happy to have her article used. User:Viz 15:00 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: I've just done a shuffle and tighten on the intro paras for clarity, trying to keep in mind the above-noted ambiguities in the previous text - David Gerard 00:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Eye of Argon (20 Jun)

Self nomination. A science fiction curio which surprisingly little is generally known about - if I say so myself, this article is the best reference available on the subject. (Best bit of working on this article was discovering there is in fact such a thing as a [[scarlet emerald.) - David Gerard 18:51, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Objecting for the moment. It seems just a bit too short. Hopefully sections like "Chapter 3: Grignr sits despondent in his cell." can be fleshed out. After I've seen a bit of editing, I'll probably take the objection off but not now. TheCustomOfLife 18:54, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Chapter 3 is three paragraphs; there really isn't much to say about it. Remember that this is a novella, not a novel. The text of the novella is linked at the end of the article - if you have questions about the synopsis, you have the source text to refer to. The synopsis isn't that important - it's the quality of the writing that makes the story article-worthy. I could add more particularly clunky quotes.
For length of the article: what is the criterion for minimum length you have in mind? Give me an objection I can act on - David Gerard 21:22, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oh, for heaven's sake. Objection is retracted. TheCustomOfLife 21:25, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As a principle i dont think articles on television series or series of novels or series of films should be featured articles. Muriel G 10:10, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Er, how is this any of those? (Not that I agree necessarily) - David Gerard 17:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
For the record, this objection is not actionable and therefore is not valid. →Raul654 17:43, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
(not an objection) Is there any possibility of an image? The cover of the OSFAN issue? A photo of some dog-eared mimeograph? Or better (worse) some (ideally hideous) fan-art? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:38, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Presumably Don Simpson is traceable, or someone from the LASFS may be able to help ... I might ask around - David Gerard 17:56, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher (30 May)

This article seems well-written. John Major is featured, and it's shorter than Thatcher's article... cryptfiend64 00:55, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral, leaning towards oppose. Couldn't the cabinets be split off or something? They make the article unnecessarily long. Johnleemk 02:12, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. There are a lot of words that could/should be hyperlinked, particularly for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with Maggie (hard though it is to believe, as a late-20s Brit, plenty such people do exist ;o) — I'll prolly go through and do some of these later this evening. A copy of the (rather famous) photo of her leaving Downing Street, with tears in her eyes, seems notable by its absence, though; there must be one that doesn't present copyright issues, surely? I'm inclined to agree with Johnleemk about the Cabinet lists, though. I think they should be split off to another page. I could be convinced on these last two points, though; I definitely will support this being FA at some point soon. — OwenBlacker 19:49, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Right, I've done that (and read it through even more carefully as a result). I'll support this once there's another image or two to break up the copy a little. I'd suggest a photo from the aftermath of the [{Brighton Bomb]] and Maggie crying in the car, leaving Downing Street, as they're both memorable sets of images, one of any of her Conference speeches at the podium would prolly suffice, if that's the best anyone can do... ;o) — OwenBlacker 21:27, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • I added another photo. Changing back to no objections. →Raul654 05:54, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • The Brighton bomb and the Maggie leaving Downing Street were unique events with considerable historic and educational value. Thus they are ideal candidates for a fair use of photos from one of the various news sources. The argument for a podium speech photo is harder to justify. I like the article. Pcb21| Pete 22:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • The new photo is great, but I really do think it needs at least one of her leaving Downing Street or the Brighton Bomb. Definitely an improvement (thanks, Raul), but I think I continue to object until at least one of these two events is pictures on the article; the new photo is just a little too nondescript... OwenBlacker 12:14, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - TOC is too long (see guidelines). I suggest moving all the cabinet stuff to a separate daughter article. --mav 06:38, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Cabinets spun off. TOC is about 40% smaller now. →Raul654 06:44, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Much better, thanks. --mav
        • Some of us are worried about butchering articles just so the remainder looks neat enough to satisfy the whims of the FAC process. It seems a backwards way to do things. Although layout is important, content is king. See Talk:Margaret Thatcher.

Titles

It seems to me that this article has to meet the same fate as Ian McKellen, as it refers to "Thatcher," just as Ian McKellen refers to "McKellen." So if that article gets disqualified as an FA for that usage, this one has to be, too. --TreyHarris 01:08, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thatcher is a baroness. Peers are referred to by just their last names. And for the period before she became a peer, there's certainly not a problem. john k 06:38, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is our policy to refer to her as "Lady Thatcher" or "Baroness Thatcher"? I think that "Lady" might be more appropriate for references after the first (if even that is used, instead of just "Thatcher"). It's like referring to a Countess as "the Countess of X" first and "Lady X" or "X" thereafter. -- Emsworth 17:10, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Tbh, I'm not all that bothered about the use of titles either way, as long as the article is internally consistent, I think Wikipedia-wide consistency is merely a nice-to-have. — OwenBlacker 19:49, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

I'm hereby declaring that peerage titles should not be used in the article, and that this objection is moot. →Raul654 06:00, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree that titles need not be used when referring to the period during which the Lady Thatcher was not a Baroness. For the period she was a Baroness, however, I think that "Margaret Thatcher" would be innapropriate. Better would be "Lady Thatcher" or just "Thatcher." That being said, I agree that this objection is not germane. -- Emsworth 22:24, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)


Mission Earth (novel) (19 Jun)

Self nomination, I think it satisfies all of the criteria except a picture (not really possible). Will interest anyone who wonders about those huge piles of Hubbard books in the remaindered and second-hand stores. A controversial topic, but not a controversial article - David Gerard 15:53, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Note: There is a project called "Mission Earth", a computer simulation project, which will probably get an article some time (I'll try to do it today). As such, I've moved this to Mission Earth (novel) and fixed links - David Gerard 21:30, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:50, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It is usually ok to include a book cover as fair use. ✏ Sverdrup 18:45, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll find one and add it - David Gerard 18:51, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Cover scan added - David Gerard 10:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Twelfth Amendment (19 Jun)

Self nomination. I think the article provides a good explanation of the background behind the Amendment, and of its provisions. -- Emsworth 15:11, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Solidly written. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:46, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -Sean Curtin 06:48, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Article One (16 Jun)

Self-nomination. I think that some might object to the article's overall length. The length, however, is caused by the inclusion of the text, which was desired when the First Amendment article was nominated. The remainder of the article, I think, is of appropriate length (about 30K). -- Emsworth 18:29, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • The length is no problem. Neutral for now, leaning towards object. These are really good legal histories--they would make fantastic sections of an eventual article. What's missing is some kind of overview approach, something that speaks to the general relevance of Article 1 beyond the narrowly legal. Am I being clear? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • You are indeed being clear. I presume you want an expansion of the material within the first paragraph of the lead section? -- Emsworth 18:52, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, the lead is quite good--concise, yet informative. Maybe another section detailing the broader impact, or just material within the other sections explaining what effects this has had on the country as a whole. Hope this helps, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:31, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I've added material in certain sections: Congress, House of Representatives, Senate, Elections and Meetings, Bills. Feel free to inform me if more, in your opinion, is necessary. -- Emsworth 20:32, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
          • Much better--those were really interesting. Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:43, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bryce Canyon National Park (16 Jun)

Self nom. OK, what else needs to be done? If it's good enough for featured already, then so be it. :) --mav 08:03, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The article has good pictures, enough references and comprehensive information. But I have just a minor reservation: since much of the article gives measurement in both the U.S. and metric systems—"50 miles (80 km)"—the format should be applied throughout. The lead and "Creation of the park" sections, as far as I can see, are the only ones that do not give metric equivalents in parantheses. -- Emsworth 10:43, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
Fixed. --mav
I withdraw the objection, and support the article. -- Emsworth 18:24, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
Yummmm. Bryce Canyon. Definitely a topic and photos worthy of a featured article. It needs some copyediting (e.g., in the Geology section, perhaps other places). Also, I heard that it wasn't a "dandy" place to use a cow, but a "helluva" place to lose a cow [1][2][3]. I think you may want to redo some of the Geology section, which contains lots of material about the region outside the park, but not much about the park itself. For example, you may want to mention that the Claron formation is Paleocene. Saying more about the Claron lake would be interesting, and about the erosive processes to make hoodoos. From my memory (and double checking with Halka Chronic), there isn't any Dakota Sandstone or Tropic Shale in the park -- it is all lower down and to the east in the Paria Amphitheatre and over at Kodachrome Basin. I would drop those. Also, the Laramide orogeny doesn't have much to do with the park proper.
Your photos are nice. It looks like you went on a overcast day, and took the photos mid-day. Notice that the NPS photo is much redder --- photographers tend to take photos near dawn, to bring out the contrast and the redness of the rock. Would you consider substituting more NPS photos for the article, if they are more dramatic? Don't know if more are available. (No offense intended: your photos are fine, just trying to maximize the goodness of the article).
Overall, looks good -- just a little tweaking will make this a great article. -- hike395 04:47, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oh, a couple of more things I noticed: I think the horseback riding photo is kind of generic and just takes up space. I also don't belive that the park has the darkest sky in North America --- the arctic wastes of Canada are probably extremely dark. -- hike395 05:04, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support. I amde some medium edits and it is now polished. Great article. Neutrality 05:03, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for all the feedback. :) I'll work on those points. However, I strongly feel that the geology section should have a more regional focus. Let me explain: While some formations you mention are not found in the park, they are found nearby and we know that they did at one time overlay the area of the park - the fact that they eroded away should at the very least be mentioned. Also, a the intro to Hoodoos and the Claron lake system is at Geology of the Bryce Canyon area, but a few more sentences at the park article wouldn't hurt. I can increase the contrast and redness of my photos and add other NPS ones (I lost about half my Bryce Canyon photos due to a bad memory stick). The dark sky bit was direct from the NPS, but I agree it does sound a bit odd and should be researched more and qualified as needed. --mav 05:31, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
OK - pretty much all your points addressed except for the regional focus. --mav 10:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support: informative and well-illustrated. A minor comment is that the first part of the article seems a little crowded, layout-wise, with two photo thumbnails, an infobox and a table of contents competing for space. Not sure how this could be improved, though. — Matt 23:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ian McKellen (05 Jun)

This is a superb example of a pithy contemporary biography. It hits the high points without lingering on inanities (length does not necessarily equal quality), and the quotes bring the subject to life. My only quibble—and it's a minor one—is the forced quality of the final paragraph of the lead. --TreyHarris 09:20, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm a fan of Sir Ian, but while it's interesting, this article needs a little work yet. Contractions need to be repaired (not "wasn't," but "was not"), the writing needs tweaking in some areas, and some information needs fleshing out (for example, why was his portrayal of King Edward controversial?). It's also a bit strange that halfway through the article the noun changes from 'homosexual' to 'gay' (and gay is the preferred word, according to Wikipedia's relevant manual of style). I think this could be a FA, but perhaps not quite yet. Exploding Boy 09:36, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
These objections have been dealt with except for "writing needs tweaking in some areas." Will you define that objection actionably, please? --TreyHarris 17:13, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Since the remaining objection is not actionable, I'm moving this back to articles without objection. --TreyHarris 17:12, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It really needs a picture of Sir McKellen as Gandalf. (Not a vote against.) Fredrik (talk) 15:01, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It now has one (thanks to Lupin). --TreyHarris 17:12, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. First, the lead's too short (honesty: This is my fault, I've moved a paragraph out of the lead section into the early life section, because it wasn't very lead-section-like. I do think we need a better lead section, though.) Secondly, a comment, and not technically an objection (because it won't be "actionable"), I get the impression that the article is a little short on information — TreyHarris commends the article for this ("without lingering on inanities"), and to an extent I agree, but I think it might be on the sparse side, fact-wise. I don't know much about McKellen (except Gandalf), but glancing through some Google biographies, I see details there that we don't include; if Wikipedia is to be a decent reference resource, I think we should try to be relatively complete (without going to extremes of detail and making it boring). The only "actionable" detail in this regard is a discussion of his role in Richard III, which is mentioned here and there in other online biographies, even "mini-biographies". — Matt 22:32, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the intro by a sentence and have added a paragraph on his American-release film roles, including Richard III. But honestly I think the great amount of detail lavished on Richard III in many of the bios online is slightly bizarre. It was a good role, but I don't see any reason to "discuss" it, per se, beyond what I've done in the article. It wasn't anything earth-shattering for him—he'd done plenty of Shakespeare on stage and screen before. --TreyHarris 07:02, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'Sir Ian' or 'McKellen'?

  • The article refers to Sir Ian McKellan as "McKellan," but should not references be instead to "Sir Ian," as is perhaps appropriate for knights? -- Emsworth 18:10, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
I think "McKellen" is correct. Looking within Wikipedia, I've been unable to find a biography of a knighted person that consistently refers to "Sir" or "Dame", instead preferring last name. Most news articles in a Google News search of "Ian McKellen" (including most non-British ones, and virtually all non-Commonwealth ones) refer to him only as "McKellen". Of the remaining, most used "Sir Ian" once or twice, and then switched to "McKellen".--TreyHarris 09:00, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's usual British practice to refer to knights as "Sir Firstname" after the first reference (on the BBC News website, for instance, he's always "Sir Ian McKellen" then "Sir Ian"). It's only natural that people in countries without knighthoods don't know how to use them in referring to people. That doesn't mean their practices are more correct than those within countries with knighthoods. Proteus (Talk) 10:26, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
According to the Manual of Style, we go with British usage on this--I'll change it. Meelar 16:01, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There is nothing in the Manual of Style about references to knighted individuals, I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you're saying that "standard British usage is Sir Ian, therefore since this article is about a British subject the Manual of Style says we should use British usage," you're making an assumption?that 'Sir Ian' is a standard British usage. Take a look at this Telegraph article, for instance?where the headline contains 'Sir Ian', but none of the editorial writing does.
Or better yet, just look at this?the Google News listing of all news articles from UK sources. For this purpose, we should be looking only at editorial usage, not usage in quotations. At the moment I write this, there are 25 articles listed. Of those (referring only to second and following references in editorial content rather than quotations):
My point is, I'm not claiming that American usage should win the day?I'm saying that British usage isn't consistent here. The assumption that we need to change "McKellen" to "Sir Ian" en masse needs to be reconsidered, I think. Don't be so quick to see something "broken" that needs "fixing." --TreyHarris 03:31, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, you're lucky Wikipedia crashed before I could get to it ;) Meelar 05:40, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that "It's usual British practice to refer to knights as "Sir Firstname" after the first reference". It looks very cheesy to me. Please leave it! Markalexander100 06:29, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Umm, whut? Whether or not you think it flows neatly, the correct semi-informal salutation is "Sir Ian", not "McKellan", nor "Ian", nor "Mr. Beardie", yes? And we at Wikipedia strive to be correct in all things, now don't we? ;-)
James F. (talk) 09:38, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand. Where do you get that it's "correct"? See my statistics above? if you're saying that "Sir Ian" rather than "McKellen" is "correct", you need to explain why the British press is "incorrect", seven to one. --TreyHarris 15:16, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Correct form (in the UK at least) is not determined by popularity, and the British press are absolutely incapable of getting it right most of the time. (The most respectable paper, The Times, consistently refers to Knights as "Sir Firstname" in its articles.) If you want evidence, I suggest you look at Debrett's Correct Form rather than a survey of Google News. Proteus (Talk) 16:37, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Proteus on the British press. I'm sure that a survey would show that many use absurd styles such as "Prince Charles" or "Baroness Helena Kennedy." -- Emsworth 20:35, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
"Debrett's Correct Form" has something of an interest in perpetuating cheesy class distinctions. The idea that the Times must be right because Proteus considers it respectable is... interesting. Markalexander100 00:52, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
For the second time in the discussion, you call the honours system 'cheesy' with nothing other than your assertion that it's either a bad thing for us to use it or that it not doing so would be a good thing. Wikipedia isn't the place to push a republican POV, really; the Crown's decisions as to protocol are, in a way, POV, yes, but they are 'higher', more neutral, POV than others. It's a bit like the SI's definition of the metre being a 'higher' POV that the US government's (were they to disagree). I fully agree with Proteus, Emsworth, FWIW.
01:24, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
My point was just that in the absence of any authority, there's no reason not to use the most common British usage. The idea that the Crown's POV on questions of nobility is NPOV because you like it is POV. ;-) What any of this has to do with this being a featured article I don't know. :-( Is anyone actually worried enough about this to object to the article being featured in its current state? If not, we can talk about something less trivial. Markalexander100 03:01, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. Firstly, what newspapers do, or formal usage, is not necessarily what wikipedia should do. Sir Robert Peel, for instance, is always referred to as "Peel". His ministry is always "Peel's ministry", and never "Sir Robert's ministry". I'd say this is true for just about every knight or baronet who's ever been in government. If this is true for 19th century figures, then it seems silly to be more formal for a contemporary actor like Ian McKellen. On the other hand, I'd note that the formal styles and titles of nobility are not "the Crown's POV". Noble titles and so forth are regulated by law. It's not just that the crown says one thing, and people say another. There are formal rules about it. But I don't think that's a reason to use "Sir Ian" in an encyclopedia article. See Columbia's articles on Peel, Walpole, Campbell-Bannerman. I've never seen a historical write up that refers to these people as "Sir Robert," "Sir Robert," and "Sir Henry." john k 04:07, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1911 Britannica: Sir Robert Peel, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. The articles refer to "Sir Robert" and "Sir Henry" for the time the individual in question held the baronetcy or knighthood. -- Emsworth 10:34, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
But 1911 also refers to everyone as "Mr. Lastname." I think this reinforces my point that "Sir Firstname" is the equivalent not of "Lastname" but of "Mr. Lastname", which Wikipedia does not use. john k 21:49, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Consider Stephen Grover Cleveland -- Emsworth 22:02, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm...so perhaps the use of "Mr." is confined to Brits... At any rate, I don't see why we should follow the style guidelines of an encyclopedia from 1911. john k 02:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let me add that "Sir Ian" is equivalent to "Mr. McKellan" (if he were not a knight), and not to use of the last name only, which is used for both knights and non-knights. If we were the New York Times, I'd be all for "Sir Ian", but we are not. john k 04:09, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Noble titles and so forth are regulated by law. Are you saying that there's a law on the British statute book that says how a knight must be referred to? If so, I would find that surprising. If not, I don't see the relevance. Markalexander100 05:04, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
One must point out that British law is not composed just of statutes. One must also note common law, the Royal prerogative, custom and tradition. Now, it has been suggested that referring to knights as "Sir X" is POV. This assertion is completely without basis: the individual in question is a knight, insofarasmuch as the law is concerned, and in legal documents would be referred to as "Sir X." -- Emsworth 21:59, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
in legal documents would be referred to as "Sir X." I very much doubt that any legal document would be so imprecise. It's also completely irrelevant: an encyclopedia is not a legal document, legal terminology is almost by definition not the usual terminology, etc. etc. So until we end up drunk in a pub together, when we might want to continue this fascinating discussion, Is anyone actually worried enough about this to object to the article being featured in its current state? If not, we can talk about something less trivial. Markalexander100 01:53, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Then what, pray, would you suggest for a legal document, if Sir X is insufficient? -- Emsworth 10:24, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
My answer is both obvious and correct, but it's not relevant to this discussion, so I'll tell you in the pub. Markalexander100 01:17, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Noble titles are certainly regulated by law. The Duke of Westminster is the Duke of Westminster legally - it is not an affectation which can be disputed as "the Royal POV." I believe that much of the rest of it is also regulated by law - that sons of Dukes and Marquesses can preface their names with "Lord," that daughters of Dukes, Marquesses, and Earls with "Lady," and so forth. Certainly these people get passports, and other official documents, under such names. Some of it is not, of course, a matter regulated by law, but it is no more POV to say that there is a correct and an incorrect way of referring to people than it is to insist on correct spelling, or something like that. Just because the media is too lazy to get it right doesn't meant that there isn't a correct way to refer to people. But, at any rate, I don't think this applies to the question at hand. You would not refer to Ian McKellen as "Mr. McKellen." That would be incorrect - if you wished to do that, you should call him "Sir Ian" instead. But calling him "McKellen" is perfectly correct, and is just like calling somebody who is not a knight (or baronet) by their last name, which is done all the time. john k 06:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nominations with unresolved objections

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

Dracula (22 Jun)

Just edited the article quite a bit, so I guess it's a self-nom, but it's a really good article. It could possibly do with a tiny bit of work, which would doubtless get ironed out in a discussion here, but I think it's a great article. — OwenBlacker 23:04, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Abstain. An image is implicitly required for a FAC, and I'm sure you could get a good picture for this article. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:15, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose for the moment: it really does need a picture. Can we track down a scan of the first edition cover? - David Gerard 23:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support shortly: Found a picture and loaded it, placing it in the Plot section of the article. CyclopsScott 03:30, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fuck (22 Jun)

Excellent article. Etymology, history, usage, grammar--a legitimate encyclopedia article on a word. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • (Not a vote) for the record, our Fuck article was used as evidence in a court case. →Raul654 22:38, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Needs a picture. (sorry.) Support. Whilst it's unlikely to get voted onto the front page, it's of suitable quality for Featured status - David Gerard 22:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak objection: more pictures needed. I'm thinking stuff like real-world posters and headlines etc. Fredrik | talk 23:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • object. Bad pic - it is just a headline. Needs pics of real word, a help: "graffitis in the streets" or... ;) . The usage of the word, in the article's end, seems just a warehouse of sentences, reaching the redicule and ofensive. How can a subject like this be a featured article? This encyclopedia can be read by children. I've added info about Portuguese. -Pedro 00:03, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • The etymology and history parts are interresting, the rest... -Pedro 00:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It matters not if the article is read by children or not, for Wikipedia is not bowdlerized or censored. As long as such articles are allowed to exist (rather than being deleted), they should not be disqualified on the basis that the topic is offending to some. -- Emsworth 00:16, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Objections that the article is too racy are not actionable (see the page instructions), and are therefore invalid. →Raul654 00:19, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The section "History of usage and censorship" needs some subsectioning (and possibly some paragraph refactoring): currently there's 21 paragraphs, many of them only one or two sentences long — this makes it a little hard to digest. 2) Conversely, do we need the subsection headings in the "Linguistics" section? I think it might be better without them. 3) We need a better picture; the current one doesn't really explain or add information (it's just a large font version of "F*ck!"). The graffiti / posters etc suggestions seem a good idea for a replacement. 4) I think the "Etymology" section should come earlier in the article, certainly before the "history of usage and censorship" section, and perhaps as the first section. — Matt 00:51, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I object as Wikipedia is not a dictionary and all non-dictionary parts of this article can be moved elsewhere, however I suspect this objection will be declared invalid. anthony (see warning)
    • I think the subject is sufficiently interesting to warrant an encyclopedia article about the word, whereas most words and phrases aren't sufficiently interesting: the word Fuck is 1) a taboo word 2) sometimes subject to censorship 3) surrounded by a variety of myths about its etymology 4) interesting and quite unique linguistically. Any writer on the topic of the word "door", on the other hand, would struggle to find material: it would likely never advance beyond a stub. Note also that people have written entire books about the word; this has happened for very few other words and phrases. — Matt 01:15, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't think a word being interesting is enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. Yes, it's a taboo word, in fact, I think that's the main reason why many people want to include it. I don't think being taboo in itself makes an encyclopedia entry. Yes, it is frequently subject to censorship, but we have plenty of articles dealing with censorship, including censorship. Etymology (and usage, which this article also focusses on) is a topic for dictionaries, not encyclopedias. But all of this is really an argument for deletion of the article, and I'm sure there wouldn't be a consensus support for that, so I'm really arguing something unwinnable there. I have other objections, but they're rather vague and probably are also not acceptable. I think the article is rather gratuitous. The linguistics section is just plain silly. And then, I just can't find anything else. Just a big dictionary definition with some silliness added to it. I don't like it. But, well, none of this is "actionable", I suppose. anthony (see warning)
        • If you believe that this topic does not warrant an article, then put it on VFD. You may challenge it under our "No dictionary definitions" policy. Until then, however, this article is as valid in terms of the topic as any other. -- Emsworth 02:06, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
          • As I've said (please read what I've said), I'm sure there wouldn't be a consensus support for deletion. So putting it on VFD would be pointless. anthony (see warning)
      • Object, the article needs more work. By the way, see door. :) Lupin 10:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • The door article is not about the word door, but about doors themselves. The fuck article is unusual in that it's about the word fuck rather than about the concept itself (which we cover elsewhere). — Matt 10:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I just read the above comments, and thought I was about to come to the defense of an important article being unjustly attacked by prudes. Then I read the article ... It's actually rather mediocre. The "Linguistics" section is not about linguistics, but grammar, and in any case could be happily condensed to a single paragraph. The "Secondary Meanings" section's efforts to analyse the nuances of popular interjections seems pointless speculation. The "History and Censorship" section is quite a mess; it is heavily US-centric, it is basically a series of trivial anecdotes rather than history, and these anecdotes are presented in apparently random order. Despite the section title, there is practically no discussion of censorship. Worse, I was looking forward to a scholarly exposition of the early history of the word and how it became taboo (most "four letter words" originally were not taboo); instead we leap through seven centuries with just four examples and no discussion. Oh, as for pictures: surely you're kidding? How on earth can a picture of a word add to an article about a word already written in the text? I see this as an example of an article for which the usual requirement for a picture should be waived. The only picture i can think of that might actually add to the article, would be a picture of Paul Robert Cohen being arrested. If you can get something like that, add it. Otherwise don't worry about pictures. Securiger 06:49, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • more objection. It really seems a dictonary on "Secondary meanings" and the new image continues bad. I wouldnt agree on its deletion, because of some content. If it hadnt that content it should really be deleted. The article didnt became better, became riduculous with some new content. -Pedro 11:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm opposed to this being on the main page. Class me under the "prudes" mentioned above; I don't think such naked vulgarity belongs on Wikipedia's billboard to the world. Though, I suppose it's better than featuring Internet child pornography. VV 11:50, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not because of reasons of "vulgarity," or "inappropriateness for the front page" (I think all Wikipedia articles are appropriate for the front page) but because it's not very well written, is lacking in ways others have already mentioned, and the photos don't work. It's a shame though as it's a very interesting topic. Would support if improved. Exploding Boy 13:47, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Weakly oppose for the time being. I found the article interesting and informative. I don't think it's as badly written as some people have suggested, but the photographs are certainly not up to appearing on the main page. theresa knott 14:19, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • With nearly 290,000 articles in Wikipedia, Fuck is recommended as a challenge to our broad-mindedness. Oh, okay. yawn Featured articles are judged too often on subject, however, not on actual quality. Wetman 16:39, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think I'm a prude, but I will say that Fuck is not that appropriate for a featured article because of the wide variety of people (of all ages) that will be checking them out. BCorr|Брайен 16:53, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Not really an actionable objection. If it rates an article (which it does), then if it is of high quality it rates being listed with the articles of high quality - David Gerard 22:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If we do this hundreds of giggling schoolchildren will come and try to edit the page;teachers will probably stop using Wikipedia in school; apart from a little schock value what's the upside?
    • People are using knowladge and freedom of Speech to support the write of nonsence, and the articles about the beheaded with links, etc is an example of that. An encyclopedia's aim is to gain knowladge about something. agree (largely) with Matt. Pedro 21:29, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK. Could people please prepare a list of what should be done to whip this into shape? I've picked what I can from the above, but a clear summary would be nice.

  1. Expand usage history to cover the period from Shakespeare to the 20th century.

What else is there?

Incidentally, this has caused me to make a FAC policy proposal--see the talk page. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:57, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Money (19 Jun)

I believe this article is complete enough to be a featured article. --172.171.166.184 02:45, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - David Gerard 14:44, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Great article, but the ==Money and economics== section needs at least a summary of the discussion about the difficulties of measuring the amount of money. Some of that could be taken from Money supply. I put a link to that in the article. That section is also a bit choppy and needs some cohesion. - Taxman 17:32, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Some high level observations: 1) The lead section's too short. 2) There's a "Related Concepts" section early in the article in "See also" style. This could be merged with the actual "See also" section. 3) "Modern forms of money" is too short to merit its own section. 4) "Private currencies" uses external links when listing private currencies. We shouldn't use external links where we'll want Wikipedia articles. 5) I'm a bit confused as to the relationship between the "How did it come into existence?" section and the "History of money" section; should we merge the latter into the former? — Matt 19:23, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Arts and Crafts movement (22 Jun)

Though I've contributed to this, the entry is a good example of a wide-ranging community project with an outstanding result, a hub of useful links, one of the Internet's best brief characterizations of Arts & Crafts. It lacks some good illustrations, however. Wetman 21:01, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Definitely needs pictures first. But pics should be public domain by now anyway - David Gerard 21:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. I feel like it's much too short. Arts and Crafts was huge. This could be the intro to an article/series 30x this size. jengod 21:00, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

El Cid (16 Jun)

A self-nomination, but it's a good article. Neutrality 17:44, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the edit. Support. Not an objection per se, but there isn't a picture anywhere in the article. Since El Cid died almost an entire millenium ago, can't there be a picture found from the movie version? TheCustomOfLife 17:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. I put two graphics in. Thanks.Neutrality 19:18, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Contains non-free image. anthony (see warning)
    • Which image? The album cover is explicitly under fair use, and the Cid painting could arguably be as well. Neutrality 18:42, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • The album cover under fair use is not a free image. anthony (see warning)
        • What do you mean by "free image"? It's OK under copyright law, so what are your problems? Neutrality
          • Free content images are licensed freely in the same (freedom) sense as free software is licensed freely. That is to say, recipients are given permission to use the content for any purpose, copy it, modify it, and to redistribute modified versions. My problem is the image is we are building a free encyclopedia, and this image is not free. Whether or not the image is legal for us to use under copyright law doesn't matter. anthony (see warning)
            • This question (fair use images) has been discussed before (see Wikipedia talk:Copyright), and a no-fair-use policy has been roundly rejected. Anthony is just trying to cause trouble. →Raul654 17:51, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
              • No, the question discussed before was whether or not fair use images violate the GFDL. The conclusion was while they are legal, their use should be avoided whenever possible, and "most, possibly even almost all, of the fair use images that we have in Wikipedia should be removed" (that's a quote from Jimbo). anthony (see warning)
              • I see. These are not serious objections, then. Thanks, Raul. Neutrality 19:18, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
                • No, it's quite serious. See for example the mailing list thread entitled [What would Richard Stallman say?. "The Wikimedia Foundation should be a beacon of what is possible with copyright freedom, and we should not allow anyone to ever point at our work and say 'Yeah, they talk the big talk about free licensing, but what would their site be without all those proprietary licensed images and fair use exceptions?'" Not even being able to create a featured article without such fair use exceptions goes directly to that point. anthony
                  • I'm moving this back up to nominations without objections. If people feel that the images are not acceptable, they can replace, credit, or modify them as they see fit. Neutrality 05:51, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
                    • I moved it back. There is no requirement that the objection must be resolved by the person making the objection. anthony (see warning)
                      • And I'm moving this back again, because there IS a requirement that all objections must be "actionable." The guidelines further state that "if nothing can be done to "fix" the objected-to matter, then the objection is invalid." Neutrality 04:01, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
                        • This objection is actionable. If the non-free images are replaced with free ones (and/or the copyright status of them is documented as free) then my objection will be removed. anthony (see warning)
                          • Antony, please see the Wikimedia article "Avoid Copyright Paranoia." In the meantime, I will move this back up, since you are the only one who has objections.Neutrality 14:58, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
                            • My objection has nothing to do with copyright paranoia. You keep throwing that up as a strawman, but if you read my statements I have never claimed that the image violates copyright law. This section is for "nominations with unresolved objections". It is not for "nominations with more than one unresolved objection". Also, there are multiple other unresolved objections besides mine. anthony (see warning)
  • Object. Refeers extensively to Spain (a 15th century country) and Historical figure from 11th century (relating them excessively and with POV), and relating them as the country existed at the time and if it was unified, etc etc. And Garcia was King of galicia and Portugal, not only Galicia, both where already somewhat separate identities. Tought the article is interresting all wright. -Pedro 19:43, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I reference to Spain in a general sense; e.g., "El Cid was known throughout Spain as..." I do not, however, use the word "Spain" as a substitute where more specific terms should be use (I use "Castile," "Leon," etc. to refer to that specific political entities. With regards to the POV comment: where in the article is hat you feel is POV? Could you please cite an example so I can fix whatever problems you see? Neutrality 21:07, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • In Portuguese we refered to the collective (and independent) kingdoms of Iberia as "Espanhas" (Spains), NOT "Spain" that is a modern (15th century) alteration of a collective name. In that time there was the Kingdom of Leon and Castille and several others. Not a kingdom of Spain so he could not be Spanish, as its mentioned in the article. The most important entity of that time as the kingdom of Leon. We can read in the article: El Cid (1045?–July 1099), also called El Cid Campeador, is the name commonly used for the important Castilian-Spanish knight and hero, Rodrigo (or Ruy) Díaz de Vivar, who was born in Vivar, Burgos, Castile, Spain and died at the age of 44 in Valencia. Suggesting what can be read. -Pedro 22:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • more objection. The image that is in the middle of the article is excelent and the first image is terrible and gives the idea that it's a movie. Main idea of the article: "A movie about a Spanish hero" Both incorrect. Cid is Spanish as Viriathus is Portuguese. - Pedro 19:57, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I make it clear in the caption that the graphic is a poster for a modern film portraying a romantized character of El Cid. Neutrality 21:05, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • Yes, but dont you think that the other picture is better to put above? it is more heroic and prittier. The movie one can go to the middle of the article, cause that's a mere curiosity. -Pedro 22:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm assuming you meant "romanticized." I've edited the article to say it as such. TheCustomOfLife 23:07, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • Yes, sorry about the misspelling. Thanks, TCOL! Neutrality 05:43, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Featured articles should have a well-developed lead section. This article is long enough to have more than 5 sentences. ✏ Sverdrup 15:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1. The lead section is, as noted above, insufficient. 2. If El Cid's date of birth is unknown, the article should not purport that he died at the age of forty-four. 3. The article uses the first person ("we"). I would suggest that it be replaced with "one," or, if the third person is undesirable, with the passive voice. 4. In several cases, the article uses the vague "this." Better would be to qualify the word, for example as the article does when it uses the phrases, "this story" or "this time." 5. The sentence "Sancho believed that as the king's oldest son, it was his right to inherit all of his lands" may be considered unclear. The first "his" refers to one individual, while the second one refers to another. Perhaps one might write, "Sancho believed that he, being the King's eldest son, was entitled to inherit all of his father's lands," or words to that effect. 6. Em dashes (—) should be used instead of ones currently employed ( - ). 7. The article inconsistently refers to "El Cid" and "the Cid." I would prefer if the article uses one or the other in all instances. 8. The article sometimes uses the present tense instead of the past: for instance, "Terrified after his crushing defeat, Alfonso recalls the best Christian general from exile." 9. In the sentence "It has been shown that he was at court on July 1087 (Kurtz)," one cannot be certain whether the "he" refers to El Cid or to Alfonso. 10. Consider the sentence, "In 1096, Valencia's nine mosques were 'Christianized,' Jérôme, a French bishop, was appointed." To which position was Monsieur Jérôme appointed? Furthermore, the sentence requires a semicolon rather than a comma after "Christianized." 11. The article uses "smart quotes" instead of normal ones, thereby breaching policy. 12. Several sections contain just a few sentences. I think each section or subsection should contain at least one substantial paragraph (if not two), or an independent list (such as the list of References). -- Emsworth 18:14, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutrality, it is you that is "striking" what I comment? I continue to disagree on some content of the article. It is not historically correct. We cannot talk about a country named Spain in the 11th century. -Pedro 03:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object in the same grounds as Pedro. Referring to Castile and Léon as Spain is not correct. Featured articles should be immaculate. Muriel G 10:15, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Supply and demand (17 Jun)

Self nomination. This article is probably one of the most linked economics article, and I believe it to be high quality. Jrincayc 02:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • object, the section on elasticity is fairly central to supply and demand theory, and so far I have added only a section heading. Other than that I think it is a pretty good article. I will try to add at least a start at the elasticity section, which may be a bit of a challenge since the Elasticity (economics) article is not all that well developed. - Taxman 17:35, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • I edited (err, mostly rewrote) the section on elasticity in the article. Take a look at it. Jrincayc 21:13, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, I mostly like those changes, needs just a bit more, see Talk:Supply and demand#Elasticity I think it just needs a diagram showing movement towards the equilibrium point which is pretty central to market economics and supply and demand theory. With that I fully support. - Taxman 16:31, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Cardinal number (18 Jun)

Self nomination. Perhaps one of the few higher mathematics articles which are in a state of being comprehensible by non-mathematicans. (Splatty 08:46, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC))

  • Object. Needs a history section. Who contributed to the development of this concept? Who disputed it? Fredrik (talk) 09:16, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Could do with a bit more of the lower mathematics, e.g. the simple idea of 1, 2, 3 ... - David Gerard 09:26, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree it would be fun to feature more articles of this type. The history/origin section is a major lack we have to deal with first, however. ✏ Sverdrup 18:36, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This article is not in a very good state. It needs a lot of work, mostly reorganization and a more consistent treatment of the axiom of choice. --Zundark 11:07, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nicholas II of Russia (16 Jun)

Nicely sectioned, smooth. Very comprehensive, purposeful and meaningful Avala 15:39, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. 1. The family background section needs expansion. 2. The vague term "this" is often used: "prevented this" or "previous to this." Some phrases from the article seem more appropriate: "this advice" or "this time." 3. More needs to be said about Rasputin's influence on the monarchy, and about the various hardships facing Russia. 4. The section on Nicholas' removal from power is much, much too brief. 5. More information is needed on Nicholas II's execution. Why did the government feel that it was necessary to end his life? Were there any in the government who felt that execution was not necessary? Why was the execution concealed? When was the execution made public? What was the reaction of the Russian people? 6. The section on sainthood is insufficient. It needs to indicate if he was indeed viewed as a martyr prior to the sainthood. Furthermore, the first sentence lacks agreement ("were canonized as a saint"). 7. Nicholas II's style was, I believe, "Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias," rather than "Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia." I am not, however, confident as to this point. So, generally, I feel that many sections are not comprehensive enough. -- Emsworth 17:19, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

George W. Bush (16 Jun)

Well written. Very informative Avala 15:31, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. 1. I think that the Civil Rights section needs expansion. The part about his views on marriage needs to be expanded. Furthermore, his ideas on abortion need to be indicated. 2. A section on Bush's religious views could be added. Firstly, one may indicate how he claims religion plays an important role in his public policy-making. Secondly, one may indicate his support of faith-based programs. 3. While the article does in many places mention that Bush has been criticized for his views, indications of criticism need to be made in respect of the aforementioned Civil Rights and Religion sections. 4. One should indicate why Bush is so unpopular with many members of the Democratic Party. 5. The pictures are all on the right side. Perhaps some can be shifted to other parts of the page, so as to offer a less plain view. 6. The article inconsistently uses "US" and "U.S." 7. Bush's relationship with Congress should be explored. His support in each House, and his use (or non-use) of the veto power needs to be indicated. This section would include his battle with Democratic Senators over judicial nominees, and his use of the recess appointment power. -- Emsworth 17:04, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Phrasing in the entire foreign policy section is consistently awkward, and does not exactly exemplify NPOV. Also, why is there a "Legislation" section? Presidents cannot introduce legislation in or vote upon any bills before either house of the Congress; IIRC the only thing Bush has done on those bills is not veto them. And I have reservations about featuring candidates for office on the Main Page, but I'll save those for Raul if/when this receives FA status. - jredmond 19:14, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, re: the "Legislation" section, he has a good amount of influence here--when I mention "the Bush tax cuts", everyone knows what I mean (everyone being fellow Americans). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:35, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Most Americans understand that - while you and I may have paid attention in civics classes, I can't say that everybody else did. (cf. the endless explanations of the Electoral College in the US media four years ago) Also, not everybody who reads here is an American. And "influence" is a slippery term... he farmed most of that work off to party whips in either house. - jredmond 19:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Very likely to get vandalized or deterioriate due to edit wars during the election campaign in the US. Looks bad for Wikipedia; besides, it's unnecessary to stimulate mishaps by flashing for the article on the frontpage. --Ruhrjung 19:22, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • I haven't read the article, but regardless of its content I think it would be a bad idea to put this on the front page. Doing so would probably attract ugly edit wars as partisan newcomers from one view or another tried to add or delete material. The article might or might not be featured quality now, but give it half a day on the front page and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be. Isomorphic 01:12, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dune (14 Jun)

Nice pictures; very descriptive of the different types. -Litefantastic 01:01, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Object...1) there's an inline editorial comment: (is this a made up word?). 2) The subsection "Dome" is only one sentence long. 3) The article is crying out for some illustrative diagrams or photos for the various different types of dune. 4) There's no discussion on the physics of a how a dune is formed. — Matt 19:35, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
oppose. "(is this a made up word?)" must be resolved; and, not a bad article, but sections are uneven in content. Badanedwa 02:30, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
It's not a made up word and the comment has been deleted (I responded to it on the talk page months ago) --Steinsky 11:32, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • neutral then. Badanedwa 04:23, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Formula One (14 Jun)

Pretty complete, could be a FA IMO. cbraga 02:03, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. 1. The constructor-driver table in "Lists" is unclear; cell borders might be helpful. 2. The list of races in the championship should not, in my opinion, be presented as a table. I would prefer if the information in the "People of Formula One" table is not presented as a table either. 3. The article appears incomplete; note the last row of the "People of Formula One" table and the last bullet in the section "The Future of F1." 4. The article uses informal language, such as "tame these twitchy beasts" 5. The article inconsistently uses British and American spellings: "rumour," "formalised" and "organizer." -- Emsworth 02:57, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Re: #2, the list of races comes from the series (e.g. Spanish_Grand_Prix); I think it's fine. #5: I think that's the Oxford z, not the American one. Markalexander100 03:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • The lists of races, teams and people are Template:X tables. I agree that the races and teams should be text and that the tables should only appear on the individual Grand PRix or constructor pages, but for "people" I don't mind it. If it's contrary to wikipedia protocol or something then it should be moved, of course.Rdsmith4 01:15, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Although I agree that this is quite a complete article, there are some areas that need working on. The "Future of F1" section needs renewing and expanding to reflect the current positions of the FIA and the teams with regards future rule changes. I'm not sure if the other articles in the series should be treated as if they are candidates but if so, then they also need some work doing. Firstly, the F1 Cars article needs to be more cohesive and secondly, any good info of the "2003 rule changes" and "2004" sections in the History of F1 article needs to be incorporated into the relavent place. 999 10:16, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with you on most of these counts, though I feel this article is quite close to FA quality. Supposing I work the Future of F1 bit into the history subpage (dunno why no one has done this yet) and edit the other articles in the series - must the page be renominated? Rdsmith4 01:15, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lancelot (Arthurian legend) (13 Jun)

Just stumbled across this and thought it was a very good and thorough article. OwenBlacker 23:57, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Right now it's a big block of text, which is not easy to read at all, and not really in wiki style. It also tends to wax academic far too often, (lines like But to whom is the story to be assigned? are not encyclopedic). Article barely mentions portrayals of Lancelot in pop culture at all. Maybe if it were divided into sections it would be better. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 01:55, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Second. Although the text is extensive, there is a movie coming out soon that could stir up an interest in this article and others related to it.
  • oppose. needs links and sections. Badanedwa 02:36, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Deluge (prehistoric) (13 Jun)

A nice, detailed description of the supposed prehistoric Flood. RickK 21:46, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

  • support, but an image would be nice as well Zw 23:05, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: 1) What's a "deluge" and a "Universal Deluge"? A definition intro sentence would help answer the first question that I had when I clicked on the article. 2) I'd query the use of "BP"/"ybp" — is this in widespread use in the field? Otherwise it's confusing to general readers used to AD/CE, BC/BCE 3) When reading, I got lost pretty quickly; I never really got a grip as to what this topic is all about. Perhaps adding connecting, contextualising sentences at the start of each section should give the reader hints as to what he's about to be reading about, before launching into details. — Matt 23:18, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Really needs an intro. DJ Clayworth 17:25, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Leo Frank (13 Jun)

This is a fine biographical article that covers a very problematic period in US history from a little-known angle. Danny 13:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I do not object, but perhaps more wiki-links could be added. -- Emsworth 13:50, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • I am opposed to the practice of linking solely because it is (technically) possible, such, for example, as is frequently done -- to my mind excessively so -- with non-signficant dates and basic English nouns. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. -- Viajero 14:55, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I can't remember where it says it, but you are supposed to link all dates, so that the software can automatically convert them to the user's specified date preferance. →Raul654 17:30, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
      • The nine-paragraph section "The Trial of Leo Frank" is completely unwikified, it is very likely that it could be genuinely improved by appropriate links. As regards dates, Wikipedia:Tip_of_the_day_archive#Dynamic_date_conversion recommends Wikifying all dates. — Matt 15:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Links may enhance an article but they won't improve it. -- Viajero 18:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I found this to be an interesting and well-written article. The lead section needs to be larger (currently it's a single sentence). I also think that the single-sentence paragraphs in Leo Frank#Aftermath should be merged into a few, longer paragraphs. (As a side note: if this article is to go on the main page, should we "obscure" the hanging corpse picture behind a link, rather than having it inline? Some may find it a little unpleasant.) — Matt 14:05, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • leading and trailing paragraphs fixed. -- Viajero 14:55, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • The lead is still a little short, IMO. A large portion of the article discusses the trial, appeals and the sentence; this should be summarised too. — Matt 15:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Acegikmo1 23:45, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Papal Tiara (09 Jun)

Woa, who knew one can write 1000 words on a hat! --Menchi 10:55, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Support--I moved a section on multiple tiaras to the top, as otherwise it was confusing. Fascinating read. Meelar 16:48, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support-- I remember coming across this article last year (before we had featured articles), and stopping to read the whole thing. Great work. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:14, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. jengod 01:59, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. — Matt 14:12, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Tenatively Support, as the article is well done, but am correcting factual errors in several places. (666 is the Number of the Beast, not of the Antichrist. | Still trying to disambiguate which Pope Silvester is mentioned where... (There were 2.)) Nothing major, but, if it's to be featured, I want it to be the BEST of what wikipedia does. -- Long, Tall Texan 23:57, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, interesting. Smerdis of Tlön 00:20, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. 172 00:21, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Wonderfully arcane. Denni 06:42, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • object. "Antipope Gregory XVII (1978-present) ..." this seens an ad to an unknown/funny personality. Seens a bit anti-catholic. -Pedro 22:53, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I would support, but for the shaky copyright status of the images. I'll leave it for those who know more than me about US copyright law to decide whether that's a problem. Markalexander100 02:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Several of the images are justified by the phrase, "no copyright notice anywhere" or something along those lines. Worldwide, a claim of copyright is not necessary for a work to be copyrighted, copyright is automatic. True, this is a recent development, and this images are old. But still, it's possible that they are copyrighted, whether there's a notice or not, and we need better attribution of the source of these images to determine if in fact they are clear for use. --TreyHarris 08:49, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object per copyright issues. anthony (see warning) 13:03, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Chicken sexer (13 Jun)

Fun (yet for real...folks called chicken sexers do indeed exist out there) article...not a huge article, but sizeable enough, IMO, to be a featured article. Good organization and writing; seems to be well-researched. Catdude 06:15, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No - far, far, far, far too short. →Raul654 06:20, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
Object. I also think it's too short, and I doubt that it has the potential to be longer. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 06:34, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
Erm... your statement denies the philosophy that any article, given enough effort, can be made a featured article, doesn't it? I think there is a place for short featured articles. This isn't it, though, so I'm not going to defend chicken sexer, but I'll say here how it could become a featured article to my mind--while remaining relatively short (say, doubling in size):
  1. It needs some information about the history of chicken sexing. Surely it didn't spring in whole cloth from the mind of an anonymous Japanese poultry farmer sometime in the past five years and now everyone's doing it.
  2. Why is chicken sexing useful? Why not just wait until the secondary sexual characteristics begin to show up to segregate hens from roosters?
  3. What is the Japanese connection? Why is chicken sexing taught more widely there?
  4. It sounds vaguely agri-businessy to me. Is it? Are chicken sexers more likely to be found in large corporate chicken plants than in the larger family farms?
Personally, I'd fully support this article as a featured article if these questions were answered. Length alone does not determine quality. --TreyHarris 19:07, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the analysis, TreyHarris. You have some excellent points as to how this article could be augmented. I'll use some of those ideas as templates to perhaps point out to others how their articles might be made into a featured article! —Catdude 01:57, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I did a bit more digging on Google, and came up with the names of the Japanese people whose publication of a paper on the subject in the 1930s revealed this mystery to an eager world, and added that to the article. I may try to find it and see if there is more on the earlier history of the art in it. Smerdis of Tlön 15:38, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Lite object. Very small and too generalized. never heard of that, more development and it would be cool for featuring. -Pedro 00:09, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Personal rapid transit (13 Jun)

  • Fascinating article about how mass transportation can be made as convenient as personal transportation, and how some astonishing headway has already been made in this direction with futuristic transportation systems now in use. Superior writing and organization, as well as good references and excellent external links. Catdude 06:28, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I support the nomination. The article is thorough in terms of information and of excellent quality in regard to diction. -- Emsworth 00:51, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see at least one more photo. Exploding Boy 01:41, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor objection. The large sections "Safety and Utility" and "Engineering Economics" are mostly unwikified: only 2 links. — Matt 02:12, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=4252126"