Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive

[[:|WP:AID
WP:IDRIVE
WP:TWID]]

The Article Improvement Drive is a weekly collaboration to improve non-stub articles to featured article status. (For stub articles or topics with no articles, see Collaboration of the week.)

/History - For past winners.

/Removed - For removed nominations.

/Maintenance - AID upkeep.

Attention: as of March 6, nominees need 4 votes per week to stay on the list.

Article Creation and Improvement Drive

Though this project is inactive, you can help with :
Héctor Alexis Leyva Chávez (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 13 Jun 2025 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF).

Introduction

To vote or nominate you have to be a registered user. Any and all articles may be nominated except:

Articles that are currently at featured status
Articles in edit wars
Stub articles; use the Collaboration of the week for those

If you wish to help with maintenance of Article Improvement Drive (updating vote counts and such), please see this page: /Maintenance.

{{User AID}} unfolds to

This user participated in the Article Creation and Improvement Drive.

How to nominate

Here is template for nominations:

===[[ARTICLE]] (1 vote, stays until [[DATE ONE WEEK LATER]])===
:''Nominated [[MONTH DAY]], [[YEAR]]; needs at least 4 votes by [[DATE ONE WEEK LATER]], [[YEAR]]''

; Support:
# (sign with four tildes)

; Comments:
* (put your reason for nomination, sign again)

----

Copy and paste the template to the bottom of the list of nominations on this page and fill it out. It is important to use UTC time; the current time and date now is 17:59, Friday, June 13, 2025 (UTC).
Under "comments" section put explanation of what work is needed.
After submitting the new nomination, go to the nominated article and put {{AIDnom}} at the top of the article and put both {{AIDnom}} and {{to do}} on the top of the article's talk page.

How to vote

Sign with "# ~~~~" on the end of the list of the article you want to vote for and then update the vote count in the subhead. Opposing votes are not counted; see approval voting. You can vote for as many articles as you like. If the vote count equaled the "needs at least xx votes by", then add 4 to "needs at least xx votes" and add a week to date in vote count and "needs at least xx votes by" notice.

Example. You encounter this situation and decide to vote:

===[[History of the world]] (23 votes, stays until [[February 7]], [[2006]])===
:''Nominated [[December 8]], [[2005]]; needs at least 24 votes by [[February 7]], [[2006]]''

First you put "# ~~~~" on the end of the list of people who voted for that article and then change the votecount and date in following manner:

===[[History of the world]] (24 votes, stays until [[February 14]], [[2006]])===
:''Nominated [[December 8]], [[2005]]; needs at least 28 votes by [[February 14]], [[2006]]''

How the article is elected

Article with most votes on each Sunday in 18:00 GMT is elected as "The current Article Improvement Drive article". If two articles have same number of votes, the older nominee wins.

The next project article is to be selected on Sunday March 12, 2006. 18.00 GMT (Template:DAYSTOSUNDAY)

How an article is removed from the list

Articles need four votes per week to stay on the list. If current date (June 13 2025) exceeds "stays until" date of particular article, that article entry is removed from this page and moved to page for removed nominations.

Nominations

John Seigenthaler Sr. (36 votes, stays until March 9)

Nominated December 8, 2005; needs at least 39 votes by March 9, 2006

Support

Wackymacs 15:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ed 17:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Larsinio 22:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Newguineafan 01:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 04:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pepsidrinka 15:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dvyost 17:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 20:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
zenohockey 05:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality^talk 01:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
American Patriot 1776 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Histmaven 16:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carabinieri 18:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Imperialles 14:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
172 23:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DMurphy 15:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Iamvered 20:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pschemp | ^Talk 08:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poppypetty 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 00:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jhohenzollern 02:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Skurrkrow 06:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
zachjones4 17:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vir 17:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rokafela 04:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TwilaStar 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Afrosheen 01:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC) (NOTE: Looking at the similar User Contributions histories -- note the shared West Virginia interest -- of Afrosheen, Rokafela, and SpandX, I suspect sockpuppetry is afoot. Thoughts? Andrew Levine 08:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Mikker ^... 07:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanguard 13:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tvaughn05 _e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 20:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 00:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 19:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ter e nc e Ong 10:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NuncAutNunquam 14:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RJH 18:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contested votes

User:SpandX has less than 50 edits, and the vast majority are on AIDs of various kinds. I contest this vote. I'm not removing it, but it smells very funny. --DanielCD 15:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the note I posted next to Afrosheen's vote. Andrew Levine 16:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I missed that. However, I'm going to leave this comment here for now. --DanielCD 16:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be looked into, as a week's worth of the community's energy and input is not something trivial, even though some think it to be. If these votes are removed, the status should also be called into question as these may have been added to unfairly prevent it from being dropped. --DanielCD 16:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven't been on Wikipedia in awhile, I was surprised to notice the recent attention I've recieved. It's appreciated, really. I am not an active contributor, so I realize my edits to AID vote ratio is skewed for that reason. To quelch the debate, I'm removing my vote. SpandX 18:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed votes

Rampart 22:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gflores ^Talk 20:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (rm my vote. article has improved greatly ^Talk 15:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Bob124 00:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC) (removed by --Steven 00:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)) I removed this vote due to the fact this member did not make any contributions other then voting for this one nomination. This makes the member similar in status as a non-registered member[reply]
Toonmon2005 02:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)(removed by Toonmon2005 21:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)) I changed my mind about this article. I'm joining the crowd at the other side of the fence.[reply]
Kaldari 05:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC) (article has improved significantly since nomination)[reply]
BorgQueen 22:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC) - I've removed my vote.[reply]
SpandX 18:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC) - I've removed my vote.[reply]

Comments

It'll make him happy since he complained about Wikipedia (and had a right to!) — Wackymacs 15:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Err... I doubt that fixing this article will redeem wikipedia in the eyes of the critics. Although it may mollify J.S. slightly. :) — RJH 22:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick of Wikipedia being attacked...I hope an Article Improvement Drive helps!! -Newguineafan 01:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Half of me says "this is a great idea! what an amusing and clever way to show the reason Wikipedia is a project with so much potential despite its brief setbacks!", and half of me says "this is a terrible idea! it shows a profound pro-Wiki bias that we would go to such efforts to cover our own tracks and put a higher priority on "atoning" and making ourselves look good than on focusing on articles on truly major and vitally important topics that are much more neglected than this article currently is!" So, I'm on the fence on this one.

Overall, my thought is: anyone who cares enough about Wikipedia's public image should feel free to work on improving this article, but it shouldn't be one of the weekly article improvement drives; there are too many other topics that are hundreds of times more important for us to spend time on, and in any case going to such lengths for Wikipedia's public image could easily backfire by bringing even more attention to what is really a pretty trivial event that the media blew far out of proportion. In 10 years, it will barely be worthy of a section, much less a distinct article; which is not to say that having coverage of it now is a bad thing, just that it's not something for the Article Improvement Drive.
There are entire civilizations and spans of millennia, people and ideas that have changed the history of mankind forever, fundamental scientific and mathematical principles that require good coverage to gain any understanding of our very universe and of existence itself, all with articles so poor that if they appeared in any printed work that work would be laughed off the market forever and become useful only as a party gag. There are thousands of such topics for us to worry about, and we go for this article just because some vandal happened to play around with it? What a victory for vandalism that would be! "Man, let's keep this up and see if we can start another news controversy and gain even more influence over Wikipedia's inner workings..." It's just not worth all this trouble. We're an encyclopedia, not a self-image-obsessed media whore, remember?
On the other hand, it is a neat idea. So, I say go for it on an individual level; just don't make it some big community quest using the AID. -Silence 08:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I do feel sympathetic to what you are saying, however, at this particular moment in time Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community have egg on their face. If we can work together to redeem Wikipedia in the eyes of the public (even in a rather shallow and media-centric way) that may have a more beneficial long-term effect than working on any other particular article, no matter how fundamentally important it is. If no one takes Wikipedia seriously anyway, what good will it do to have a great article on History of the World? Kaldari 22:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why this collaboration is a terrible idea. Wikipedia will never be able to be taken seriously if it focuses on its self-image more than on its content. Plus, in fact, the current article on John Seigenthaler Sr. is already very good! Bringing it up to Featured Article quality is completely unnecessary, and amounts to a media stunt ("Hey! Look, media! That article that started this controversy is really good now! See? We really are awesome! ... Be our friends?"). Nothing more, nothing less. Wikipedia should strive to improve its good image by improving the actual content of its vitally-imporatnt articles, not by bowing to the demands of media muckrakers. That's where we are truly in danger of losing our credibility: in the thousands of articles on Wikipedia that are far worse than they should be considering the importance of the subject matter. Wikipedia is already far too fixated on its self-image as-is, leading to a great degradation in actual article quality; more of our Featured Articles look very pretty, but glaring flaws and silly errors are inevitable in just about all of them. Our encyclopedia content should be, now and forever, our number-one concern and focus in "Article Improvement Drive"—we are an encyclopedia, not a public relations firm. -Silence 07:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's thinking like that that causes the horrible hair-styling of politicians today. Content/ideas isn't everything. Image is important for reputation, which counts for something if you want anyone to listen to you or try out your encyclopedia. Otherwise you just end up with those who are wise enough to realize that image isn't everything, which isn't a lot of people. --Schwael 15:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um? You don't think politicians are superficial enough? You think they're too concerned with truly important issues and with doing a good job, and not enough with just appealing to the media with cheap publicity stunts and "hairstyles"? You're an extremely strange person. Unusually for me, that's not entirely a compliment in this case. I'd rather have an extremely unpopular encyclopedia that's amazingly useful and has lots of great content, than a hugely popular encyclopedia with minimal content and usefulness. Popularity is a means, not an end, and in this case actually working on the enyclopedia itself and its countless neglected vital topics is much more important than sucking up to the media. To continue your metaphor: getting a haircut's all well and good, and a shave probably wouldn't hurt either, but considering that Wikipedia has lung cancer, AIDS, syphillus, and leprosy right now, I think we should handle the major surgery issues first, and worry about the rest down the line (or do it on outside of the "Article Improvement Drive" field, which is specifically designed to improve important Wikipedia articles for the sake of Wikipedia's content, not just for the sake of its appearance). -Silence 21:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still, media is one of Wikipedia's major recruitment venues. Blows to our image such as the Seigenthaler case might drive away knowledgeable would-be-editors. Anyway, this article is already excellent, and should not take the AID spot from an article that needs it desperately. --Imperialles 15:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per comments above. Media attention has made this article pretty good already. The only effect AIDing it will have is to direct more disproportionate public attention to it; it's just too lame an effort to do something like this so late on. Let's focus on making Wikipedia more useful, i.e. AID an important topic. BigBlueFish 14:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's important for Wikipedia to address this issue. Sure, you can say that Siegenthaler doesn't himself deserve a featured article, but it's definitely a better choice than Homer Simpson. --DMurphy 15:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're not debating whether to AID Homer Simpson. This is Seigenthaler versus the Cold War, contact lenses, frogs and more. I'd never heard of this guy before, and when I do he already has a much more detailed article than is proportional, even than some of the candidates on this page. Putting this article on the Article Improvement Drive is nonsense. BigBlueFish 18:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - My mistake, I didn't realise Homer had been nominated. That doesn't justify this nomination though. BigBlueFish 18:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think John has taken up enough of our time...Stevage 15:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I "oppose" this nomination as well. You might even say it's in violation of WP:POINT. The guy really isn't that notable, and giving him a featured article to show him up seems like a pretty sad idea. His article has already taken too much attention away from worthy topics. Sarge Baldy 11:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Let's make room for proper topics people actually come to an encyclopedia for. With so many important articles needing work, I think it's ridiculous to be AIDing this. It will be an entire week lost as far as I am concerned. We need to make room for oppose votes in this project. --DanielCD 23:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it you didn't read the section about "opposing votes are not counted"? At best you may discourage a few voters who might otherwise have jumped in... :-) — RJH 19:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yea, I'm quite aware of that, and that's the idea. Hence the "We need to make room for oppose votes in this project" comment. --DanielCD 20:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those who vote for an article are expected to contribute to it. Those who don't vote are free to ignore it. Hence, since only those who favor the article count in terms of the end result, I see little or no value in measuring the total opposition. :) — RJH 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps so. But it certainly makes me feel better. ;-P --DanielCD 00:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose: This article has alteady had sufficient attention.... I foresee hardly anybody making any substantive contributons to it this week if it goes AID.... Let's get to grips with some real articles of wide merit and stop wasting time!!
Wow Seeing stuff like this up for AID when so many other things are needing attention is just not cool. Why? --Shadow Puppet 07:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Why are so many people wasting their time on this? Is anyone out there doing research on Mr. Seigenthaler that is going to require more than is already in the article? Of all the articles up for AID, this is, in my opinion, the worst candidate of them all. If you want to work on it, fine. But, please, don't waste precious AID time on it. PDXblazers 18:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is indeed a poor candidate (though at this point it's received enough votes that I don't especially care whether it's AIDed or not, since there's clearly enough interest that it would be very beneficial to the article, and I'm honestly curious as to what areas of the article people think could be dramatically improved...), but there are much worse ones currently listed, in my view: Pop art (stub, belongs on CotW), Homer Simpson (infinitely less important to pop culture than its parent article, The Simpsons, and already receives a huge amount of attention from hundreds of editors on a regular basis due to being a pop-culture fixture, making AID, which is usually meant to help bring attention to relatively under-visited, but highly important, articles, redundant.), for starters, not to mention the numerous articles listed here that are less significant and in no worse shape than their parent articles (recycling v. paper recycling, history of Iran v. Iran, West Virginia v. United States of America, etc.). I'm probably splitting hairs, though; most of the nominations on AID would make great articles to work on. -Silence 22:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose: There's been enough attention on this article already, let's focus on making some of the lesser-known articles better to increase the 'pedia's standard as a whole. TheRealAntonius 10:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per TheRealAntonius Juppiter 03:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is going to get a week's wasted attention while Mussel below is going to be put out in a day. Where are the priorities around here? I strongly protest this wasteful use of the AID system and strongly encourage people to remove their votes from this. --DanielCD 15:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the plus side, you'll be free to go work on articles that you think matter. Why is everybody so control-freaky about this? :-) — RJH 15:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting the patronizing aspect of your comment aside: Because it does matter and concerns more than just myself. And I also know people are as free to ignore my opinion as I am to express it. --DanielCD 16:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You decidedly missed my intent. But no matter. Have a good one. :) — RJH 18:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This article covers the topic well, is neat, tidy, fairly-well written, and immaculately referenced. Put it up for Peer Review. It just doesn't need any special attention, and I don't think much can be done to improve it (at least not with energy that could be much better spent elsewhere). --DanielCD 16:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose This article has had a lot of time wasted on it, and I don't think that it's worth it. At least it expires March 9!JoshuaArgent 05:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Leap Forward (42 votes, stays until April 12)

Nominated December 21, 2005; needs at least 43 votes by April 12, 2006

Support

Comments

Far too short for such a momentous event in world history (supposedly the worst famine ever). -Estrellador* 21:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hope more professional people work on it, at least can read Chinese. I'm doing some research on it and find it's very complex. So many rubbish information disturb my work and reliable resources are quite different. According my research, it seems to be a conmbine of several comparativly small famines in different places rather than a big famine.

population change 1958 659,940,000 1959 672,070,000 1960 662,070,000 1961 658,590,000 1962 672,950,000 1963 691,720,000 http://www.cpirc.org.cn/tjsj/tjsj_cy_detail.asp?id=199

I wholeheartedly agree with Estrellador*. Also, the Consequences section states, "Discussion of population projection and statistical issues of the Great Leap is becoming more frequent." It would be nice to see more information regarding this statement, which would greatly improve the article. -Iamthealchemist 21:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A key candidate I think for the internationalisation of Wikipedia. Compare to something similar but western such as the New Deal and it's clear that these articles are lagging behind. BigBlueFish 16:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ego, superego, and id (33 votes, stays until March 16)

Nominated December 27, 2005; needs at least 37 votes by March 16, 2006

Support

Removed votes

72.129.16.20 17:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

important psychoanalytic topic
- In some ways the most important. Soo 02:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And in other ways, the least important. A terrible topic to read about if you want to learn much about the human mind or the science of psychology. On the other hand, a fantastic topic to read about to learn a wealth of knowledge on modern culture, symbolism, social and layperson understandings of psychology, and the history of the field of psychotherapy. So, I'm split on whether to vote and argue passionately for improving this topic, or abstain and argue passionately against spending any time on it at all. My sensibilities aside, pseudoscience does deserve its day too! So, I'll remain neutral. -Silence 09:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a lot of work. --Iten 06:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it only needed 9 votes?? Why now 12?? --DanielCD 03:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The number required increases over time. Should hopefully be explained at the top of the page. --bodnotbod 11:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh...duh...thanks. I should have looked (blush). --DanielCD 14:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Every article needs at least three votes per week to stay on.--Fenice 15:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is important because it is Sigmund Freuds 150th anniversary this year. His birthday is in May but we should start preparing articles concerning Psychoanalysis now, I think.--Fenice 09:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Obsolete as it may be, there is a lot of psychological literature that referrs to these concepts and uses them for comparison with modern theory. And anyone studying psychology or trying to understand it will have to plow through writings of the last fifty years, almost all of which have some reference to it. --DanielCD 14:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obsolete? Ever wonder why writings of the last fifty years, thats 5-0, still reference Freud? The only reasons people scoff his work is because they don't understand it or don't want to understand it. At least that has been my personal experience as a psych student. --JoeSmack
    - I'm not sure if you are reffering to id-ego per se or Freud in general. Your comment is a little vague. You say "reference Freud"; I wasn't talking about Freud in general. And we'll just say "obsolete, for lack of a better term". The psych has been shown to be a lot more complex than this, but the basic model has use. --DanielCD 16:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether Freud and his theories are obsolete, Freud is still the basis of much in psychology. Without him, I don't think psychology and psychoanalysis would have gone this far. Osbus 23:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That was exactly my point. --DanielCD 16:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with this. Psychology is founded on this concept, how can we ignore it? Thunderforge 22:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Obsolete'? Ha! Al001 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not modern psychology is based on these concepts and the debt, or lack of it, that we owe to Freud, these concepts are part of the general society now and used (and misused) often. Thus this article should get attention.
Needs a great amount of improvement. The content is not explained very well. vedant (talk • contribs) 21:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of the Roman Empire (37 votes, stays until April 2)

Nominated January 2, 2006; needs at least 39 votes by April 2, 2006

Support

Powera 18:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TachyonP 23:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ZeWrestler ^Talk 04:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fenice 07:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reo On 15:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NeoJustin 02:32 January 4, 2006 (UTC)
TestPilot 18:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Daanschr 19:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiacc 02:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Madison Gray 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steven 20:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Juppiter 16:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lapsed Pacifist 17:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hippalus 10:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
172 | Talk 11:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poppypetty 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 22:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PaLoger 16:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
King of Hearts | (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jhohenzollern 02:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Skurrkrow 06:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TwilaStar 08:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rokafela 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
APower 02:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Afrosheen 01:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unterdenlinden 01:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Un sogno modesto 21:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Valentinian 09:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ruarkr.2008 10:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Silence 08:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
American Patriot 1776 22:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC) I personally love the topic of Rome and would find it more information on it facinating![reply]
Sicilianmandolin 02:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andromeda321 19:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ham 18:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jdcooper 12:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:JoshuaArgent signed by the moment, it's a bit of blaggh (slang for messy).

Removed votes

SpandX 16:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Oy. Yet another Rome-related article in infinitely better shape than Rome itself gets nominated... -Silence 19:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you nominate Rome then? --Fenice 19:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rome actually has two foreign language featured articles: in German and Italian. Maybe a candidate for translation of the week/month?-Estrellador* 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rome is now nominated at Wikipedia:European Union collaboration.--Fenice 12:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Deffinetly can use help. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 04:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh.. this is not a history article. It is a historiography article. Big difference. The actual history is covered in other articles. This article covers the history of the history of the fall of rome. In that sense it is not in bad shape, Id like to hear how people think it can be improved. --Stbalbach 04:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's like historicity of Jesus in that sense: it's analysis, not description. Roman Empire and History of Rome and similar articles already cover the fall. Of course, that could very well be one big thing to change in this AID process, if people think it's merited: adding actual info on the fall itself, rather than just modern analysis of it. -Silence 05:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an avid user of Wikipedia, I was trying to get information on the fall of Rome. Wikipedia rerouted me to this article. Therefore, either this article should be changed in order to encompass the barbarians and the historical content on the fall of Rome, or he or she should be sent to the proper articles. I primarily agree with the former on the premise that I, as a layman on the topic of the Roman demise, was sent to a historiographic article by typing "fall of Rome". This does not make sense.TachyonP 05:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, added a link to Roman Empire, which contains the history of the Roman Empire. --Stbalbach 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you are missing the point. The decline of the Roman Empire should be an article unto itself, not a histiography. If possible, there should be a histiography in the 'Fall of the Roman Empire' article.TachyonP 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure that is possible without taking a POV. To write a history narrative called "Fall of the Roman Empire" is going to be inherently POV because by championing some causes and theories (such as the barbarians), you will exclude others (unless you plan to incorporate all of the 200+ theories into the article). That's why the article simply lists all the theories without getting into the history. The idea that Rome "fell" is and always has been a matter of debate and controversy. So im not sure how you plan to write a history article about it, thats much different than what we current have, that wouldnt be original research or POV. It sounds like you want to know about how the barbarians caused rome to fall - well, that is just one POV. Some people think it had nothing to do with barbarians. The theories are endless, as our current article discusses. --Stbalbach 07:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is logical. However, the fall of is still an important historical topic. The current article is not large nor informative enought. This article should therefore include the barbarinas et al and represent it as one POV, then afterwards describe internal inflation, corruption, etc. as another POV, and work from there. But the main point is that I, or anyone else for that matter, did not get much information about the fall of Rome.TachyonP 07:54 3 January, 2006 (UTC)

Hmm well summarizing for the reader the major theories and authors is pretty valuable and informative. I think we are saying the same thing on that level, but you want to write an original history narrative; but to remain NPOV youll have to equally incorporate all the many theories and authors into that narrative, a nearly impossible task. The end result will be of questionable value, pushing some POV's over others, missing some important elements while stressing others out of proportion. --Stbalbach 16:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible is a strong word. I believe that the article you suggest is perfectly plausible. The current article only encompasses six major POVs. A couple of short paragraphs on each would be infinitely better that the current article.

The above statement is accurate. It is ridiculous to call such an easy, simple task "impossible"; every article on Wikipedia does it, and does it with style. -Silence 08:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Simpson (32 votes, stays until March 24)

Nominated January 7, 2006; needs at least 33 votes by March 24, 2006

Support

Soo 01:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fallout boy 08:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NeoJustin 19:07, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
*drew 02:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nessuno834 14:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steven 22:09, 9 January 2006
-Localzuk (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Levine 05:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 11:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wtfimbored 12:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Juppiter 18:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Larsinio 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forever young 01:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bobo . 06:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanguard 13:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chriskelvie 22:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tvaughn05 _e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 02:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Toonmon2005 01:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Odd bloke 03:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dan M 03:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Newguineafan 22:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Litefantastic 15:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 16:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvbnm 17:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ubern00b 22:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Natebw 02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ter e nc e Ong 09:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matatigre36 02:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lots of facts but no overarching structure. Could easily reach Featured status with work, but there's lots to be done. Soo 01:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's already a lot of recent editing activity on this article without it winning the vote [1] and, given the popularity of The Simpsons I think that's likely to remain the case. I'd be reluctant to support all-out community activity on such a flippant topic when there are so many important areas left wanting. --bodnotbod 11:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. This is about the most trivial topic on the AID page at the moment, and it is obvious that others need the work and attention much more. -Estrellador* 22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I don't know about "trivial" — Homer Simpson is, worldwide, one of the most popular fictional characters created in the last 20 years, whereas the leading vote-getter right now, Asteroid deflection strategies, is about a relatively obscure, and still theoretical, aspect of applied science. I wouldn't underestimate the ability of a front-page featured article on a very broadly popular topic like one of the world's most popular cartoon characters to draw new users into Wikipedia and to collaborative article-improvement in particular. And Homer Simpson is certainly an article that is a long, long way from Featured quality, but definitely improvable given the vast amount of verifiable information out there about him. Andrew Levine 02:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your primary mistake was not nominating The Simpsons itself. Focusing the community's efforts on Homer Simpson when we haven't even got a Featured The Simpsons article would be like trying to get Sancho Panza up to Featured quality before Don Quixote. Your secondary mistake was assuming that popularity and importance are synonymous. Just because a topic is widely-known doesn't mean that it should be a general-use encyclopedia's top priority. We currently have more information on Homer Simpson than we have on entire civilizations that have existed for thousands of years. Don't get me wrong, it's a great cartoon show, and an amusing fictional character, but try to keep a little perspective. -Silence 00:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I see absolutely no reason to focus the efforts of the entire Wikipedia on Homer Simpson. If exposure for this article is what you want, it should be done some other way than through AID... Homer Simpson facts are easy to find. AID should be a place for articles that require more depth on the subject. AIDing Homer Simpson would be the equivalent of asking a group of award-winning Calculus-level mathematicians to write a report on Basic Algebra. -DMurphy 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And wouldn't that result in a very good report? Or should people only attempt to explain things at the absolute cutting edge of what they can understand? Soo 14:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; Homer Simpson is by no means a worthless article subject, but we mustn't let pop culture distort efforts away from significantly more pressing topics. If nothing else it's far too specific. BigBlueFish 19:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you know these drives are based on popularity of the topic, rather than their "actual" worth. You can always choose not to bother working on the topics. I think I've only ever seen about a half-dozen pages get nominated on which I actually wanted to contribute. :) — RJH 15:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think AID is more to do with attracting interest towards articles that don't have as much attention as they should. Wikipedians posess a sufficient amount of discretion to give preference to an article in need above their favourite article; at least to some extent. Were I to nominate, say, United States of America which is obviously a very popular article, I think people would have enough sense never to vote it in, because the AID would not be as valuable as for other more neglected articles. That's why it's our responsibility not to give priority to articles like this until all the more consequential ones are better than it. BigBlueFish 16:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're over-generalizing a bit about the motivations for voting on these articles. I suspect there are many reasons, including the one you mention. Personally I usually only vote on the articles I know something about and/or would enjoy enhancing. It has very little to do with how I perceive the end-reader's interest. Is that a little selfish? Probably. *shrug* :-) — RJH 21:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nobody can stop you from voting a little selfishly; I don't really mind either. It only bothers me if the outcome is a waste of the drive's time. Remember that its purpose is to improve articles that need attention. It doesn't really matter how interesting or popular the article is - it can be either very much so or not at all - but that considering its relevance it needs improving. And in terms of what sort of articles Wikipedia needs to be good, Homer Simpson is not one of them. Consider how many people will use Wikipedia to research some detail about the Cold War or contact lenses before someone needs to find out something about Homer Simpson. BigBlueFish 16:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I can virtually guarantee you that most people talk about Homer Simpson a lot more than the cold war. :) — RJH 23:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Whereas only a small social cohort will follow this with looking him up in Wikipedia ;) I also assure you that people will stop talking about Homer long before they stop talking about the Cold War, while the latter was talked about even 20 years ago more than Homer ever was. BigBlueFish 21:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Could be. But in either case it'll probably just be a relatively small number of students and historians. Besides, this is an insight into social culture of our time. I could see a perspective on American anti-intellectualism from this. ;-) — RJH 15:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A valid topic - I know some people will disagree with me here, but I've always felt that the brilliance of the Wikipedia lies in the fact that everyone is an expert at something. I, personally, specialize in Tab and FLCL, for instance. Homer Simpson is good because it's a relatively uncomplicated subject with a great deal of social weight. Someone can be an expert on Homer after seeing about a dozen episodes of The Simpsons, and by that definition there must be an awful lot of experts floating around out there. Having HS be the AID for a week allows all of them the chance to work together and improve the article. -Litefantastic 15:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin America (27 votes, stays until March 30)

Nominated January 13, 2006; needs at least 30 votes by March 30, 2006

Support

Duran^talk 22:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Havardj 25:32, 14 Janurary 2006 (UTC)
Fenice 21:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*drew 02:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiacc • § 17:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
≈ Ekevu ^talk_contrib 18:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Daanschr 19:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 03:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gflores ^Talk 09:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Revolución (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Neutrality^talk 01:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Estrellador* 17:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugur Basak 23:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poppypetty 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 22:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jhohenzollern 03:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vir 17:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TwilaStar 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpacemanAfrica 21:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carabinieri 05:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Ehouk1 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PDXblazers 04:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BorgQueen 15:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Levine 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed votes

SpandX 17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Needs priority cleanup and expansion. Duran 22:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Important topic that should have a good article.--Fenice 21:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Linguistic/sociopolitical definitions and distinctions regarding usage need to be properly and clearly sourced. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could be improved in so many ways. Gflores ^Talk 09:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran (32 votes, stays until April 1)

Nominated January 14, 2006; needs at least 35 votes by April 1, 2006

Support

Comments

The article will probably be cited frequently in the context of the country's nuclear programme. --Wikiacc • § 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very significant to current affairs.
Top level country articles should be of best quality.

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest (24 votes, stays until March 20)

Nominated January 16, 2006; needs at least 27 votes by March 20, 2006

Support

Removed votes

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

Comments

Article about historic day; biggest and most co-ordinated global day of protests. Important part of articles about the Iraq war. Is not that far from featured status but needs work on presentation and layout of the article, removal of some of the stat's type information into tables and general work on spelling, punctuation, grama etc. Also review to ensure NPOV.--JK the unwise 12:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got my vote. Article could use some corrections as well as expansion in certain areas. Maybe make a few satilite articles. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments on its talk page. I think it is a lot farther from featured status than JK does, but agree that it is a worthy topic.

Ottoman Empire (26 votes, stays until March 22)

Nominated January 18, 2006; needs at least 27 votes by March 22, 2006

Support

Comments

It is a featured article in Japanese wikipedia. It has all chances to become featured here as well. 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 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what writing an encyclopedia is about. Quality, young grasshopper, is more important than quantity. Even if there isn't a boatload to "add", there's vast amounts to improve. Some of Wikipedia's worst articles are over a dozen pages long. -Silence 00:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just skimming the article, I see it needs a) restructuring and b) refocus. A broad subject like this functions best as an introduction, with most of the "meat" of the subject on more specialised pages. At the moment it is a bit of a mess. --Martin Wisse 10:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon (23 votes, stays until March 17)

Nominated January 20, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by March 17, 2006

Support

Comments

Insufficient coverage for one of the longest-lived and influential capitals of the ancient world. Paul James Cowie 20:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Paul. --Revolución (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly short. Duran 21:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human Genome Project (27 votes, stays until April 1)

Nominated January 21, 2006; needs at least 31 votes by April 1, 2006

Support

Comments

This article is decent, but it could be much more informative, and needs to be updated. The discussion page identifies a range of shortcomings; in particular, there is little about the cultural impact of the HGP and the criticism of it. It is also somewhat slanted toward the Celera side and doesn't focus much on the competition between the government research and the private research. In short, this is the kind of article that could benefit most from the variety of perspectives and added details AID can provide.--ragesoss 02:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is really important and yet it has no images. 100 % support Empty2005 02:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please also vote for Human genome on Science Collaboration of the Week! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a scientific advancement/acheivement this great, we can definitely give it some more work. It is also a topic most standard encyclopedias don't cover in depth, if they cover it at all, but something everyone should know. Osbus 23:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aztec (17 votes, stays until March 10)

Nominated January 22, 2006; needs at least 19 votes by March 10, 2006

Support

Comments

I think there is more that could be added.--User:Llamadog903 23:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a culture and a people that could be expanded upon. Paul James Cowie 10:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really could use a clean up and more info! Empty2005 05:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what info do you think it needs? there is so much to say, yet the article is currently being splited in sections because is too big. Suggestions are welcome :) Nanahuatzin 07:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terracotta Army (20 votes, stays until March 13)

Nominated January 22, 2006; needs at least 21 votes by March 13, 2006

Support

Comments

The Terracotta Army is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and is one of the most important cultural finds ever. The article right now is messy and must be improved.--Heesung 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is an important find and one of the few connections we have to the time period and this topic needs to be covered. Thunderforge 22:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The particular sentence that made me realize this article needed help: "All of the soldiers were badly broken when the site was first discovered". That makes it sound like the archeologists damaged the soldiers during excavation. -- Sstidman 15:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weather (16 votes, stays until March 14)

Nominated January 24, 2006; needs at least 18 votes by March 14, 2006

Support

Comments

Fairly short for such a common topic. Should be expanded.--Donar Reiskoffer
A weak article that could and should be improved in almost every respect. Soo 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote 90% of this article, so while I don't agree that it's weak, I do think it needs to at least be expanded. However, before this is done I think there needs to be a thorough examination of the whole topic. The differences between Weather, Meteorology and Weather forecasting need to be defined; some sort of topic structure has to be invented. I created the portal as a thin attempt to do this, but I don't have the time or energy to do it all myself. Perhaps a weather project is in order rather than a single article improvement drive. nick 10:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree; indeed, more likely what has to happen is the whole concept has to be fleshed out with interconnected entries. But the main article needs some more meat, and it's a good candidate for collaboration. Doug 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallahassee, Florida (16 votes, stays until March 10)

Nominated January 27, 2006; needs at least 18 votes by March 10, 2006

Support

Comments

Tallahassee is a capital city, and this article is way too short for a city of its importance. Tallahassee is growing, even though it is still has a small town community feeling. I think the article should grow with it, so when Tallahassee starts to rival Orlando, we will have the info to back it up. Krashlandon (e) 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, this town seems to have plenty of information already; it could use expansion, but so could just about every article on Wikipedia. Considering that articles like Rome and Babylon aren't much larger than Tallahassee, Florida (and, in fact, they're arguably in worse shape than the Tallahassee article is, especially Rome), I don't think this justifies an AID effort at this time. There are just way, way too many more important candidates in much worse condition. -Silence 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, the quality of this article should be comparable to the quality found in the Austin and Sacramento articles (the capitals of the two most populous US States)...or perhaps even more in-depth! So, that's my vote. Valentino 05:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. But you're losing the big picture as well: the qualify of the Austin and Sacramento articles is fifty times better than that of the Rome and Babylon articles. Bring a fairly important article that's at decent-quality up to high-quality is fine, but bringing a vitally important article that's at poor-quality up to high-quality is infinitely more important. You might as well say "We should AID the 'pinky' article because the 'thumb' article is so much better right now and they should be about equal.", to which I'd reply, "What about the 'hand' article, or the 'heart' one?!" -Silence 19:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think, however, that most people these days could care less about ancient cities and civiliations. Wheras they will more likely be looking for information on "modern times". - Aerobird 14:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not strictly the point. Wikipedia's aims should be twofold, firstly to provide the information that the teeming masses are after, and secondly to create an academic resource at least on a par if not far better than any available on Earth right now. Just because "most people these days" aren't necessary interested in Rome and Babylon, doesn't mean that they are not vitally important for our status as an academic resource. They are, and that is why we need to use AID for them. The teeming masses can add their own information to the Talahassee article if they must, that is where the wiki- part comes in. AID takes care of the -pedia. Jdcooper 03:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunication (12 votes, stays until March 11)

Nominated January 28, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by March 11, 2006

Support

Comments

Essential article. Also one of the core topics for Wikipedia 1.0. Gflores ^Talk 02:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I'm blown away that such a core topic has such a light on treatment. A definite candidate for fleshing out. This one and a few of the daughter articles could also be brought into line with each other. Peace. Metta Bubble 13:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic violence (13 votes, stays until March 9)

Nominated February 2, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by March 9, 2006

Support

Comments

Poorly organized, etc. Djbaniel 08:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An important subject that deserves quality treatment. Article is sloppy and poorly referenced and definitely needs attention. --DanielCD 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly organized, POV issues in difficult but important terrain over gender-based views of domestic violence. --Joe Decker 21:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark (22 votes, stays until March 26)

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by April 2, 2006

Support

Removed votes

SpandX 08:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

With all of the media coverage of violent outrage against the Kingdom of Denmark and the cartoons that caused the chaos, I think it would be appropriate to bring the main page of the country up to featured article status. Ignorant cartoons aside, it's a beautiful European democracy with a long and varying history. With a few edits and additions, it could be featured article within a week easily. --Caponer 02:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Agree stongly with above. youngamerican (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah Denmark is generally not really that represented on Wiki, there's no portal for instance. --Snailwalker | talk 17:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Denmark, and subjects related to Denmark, are quite well covered. Let's rather concentrate our forces on countries with a more poor coverage - any country /region in the less developed part of the world.Bertilvidet 11:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you have mistaken this for the collaboration of the week? ;-) Being better developed, Denmark is much closer to FA status. So it seems like a good choice to me. Besides it's been in the news a lot lately, so people will hopefully be more interested. But if you wanted to nominate another country, you could probably get some support. — RJH 18:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Florence (12 votes, stays until March 12)

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by March 12, 2006

Support

Removed votes

SpandX 16:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

For one of the most influential city-states in Renaissance Italy, the coverage of Florence's long and interesting history is absolutely appalling. A great candidate for collaborative improvement. Paul James Cowie 11:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's what I'm talking about.Juppiter 21:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tectonic plate (19 votes, stays until March 26)

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 21 votes by March 26, 2006

Support

Comments

Tectonic plates are a primary study in the field of geology. However, there is only a small article on them. The article could easily be a featured article.

I have recently completed studies on Tectonic Plates, and it is center to the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift. I agree, let's get this article fixed up.

Wall Street Crash of 1929 (12 votes, stays until March 17)

Nominated February 10, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by March 17, 2006

Support

Comments

Surely this is one of the most important events in the history of the 20th century. Yet the Wikipedia article on it is incredibly poor, nothing more than a stub really. I find this hard to believe, when the event affected people all over the world for decades. This is a disgrace. Mark J 22:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This could potentially be an extrememly interesting and comprhensive article. And, as already stated, is an extrememly important event with repect to its long-term effects etc. Daniel NZ 21:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gautama Buddha (12 votes, stays until March 15)

Nominated February 8, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by March 15, 2006

Support

Imperialles 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solar 12:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jasminek 08:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vir 17:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PlasticMan 06:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't not vote for this one. Samsara _contrib ^talk 22:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kaldari 06:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
youngamerican (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Revolución hablar ver 17:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ashibaka tock 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
deeptrivia (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The fact that Wikipedia lacks a sufficient article on such a significant person is disastrous. --Imperialles 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, this article is about a buddha. The article about THE Buddha is at Gautama Buddha
Ah yes, that was actually the article I intended to nominate. --Imperialles 12:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this article is already in pretty good shape, isn't it? I may vote for it later because it's such a significant and fascinating topic, but for now there are too many equally or more important topics that are in far worse condition. -Silence 22:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs alot more to it, especially since its the subject of a main figure in a Major World religion. The article on Jesus is at least twice as long, but the Buddha is also a very important subject in a one of the largest modern world religions. (PlasticMan 06:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The article on Jesus is longer, but significantly lower in quality and comprehensiveness, especially if one considers the entire Jesus series of articles vs. the Buddha series of articles. -Silence 23:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the whole Christianity and Buddhism messes are much less messy than the Hinduism mess. Why didn't my nomination of Shiva get any votes? And would Krishna (not Wikipedia's proudest article) not receive similar neglect? Anyway, I don't see why this article so desperately needs to be improved: sure, it's important, and yes, it is relatively short, but it's of a very high quality. elvenscout742 00:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on all counts. -Silence 05:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian American (12 votes, stays until March 21)

Nominated February 14, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by March 21, 2006

Support

Comments

A bit sprawling and disorganized, unsourced, etc. --Lukobe 05:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs more thought in its purpose (I wrote the blurb about Asia redefinition and the rest on the articles talk page)--jrleighton 11:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Not voting for this right now. This article seems to be the highest-quality "America Ethnicity" page on Wikipedia, in significantly better shape than African American, and vastly better shape than European American. Personally, I'd much rather work on getting a more general article, like Asian, up to shape. I'll vote for this one when there aren't quite so many entire cultures, spanning global regions and thousands of years of history, that have articles which are in terrible shape; painstakingly ethnically subdividing a single country (along rather arbitrary lines, it seems at times; many Europeans have more in common with some Asians than those Asians have with other Asians!), a recent phenomenon, is slightly lower on the to-do list than that. -Silence 23:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More recognition is needed for Asian Americans, as they are often a marginalised group in the US. - HongQiGong 10:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Peanuts (9 votes, stays until March 15)

Nominated February 15, 2006; needs at least 13 votes by March 15, 2006

Support

Comments

One of, if not the, most important comic strips of all time. Krazy Kat is an FA and it would be great for Peanuts to be too. Lukobe 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wholehearted support. - Aerobird 02:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A true symbol of Americana.

Open source (9 votes, stays until March 15)

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

Support

Comments

Important concept that started the linux revolution and is the foundation of what wikipedia is built upon. The article needs to be cleaned up and should be no less than FA quality. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Davidpk212 09:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
needs some pictures, of founders, logos, concept diagrams, to interest people --naught101 10:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carpal tunnel syndrome (7 votes, stays until March 10)

Nominated February 17, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 10, 2006

Support

Comments

This is an important issue that people come to an encyclopedia and expect to find information on. However, this article is very poorly written and an embarrassment to Wikipedia (IMHO). It is poorly referenced, makes questionable assertions, and even edges on giving medical advice at some points. We need this to be an article that readers will leave with a feeling Wikipedia has given them some solid information, but alas: it is a mess. References are especially needed; those that are there are cited in-text and are incomplete. --DanielCD 00:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, because this is the disorder Wikipedia is most likely to cause in its editors. Joyous | Talk 00:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An additional note: this article has been cited in the Houston Chronicle. --DanielCD 01:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we move this article over to Medicine collaboration of the Week, with the same number of votes, it wins instantly! - Samsara 13:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egypt (11 votes, stays until March 24)

Nominated February 17, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by March 24, 2006

Support

Comments

There could be few articles more deserving or needing an Article Improvement Drive from the Wikipedia community. And this for one of the most important topics from the ancient world. (Take a look yourself - it's appalling!) This SHOULD be a Featured Article, comprehensively referenced and scientifically-written, and yet it seems to attract all manner of marginal ideas and poor quality contributions. Paul James Cowie 07:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Important Question: I've asked this question hundreds of times over the last few months on Wikipedia, and have never gotten a satisfactory, authoritative, or consistent answer on the matter: when it's not used at the start of a sentence or article title, do we properly call it "ancient Egypt", or "Ancient Egypt"? Which is it? Most (though certainly not all) of the ancient Rome articles treat ancient as an ordinary adjective, rather than part of a proper noun describing a time period, but most of the Ancient Egypt articles use the capitalized form (though plenty also use "ancient Egypt"). So which is it?! -Silence 19:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A very important and fascinating ancient civilisation. -Pedro 13:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marseille (7 votes, stays until March 10)

Nominated February 17, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 10, 2006

Support

Comments

I saw this: During the Roman times, it was called Massilia. In 1934 Alexander I of Yugoslavia arrived at the port to meet with the French foreign minister Louis Barthou., and realized this important French city was sadly lacking in article content. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 19:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mais oui, absolument

Allez l'OM !!! Poppypetty 05:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Less an encyclopaedia article, more a factbook entry of some kind. There is barely any prose here whatsoever. Is it not the busiest port in Europe? Or at least was? Expand! Jdcooper 19:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Rainforest (21 votes, stays until April 15)

Nominated February 18, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by April 15, 2006

Support

Comments

Largest rainforest in the world gets something barely beyond a stub. Every section is lacking and entire sections are missing, what about the tribes and peoples who live there? How about some examples of the incredible biodiversity? I'm sure entire articles could be written about logging and deforestation in the Amazon rainforest yet we barely have a paragraph. The Trans-Amazonian highway, which isn't even mentioned also has an article in need of some attention. - Hahnchen 01:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Improving articles like this will help Wikipedia gain respect as a learning tool in schools Juppiter 03:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is it? This article needs badly to be imporved. #PDXblazers 05:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mussel (6 votes, stays until March 11)

Nominated February 18, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 11, 2006

Support

Comments

Another core subject article any encyclopedia should have a solid article on. This article is bare bones and is missing key information. Also the referencing should be improved. It's just sloppy and very little, if any, useful information can be extracted from it. People will read this and leave Wikipedia thinking this is a junk heap. Let's clean this up. --DanielCD 01:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to consider nominating this article for Wikipedia:Join in, which allows you to establish a collaboration even with a small number of contributors. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 18:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. And thanks for supporting it here BTW. --DanielCD 14:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to vote for this to give it another week. I would consider it a core subject that is certainly more worthy than Homer Simpson or Dale Earnhardt. PDXblazers 05:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insect (8 votes, stays until March 13)

Nominated February 18, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 13, 2006

Support

Comments

Eighty percent of the world's described species are insects. People in some countries depend on them as their main source of protein.

This article is essentially one step away from featured status. It contains great text, beautiful and illustrative photos, a well-selected array of internal and external links. All it needs is footnote citations; the references would also have to be found. It recently failed to get Good Article status for this reason. Although it is so close to success, it surprisingly does not have an active community driving it forward. This would be an easy FA bounty for a small pack of committed individuals. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 19:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great AID candidate. Has good content to work with, but also has lots of shortcomings, strange layout choices, and coverage gaps. Some expansion and editing will be a boon, and this topic is much more significant than the current AID, frog, so there are no worries about importance. -Silence 05:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are some formatting issues with it; mainly the images, and section size. Content-wise I find it very good, and it may be completed before it can become AID. --liquidGhoul 09:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that attitude! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 16:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need some good focused rearrangement - a good candidate if I ever saw one. BigBlueFish 16:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2003 UB313 (11 votes, stays until March 14)

Nominated February 18, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 14, 2006

Support

Comments

Was previously nominated for FA but just missed the cut. Let's push it over the top. - Aerobird 04:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using this article to create the Portuguese one pt:2003_UB313, it has many unneeded technical aspects that do nothing for the article and do not inform the reader about the object. I would like more info that could be gattered about the object: its atmosphere, its composition, its moon, temperatures, seasons, etc etc... it will be really hard cause there's maybe nothing more :S -Pedro 02:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This wierd name is of the so called 10th planet. Just in case you don't know. ---Pedro 13:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the actual name, it's the temporary name until the IAU approves a permanent name. -DMurphy 23:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that. I've finnished the Portuguese version, which is very different from this one. --Pedro 19:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article, certainly a topic that deserves to be a FA. -DMurphy 06:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rome (22 votes, stays until April 16)

Nominated February 19, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by April 16, 2006

Support

Comments

This article is in terrible shape. As of one of the most important and influential cities in the world, this article needs a major overhaul and expansion. Take a look for yourself to see the poor shape the article is in; absolutely deserves much more attention.
It think even more deservedly is History of Rome (meaning the city). I made a stub of it, but it is still needing much work.
Strongest possible support. One of the two or three most important cities in the history of the world, and it's lower-quality than our Dumb & Dumber article. See also my bitching in Talk:Rome. I'd have nominated it myself, but I wanted to wait until there weren't too many great articles for it to compete with, but I guess it can't wait forever. -Silence 16:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rome, History of Rome and Ancient Rome were AID candidates. None of them won, all of them were removed for lack of votes. --Dijxtra 17:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Ancient Rome won, about a month ago. (Though the amount of attention it received in that week wasn't especially inspiring; very few editors got involved.) But Rome is, and has been, in much, much worse state than Ancient Rome was. -Silence 18:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been to this beautiful city in 1997 and 2004 and adore it. It should be a wikimasterpiece. Juppiter 07:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. This article is in dire need of attention. Sicilianmandolin 02:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd seen the complaints in past votes about Rome itself not getting nominated, and I agree, this article would benefit enormously from an AID. BigBlueFish 10:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monsoon (6 votes, stays until March 15)

Nominated February 22, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 15, 2006

Support

Deditos 11:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joyous | Talk 20:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lightdarkness^(talk) 21:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aerobird 04:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
cohesion★talk 05:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Currently an empty and confused article, factual errors, North American bias. This is a general and relatively uncontroverisal meteorological topic that affects many people in the world, so with a bit of work could be a very useful reference. (Deditos 11:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Neolithic religion (9 votes, stays until March 15)

Nominated February 22, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 15, 2006

Support

Comments

Re-nomination, this was removed because of too few votes not long ago, however as I feel this is too interesting a subject to be left behind, I want to contribute in any way I can to see to it that this article improves, especially since it constitutes, what I can see, a subject that is difficult to find information about unless one is working specifically on it. Satanael 20:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great candidate! Even more expansive than Proto-Indo-European religion. -Silence 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting topic. --Zserghei 10:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you guys, nice to know that somebody likes my work enough to nominate it for improvement. - Ghelae^talk_contribs 07:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating article! I know next to nothing on this topic, but I consider it quite important, and certainly worthy of the attention of the AID to help improve it even more. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I would like to see a lot more information about this topic, it is very interesting but pretty sparse.. Jdcooper 02:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Improvement would seem to require starting from scratch, if not refocussing the article altogether, per my comments on its talk page.--cjllw | TALK 08:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meiji Restoration (6 votes, stays until March 16)

Nominated February 23, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 16, 2006

Support

Comments

Arguably the most event in shaping modern Japan. Can easily be brought to Featured Article Status
Great find. -Silence 09:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I haven't actually read the article yet, so I'm not positive on what is and is not included. Nevertheless, this is a subject that could easily have entire books written on it. Causes, effects, the details of the lead-up and the event itself. Discussion of the issue of whether or not the Emperor was really "restored" to power, being that the Diet or something very much equivalent was established, on a Prussian model of constitutional monarchy and not an absolute monarchic system as had existed centuries before. A discussion of the economic and cultural effects, which by themselves could easily be pages and pages - this is one of the most important and powerful events in shaping modern Japan. Also, we need to discuss the samurai class, and I suppose the class system as a whole which was abolished at this time. The samurai lost a lot of honor and face as well as power and status; but it is important to remember that those fighting on both sides, for and against the Restoration, were samurai. This was not a peasant uprising or a commoner revolution. And that is, in some respects, perhaps one of the most surprising and important elements of this event. Anyway, I think it's great what we have - but a lot more can be done. LordAmeth 06:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gender (6 votes, stays until March 16)

Nominated February 23, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 16, 2006

Support

Samsara _contrib ^talk 22:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Catamorphism 22:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joyous | Talk 23:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quixote go 19:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kaldari 06:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fix it. Now. JoshuaArgent 05:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

We recently had male and female win on Wikipedia:Collaboration of the Week, but it seems this topic still needs further attention. It is a core topic for Wikipedia 1.0, but this article is in dire need of extensive cleanup and expansion. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 22:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this article needs a lot of improvement, and it's such an important one. Quixote go 19:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War (6 votes, stays until March 16)

Nominated February 23, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 16, 2006

Support

Comments

Can you imagine how sexy it would be to have a Featured Article on this? We should at least have a good one, though; the current article, one of Wikipedia's (and any encyclopedia's) most basic and essential, needs a lot of expansion and clarification. -Silence 00:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It would be very, very difficult to get a NPOV article on this subject, with the 'war is evil, bad, evil, wrong, evil, immoral, and did I mention evil?' attitude too many people have these days. - Aerobird 01:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we need an AID to bring it up to par; thanks for helping support this nomination with that extra reason to AID it! Many individual editors will surely warp various bits of the article to match their own POV (even if by accident rather than deliberately), but we can hold the article to a consistent standard if we all work together in an organized, focused effort, rather than letting the thing wrack up inconsistencies and POV problems over a long course of time. And that's the perfect task for AID to tackle: NPOVing and expanding a controversial article like this! Then, once it's up to par, all that's left is maintenance, which is no harder (or less necessary) for this article than for any other major topic.
A similar line of logic, incidentally, was used for the Cold War article (people argued that it shouldn't be on AID because it would be "too hard" to make it better, operating under the rather strange assumption that most of the attention AID brings will be destructive rather than constructive and will worsen rather than improve POV problems, which I don't see any evidence for; assume good faith, guys). But considering that Cold War is currently this week's AID, obviously people won't be suckered into thinking that just because something's hard (as you said, "very, very difficult"), it shouldn't be even attempted; if anything, the opposite is true, and we need AID for tough, controversial jobs much more than for easy, safe ones! :) -Silence 07:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Iran (9 votes, stays until March 24)

Nominated February 24, 2006; needs at least 13 votes by March 24, 2006

Support

Comments

Persia (Iran) was one of the most influential civilizations in the ancient world. Right now, article quite brief and its not written well. It takes more than a person to improve. It requires a coordinated group work. Amir85 04:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with the previous statement. Very important topic, considering the massive amounts of attention surrounding it. Un sogno modesto 06:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Iran has already been nominated for AID. Vote for it instead; if it's successful, it will be easy to work on the history section and daughter article at the same time the rest of the page is improved. -Silence 09:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paper recycling (4 votes, stays until March 10)

Nominated February 24, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 10, 2006

Support

Comments

Terrible intro, not much acutal info, certainly no references, needs cleanup. For such an important process, Wikipedia has very little info, as it is little more than a stub. If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously, articles like this needs to be improved.
I agree with you. This article needs to be expanded badly.Toonmon2005 21:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So does recycling, which truly isn't in much better shape. -Silence 09:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this article is a stub and should be nominated for COTW, not here. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 21:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is now on COTW. Please support it there. PDXblazers 05:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Bandstand (3 votes, stays until March 10)

Nominated February 24, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 10, 2006

Support

Comments

Horrible article for such a important show. American Bandstand was the first show to have lip synched performances by popular musicians, preceding Top of the Pops, Beat Club, Ed Sullivan Show, etc., and was huge in the 50, and 60s. It's a big part of American culture, and needs to be improved, considering that a number of less important shows have better articles (MacGyver, Moonlighting, The A-Team). RomeoVoid 23:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kemal Ataturk (7 votes, stays until March 19)

Nominated February 26, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 19, 2006

Support

--Ugur Basak 01:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aerobird 16:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duran 20:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hippalus 14:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
siafu 15:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bertilvidet 09:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Macukali14:17, 6 March 2006

Comments

This article is important because, he has a great role for a nations reborn. This article is alreay a featured article in, Greek, Esperanto and Portuguese wikis. Deserves to be a featured article. Needs to be expanded. --Ugur Basak 01:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed the nomination from Kemal Atatürk to Kemal Ataturk because my babybot can't cope with unicode yet... --Dijxtra 22:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Earnhardt (4 votes, stays until March 11)

Nominated February 26, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 11, 2006

Support

Comments

Horrible article on one of the most popular American athletes and clearly the most legendary NASCAR driver of all time, filled with likely copyvios and some horrible writing and lack of images. The Earnhardt article needs much more respect than this. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never again insult athletes by trying to call a NASCAR driver an athlete. And driving a car around in circles isn't a sport. It takes talent, yes, but it certainly isn't a sport. PDXblazers 07:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides the fact that this comment is ridiculously out of place and completely irrelevant, most would argue that a sport is a competition involving a physical skill. This includes activities such as auto racing and billiards. Yes, some sports are more demanding then others, but to believe that considering a NASCAR racer an athlete is an insult to other athletes is absolutely ludicrous. On top of that, NASCAR racing is actually a relatively physically demanding sport, as races are often non-stop, 3-4 hours long. Should I argue that baseball is not a sport and baseball players are an insult to other athletes because they just stand around for 90% of the time? --RA64 06:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Olympic committee, chess is a sport, so you're picking the wrong battle here, my friend. And the wrong place. This is for discussing the article's merits as an AID candidate, not arguing over semantical trivialities. -Silence 07:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support upgrading this article, on THE most recognised race-car driver on the planet, and one of the most recognised atheletes in the world. - Aerobird 15:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the world or in the United States? I have heard of a lot of athletes, and am interested in a wide range of sports, but I have never even heard of this person. Compared to the vast majority of articles nominated here, this guy is utterly non-notable. Rome? Iran? Oppose Jdcooper 02:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never heard of Kemal Atatürk, does that mean he's non-notable too? This guy is probably in the top 5 of best known racecar drivers in the United States. That should be notable enough. Would you consider Jim Clark non-notable? I wouldn't.--RA64 06:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope, because one look at the Kemal Ataturk article and it is clearly obvious that he is very notable. The fact that this guy is only in the top 5 best known racing drivers, and most importantly, only in the United States implies to me that this article shouldn't waste the time of such a valuable WP resource as AID. I would consider Jim Clark non-notable as well, when compared to Rome and Iran. Its a case of priorities. Jdcooper 16:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand your logic about priorities. But your criteria for notability seems very subjective. “one look at the Kemal Ataturk article and it is clearly obvious that he is very notable”?? Sorry, that’s a pretty weak argument. The six million google hits for dale earnhardt is enough notable to me. Right now people that view the dale earnhardt article (which is listed in the top 10 google results) will be treated to a cluttered mess of fan propaganda. This is IMO, unacceptable and an embarrassment for wikipedia if a guy as notable as Dale Earnhardt has such a poorly written article! BTW, are you going to vote oppose for John McLaughlin too?--RA64 22:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't need to, since that article only has one vote, and I can't see it staying for too many weeks. Re: Kemal Ataturk, he is notable for a person, and as an important statesman in 20th century history a case could be made to put him at AID, but I havn't voted support for him either, because even that article isn't as important to improve as those such as Rome. Compared to a racing driver who is only marginally known outside of America, someone such as Ataturk who has had a great effect on the make-up of a very important country like Turkey is very notable. Re: Google, the same could be said of thousands and thousands of articles, wikipedia ranks highly for many searches on google, and many of our articles aren't fantastic. Eventually we will doubtlessly get around to improving all of them, but for now it is important to sort out the most important stuff. Still, it doesn't particularly matter what I say, if this article gets enough votes, then it gets to be improved, and good luck to it! Jdcooper 15:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologies as this certainly wasn't the best place for me to launch into my tirade about auto racing. However, while the late Dale Earnhardt is indeed popular, I would rather see articles such as Amazon Rainforest, Rome, and Recycling, topics that researchers are going to come to a general use encyclopedia for, improved to good quality before we put a lot of worry into (Gulp) it kills me to say this, athletes.

Considering that the structure of the article is pretty loose, I think this could use a good clean-up. I just haven't had time to assist in it. Hopefully I will soon. --Cooleyez229 10:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recycling (9 votes, stays until March 26)

Nominated February 26, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 26, 2006

Support

Comments

Silence says this article needs to be expanded more than paper recycling. I say lets fix 'em both. PDXblazers 07:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a fantastic idea. No reason we can't work on paper recycling too if this gets nominated, as a major sub-article also in need of work. -Silence 07:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese mythology (6 votes, stays until March 20)

Nominated February 27, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 20, 2006

Support

Comments

The article is mainly a list. There is an aweful lot of work that can be done here. jacoplane 23:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore (5 votes, stays until March 13)

Nominated February 27, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 13, 2006

Support

Comments

Needs a lot of cleanup, though long and informative.

Sacred Heart Convent School (Jamshedpur) (4 votes, stays until March 13)

Nominated February 27, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 13, 2006

Support

Comments

I think the article could be much better.
Oppose Not worth it, looks like another normal school article that needs cleanup to me --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. All articles could be much better. No rationale for AIDing provided. -Silence 10:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many more important articles than this. I do not see any significance in this school. Duran 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons above Lukobe 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks fine. I don't think it needs our help--SpacemanAfrica 02:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close to FA status. Just needs a little tuning. — RJH 19:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Blockade (6 votes, stays until March 21)

Nominated February 28, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 21, 2006

Support

Comments

The first major crisis of the Cold War - the efforts and sacrifices of those involved deserve a much better article than this current coverage. Paul James Cowie 06:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senate (4 votes, stays until March 14)

Nominated February 28, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 14, 2006

Support

Comments

Extremely vague, disorganised treatment of Senate as a political concept.... More attention needed to background history and to the nature of various Senates around the world. Paul James Cowie 06:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian Conservation Corps (4 votes, stays until March 14)

Nominated February 28, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 14, 2006

Support

Comments

Something that was in all parts of the country. The CCC's effect on our surroundings is still apparent today. Juppiter 07:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet (5 votes, stays until March 15)

Nominated March 1, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 15, 2006

Support

Comments

Not as good as I would like it to be. For an article as important as this, it should at least not have stub articles in it. Duran 21:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Food (5 votes, stays until March 16)

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

Support

Comments

A horrible article on a basic enclypedia article, the first sentence of the article is completely wrong with Food is any substance that can be consumed, so sand can be cosumed is what that line says, and most of the article is lists and non-referenced. This needs some big-time help --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such a terrible article. Meat is the current COTW, and I think that this is even more important. Surely this could be made better. PDXblazers 04:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What they said. Gflores ^Talk 16:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Macedonia (5 votes, stays until March 16)

Nominated March 2, 2006; needs at least 7 votes by March 16, 2006

Support

Comments

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia makes an excellent candidate for the Article Improvement Drive because it is very close to reaching featured article status in both content and layout. I feel as if we should always be focusing on articles that only require minor adjustments and additions in the AID instead of those that need complete and total reworking, and this is one that will only require a week to make the small adjustments required. Macedonia deserves a spotlight since it poised to become a member state of the European Union and is a state that we will be hearing much more about in the news in the years to come. Its location adjacent to Albania and Kosovo will also make it a player in the upcoming debate over Kosovo's independence movement. I just feel it will be a fabulous choice and I hope you will think so, too. --Caponer 17:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lacrosse (2 votes, stays until March 10)

Nominated March 3, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by March 10, 2006

Support

Comments

This is an article lacking clear structure and information. This is such a great sport with and interesting history. It has the potential to be featured article material Osbus 02:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catapult (4 votes, stays until March 17)

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

Support

Comments

For such an interesting & important subject (cliché, I know...) this article should have more to it. There's only one picture, & the information about it is lacking significantly. I hope it gets through, as many wars & many people have been squashed by a catapult... Spawn Man 04:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur completely with SpawnMan here. There's so much that could be said about catapults, given the proper resources. We could have diagrams of their design, and a discussion of the physics involved. The section on Chinese siege warfare is horrific, not that I blame anyone in particular; if I had the resources, which I do not, I would add it myself. LordAmeth 06:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of technology (3 votes, stays until March 17)

Nominated March 3, 2006; needs at least 7 votes by March 17, 2006

Support

Comments

Very stubby, yet there's so much history! Gflores ^Talk 06:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've come across this article in the past and been amazed by the unexplored potential of it. Most of its daughter articles, like Ancient Roman technology, are in much better shape than this article. Could be a superb FA. -Silence 11:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dog (5 votes, stays until March 18)

Nominated March 4, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 18, 2006

Support

Comments

Most of the article consists of one paragraph sections & photos of people's own pets, most of which are dark & shabby or out of focus. Compared to Cat, this article sucks. All you so called "dog lovers" should not want the cat to get all the glory? Surely cats & dogs should be equal. Well I think so too... Spawn Man 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spawn Man is right about the photos; there is the potential for wonderful pictures adding to the text, but what is there isn't very good. Joyous | Talk 23:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dog lovers everywhere unite!! Make Dog a featured article! PDXblazers 06:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bird (5 votes, stays until March 18)

Nominated March 4, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 18, 2006

Support

Comments

Very close to becoming a "Featured Article". It is already classified as a "Good Article", so I feel that with a final push that AID can give, the article could easily make it to the main page. All the starters are there it just needs some... pruning. Get it? Birds, pruning... Never mind... Spawn Man 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughbred (1 vote, stays until March 11)

Nominated March 4, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by March 11, 2006

Support

— Catherine\^talk 03:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A rather short article which touches on many aspects but doesn't really explain much, and lacks references. Seems mostly a vehicle for the list of breeding farms and such. I'm really surprised this article isn't better written and researched, given the broad interest in horses and racing. — Catherine\^talk 03:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid transit (3 vote, stays until March 18)

Nominated March 4, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 18, 2006

Support

Foxmulder 03:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Revolución hablar ver 03:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty2005 10:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's an interesting subject, and certainly worth having a good article. The current one is good, but kind of choppy. It's very clear where one user's contribution ends and another's begins. Also, everyone seems to want to get in a mention of his or her home city's transit system. With a little work, I think this could become a featured article. Foxmulder 03:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Important subject. --Revolución hablar ver 03:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel Castro (4 votes, stays until March 18)

Nominated march 4, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 18, 2006

Support

Comments

I would like to raise this article up to featured article status, but I think it still needs some work.Llamadog903 17:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the most powerful and well-known leaders of the Americas deserves an article worthy of featured article status, and this one is definitely close to reaching that level. --Caponer 03:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Hughes (3 votes, stays until March 19)

Nominated March 5, 2006; needs at least 7 votes by March 19, 2006

Support

Comments

I came accross this article and saw that in the recent past it was a nominated to be a featured article but failed. The article is great, but it doesn't meet FA standards.. It would be great to see this article, about such an interesting person as Hughes, become a featured article. The article itself is quite good, but it's missing the annotation and footnotes that are expected these days. --Jeff 06:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas (6 votes, stays until March 26)

Nominated March 5, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 26, 2006

Support

Comments

The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006, and is thus a very important factor in contemporary Middle Eastern politics, which deserves a clear, comprehensive and balanced article on Wikipedia. Unfortunately the current article is not very well-written, and is caracterized by being written by a few people who had too many edit fights. I believe this article can become much more clear with some people coming fresh to the problem. Bertilvidet 09:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think it would be interesting to weigh the justifications of this organization's existence...Mkaycomputer 16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas have invested a lot in a PR makeover [2] and surly they need it in Wikipedia as well. It is just that reality changes faster than Wikipedia edits. At list the history remain the same. Zeq 15:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Juris Civilis (2 votes, stays until March 13)

Nominated March 6, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 13, 2006

Support

Comments

I was surprised to find when randomly looking up the article on the Justinian Code (AKA Corpus Juris Civilis) that it's article was nothing but a mere glorified stub! The Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law) served as the basis of the revival of Roman law in the Middle Ages, so it most definitely merits more than the honorable mention it receives in its Wikipedia article. The Byzantine Empire is a featured article, so it is only fitting that its codes and laws, as important as they are, be featured as well! I realize that the list of nominations on this page are getting longer and longer but I just had to include this one! ;) --Caponer 05:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myotragus balearicus (1 vote, stays until March 13)

Nominated March 6, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 13, 2006

Support

--Francisco Valverde 15:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It needs to be rewritten in correct English. The article is interesting for all the paleotologists and zoologists out there. --Francisco Valverde 15:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean "correct English"? --Lukobe 19:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh (1 vote, stays until March 13)

Nominated March 6, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 13, 2006

Support

Ragib 19:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Bangladesh is a nation of 150 million people, in one of the most densely populated regions of the world. It is the 7th most populous country in the world. Often ravaged by floods and cyclones, Bangladesh is a secular democracy, achieved via years of struggle. The article needs a lot of improvement to get up to FA status. Thanks. --Ragib 19:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michelangelo (6 votes, stays until March 20)

Nominated March 6, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 20, 2006

Support

Comments

Where do I begin? The opening section is an embarrassment and what follows is horribly uneven. The commission for Pope Julius II's tomb is only mentioned in passing, for instance – that's over 30 years of Michelangelo's life brushed over! This needs all the attention it can get. HaM 19:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could do with some copyediting for consistency also. Metta Bubble 00:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linux (3 votes, stays until March 13)

Nominated March 6, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 13, 2006

Support

Comments

Reason? Windows XP is featured :-)))) No, seriously, this one is failed featured article candidate, therefore we have list of things which should be done to improve it. This one should be very easy to lift to featured status, and article about one of 2 major operating systems today deservs it... --Dijxtra 22:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I'm opposing, but if it's very easy and so close to becoming featured, why do many editors have to work over a week to bring it to FA status? I think all the article really needs is a *few* expirenced editors to correct the problems raised in the failed FA nom. --lightdarkness^(talk) 15:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National emblem of Belarus (4 vote, stays until March 20)

Nominated March 6, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 20, 2006

Support

User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 01:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
mikka (t) 01:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 05:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Irpen --19:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Vote by User:Irpen at [3]. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This article was nominated by me for WP:FAC, but Wikipedian User:Mikkalai asked for the article to be placed here for any improvement, such as possible POV removal, source issues, grammar issues and perhaps get more eyeballs on this article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 01:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Name of the Rose (2 votes, stays until March 22)

Nominated March 8, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 22, 2006

Support

Comments

An encyclopedic work of Umberto Eco. Given its complexity and scope certainly more stuff can be added. In my native country this book was a huge bestseller and is still selling, and I've seen plenty of articles written about the book. The film adaptation - starring Sean Connery - wasn't very well liked if I remember correctly, nevertheless the book remains a true classic of all time. --BorgQueen 23:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborations
Articles
Articles for improvement
Science and technology
Birds Dinosaurs Palaeontology (new)
Miscellaneous
Inactive collaborations Latin music (new)
v t e