Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page. Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is normally allowed to be the sole nominator of one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. An editor may ask the approval of the coordinators to add a second sole nomination after the first has gained significant support. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page:

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC): Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR): Archived FARs Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

Nominations

Henry Moore

Mostly a self nomination - but I like it. It has been through Peer Review where it only attracted one comment, 'who did he influence', which I haven't been able to address — its a bit like asking 'who did Newton influence', where the answer is just about every physist after him. I would prefer some better images, but now it has at least one really good example I think it is ready for the big time. - Solipsist 18:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. With the first graphic, I knew who I was going to be reading about. While this work needs a little editorial attention WRT punctuation, and while "Knife Edge - Two Piece" needs Photoshopping to straighten it out, this is a sound story on a seminal 20th century sculptor. Denni☯ 01:12, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

I think this is very good, though perhaps it could do with a couple more images (all will be PD because of age) Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support, but a reference to Dublin's Wellington monument might usefully be added. Filiocht 11:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) Concerning his DOB: "most likely date is May 1st", but the article gives April 30th 2) His name lives on in the Wellington boots, but these are not mentioned in the article. 3) The article has no references. 4) The table with "succeeded by"/"preceded by" looks extremely ugly. This could be done more elegantly, and Leader of the House of Lords shouldn't have to be listed three times. 5) The lead section should give an overview of the article, and his full name and titles don't belong in there. Instead, the lead should give a short overview of Wellesley's life. Jeronimo 12:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• The tables are structured so as to give an overview of the individual's career, so I would not object to it (furthermore, it follows conventions—see, for example, all the other articles on UK politicians). But there are other objections: 1. The article is too short. 2. The lead is too short. 3. Incorrect terminology is used in relation to the Peerage. For example: "appointed Duke of Wellington" (correct: "created Duke of Wellington"); "Viscount Castlereagh" (preferable: "Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh" or "Lord Castlereagh"); "Earl Grey" (preferable: "Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey" or "Lord Grey"), etc. -- Emsworth 21:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I Want To Hold Your Hand

Renominating, as there were no objections last time, just only one support vote. I'm not sure why this was moved to failed nominations at only one week after nomination, as Jeronimo merely made suggestions, not conditions for his support vote. See also WP:PR listing. Johnleemk | Talk 09:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support, but can you can confirm that the pictures are used with permission? Zerbey 17:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Same problems with the references cited as "A Day in the Life". Also, several references appear to be identical though they point to different pages. Minor nit not affecting objection status: I would like to see the word "interestingly" banned from Wikipedia as well. That should go without saying, I think. Jgm 18:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Ambi 02:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone

Self nomination, though all I did was correct a spelling mistake. Very informative, interesting, and well done. Kathy T 21:52, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

I generally support the nomination. I am a meteorologist and I liked the article well enough to translate it for the French-language Wikipedia. However, I would like to see a few relatively minor things happen to the article before it was featured.

• In the fourth paragraph, about the warm core, the fact that the warm core features an inversion (albeit true) is overemphasized. This distracts from the really important feature, which is that the core of a tropical cyclone is warmer than its surroundings. I would reword this to remove or reduce the importance given to the inversion.

• As dicussed in talk:Tropical cyclone, the paragraph on energy release should be fact-checked and reworked as required.

• In point 3 of section "Formation and Development", the word convergence refers to convergence of the airflow near the surface. But this convergence is a consequence, not a driving factor, of the pre-existing disturbance required for tropical cyclone formation. I would simply replace "A source of convergence" with "A pre-existing weather disturbance"

• The section "Atlantic Hurricanes" strikes me as redundant. It repeats some of the information in "Major Basins" , and the rest could be merged into "Notable Cyclones".

• Provide a definition of extra-tropical cyclone and contrast with tropical cyclones. This would fit quite well in the last paragraph of the "Formation and Development" section

• Significant portions of the article are almost word-for-word renditions of the NOAA Hurricane FAQ. I don't think there is a copyright problem, but proper attribution should be made.

I have done some of the above in the French translation. I would have to "back-port" it to English, as it were. Or some enterprising soul could just go ahead and do it, if he/she agrees with my recommendations.

Girouette 00:49, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

• Neutral. In general, I really like this article, but:

• There's a section about hurricanes in the Atlantic that could use some expansion (eg, Ivan is mentioned, but the fact that's it's the 4th tropical system to [potentially] hit Florida in 6 weeks should also be mentioned, along with Bonnie, Charley and Frances. No mention of the Labor Day hurricane that devastated the Florida Keys either, definitely worth a mention.
• We should also have sections (or expand what we have) on hurricanes in other Oceans.
• The US Government did some interesting work in the 60s and 70s on trying to dissapate hurricanes, this should also be mentioned.
• We need to go into more detail on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane scale.

Zerbey 17:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Detail on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale is available in its own article. And the modification experiment you're thinking of is Project Stormfury, an article that could use some more links. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1) The use of boldface for the categories is not per the WP:MOS (and although the use of boldface for the world-wide name could be defended, I don't like these either). 2) The section "Hurricanes in the Atlantic" is not balanced by similar section for the Pacific and Indian Ocean. Also, the section is very US-centric and too much attention is paid to recent history. 3) In the "Notable cyclones" section it seems like the mentioned cyclones are chosen at random. A more structured overview, based on category, wind strenght, losses and death toll would be better, I think. 4) Rather than giving an overview/summary of the article, the lead section gives an extensive description of a cyclone, which should be in the main article. 5) The Odessa image is uncredited. 6) I would like to see some off-line references as well. Jeronimo 19:17, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I agree with most of the commentary above from Zerbey and Jeronimo, to the extent that the contents needs to be better organized and with more perspective. I think I can help with that, but it will take a while unless others pitch in. Not that we're in a hurry or anything, looks like we're in for a long hurricane season. ;-) I re-iterate my earlier comment that the "Atlantic Hurricanes" section is mostly redundant, and what isn't can be distributed across other portions of the article. A section on the history of tropical cyclones would be good, too. Girouette 00:41, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Suzanne Lenglen

Self-nomination, although my work was strongly based on the solid foundations laid down by JillandJack. Jeronimo 18:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Ambi 08:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph 175

Self-nomination. Amys and I have collaborated on this; Amys wrote the German-language original, I mostly translated (with some consultation). The German-language article is currently a FAC in the German Wikipedia. -- Jmabel 08:35, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Object - lead section is too long, first image needs to be explained what it is! I have no idea what I'm looking at, and the image itself has no explanation of what it's meant to be. Otherwise this is an excellent collaboration! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Captioned the photo better; I'll have to think about how I might better handle the lead section. Is there anything in particular you think could be appropriately dropped from the lead section? -- Jmabel 09:48, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

• The lead section seems to try to give the whole history of the law, when really this could go into it's own section. That's my impression, anyway. Just give a single leading paragraph with a brief explanation of what Paragraph 175 is and why it's important/signficiant and incorporate the rest of the text into the article body. Don't drop this info, in case that's what you were thinking of doing!!!! It's really very good. If you could do that I'll strike all my objections and strongly support this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, I've sectioned out an "historical overview". What do you think now? -- Jmabel 19:53, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Support! Much better :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 22:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Generally lead sections on de. are painfully long. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:59, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
  • Actually, that didn't mostly come from de. What I had done was generally to preserve the earlier, short English-language article as a lead section. As I say, I've now broken it up. -- Jmabel 22:04, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: Given that it's entirely based on German law, perhaps some actual quotes as well as the translations would be in order? James F. (talk) 09:43, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Sorry, this was meant to be "Support; however, given that [...]". James F. (talk) 22:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC))
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "actual quotes"; quotes from what? Please clarify. -- Jmabel 09:48, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • As in, quotes of the German, rather than just translations. James F. (talk) 10:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • The section "Texts of the various versions of Paragraph 175" begins by saying "For the original German language texts of the statutes, as well as quotations from earlier sodomy statutes, see the equivalent German-language wikipedia article." So they are one link away. Others (before the FAC nomination) already criticized the article for containing too many German words and I've been trying to meet that objection by limiting those to the ones on which important legal points depend. I think this is a case where the article can't please everyone. -- Jmabel 19:33, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, I think it's quite good. Everyking 12:10, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support, subject to a little streamlining of the lead. Denni☯ 17:51, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

• Support. I found this article fascinating, never having heard of it before. I think there are many who would be surprised that there was legal and social opposition to this type of law as far back as the 1890s. func(talk) 19:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. -Seth Mahoney 18:39, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Quadell (talk) 20:16, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Karl Dönitz

Self-nomination. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. However, I'd replace the book covers with photos because of the copyrights. GeneralPatton 07:51, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, great work, very informative and well laid out! Good use of references. Decent length.- Ta bu shi da yu 07:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. A good article, which I would support if the images had source information. Also (not part of my ojbection) I would like to see some information on his personal life (wife, children, etc.). Jeronimo 09:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:26, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Abstain, on similar ground as Jeronimo. At the moment at least half of the article is describing the submarine warfare instead of Donitz contribution to it. I'd like to read more about his ideas, tactics and strategies (unless targeting merchant shippings, inventing wolfpack strategy and distrusting Enigma is *ALL* that can be said here?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • As most other high commanders during wartime, Doenitz really lived for his work. Didn't have that much of a personal life. GeneralPatton 11:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I am not asking for his personal life, but more about his work. But the article is nicely expanding, I will likely cross my abstain vote soon if the progress keeps up. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Fascinating. I knew that German naval encryption was stronger than in other branchs, but I didn't realize there was one guy behind that descision. Donitz's story seems worth featuring. func(talk) 20:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Minor objections at the moment: says nothing about the loss of his sons as written about here and i feel that more could be said about his role in using the more secure version of the enigma. Change to support once something is written about that, quite a good article. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:39, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, and i made some fixes to it :). -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:47, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
  • Done. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A Day in the Life

See below. Johnleemk | Talk 01:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See also WP:PR listing.

• Support: informative, interesting, decent length, has references. My only comment is: why is it that anything that's Beatles related always seems to be such high quality work? :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 07:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. An excellent article. (Could use another picture though) Cyopardi 18:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Ambi 08:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, but, is the sound bite and picture used with permission? 16:59, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Overall this is very close but: 1. I have some concerns with the many extended quotes without attribution. 2. I have some concerns with some of the references cited; several are fan sites which also contain quotes and stories, some of dubious veracity. There is plenty of published material from the principals; we shouldn't need to resort to third-tier websites for details. 3. The Clear Channel thing is a cancer, it has got to go or at the very least be rewritten and moved to someplace less prominent. Jgm 18:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support: Very well-written and informative. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:00, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

The Long and Winding Road

Self-nom. Raul removed this and a few other nominations, so I'm renominating a couple that I think are head and shoulders above the rest. Johnleemk | Talk 01:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support: Same reason as for the other Beatles article. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Ambi 08:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, but same as before - can we make sure there's no copyright violations? Zerbey 17:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Same primary reason (tertiary references) as other Beatles song articles. Other nitpicks: I don't think any article that needs to use the word "arguably" in the lead is a FAC. The Naked album cover should not be bigger than the original Let It Be cover; in fact I don't know why we need album covers in a song article. The article itself would be crisper if it stuck to the song rather than the whole Get Back/LIB project. Jgm 18:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zion National Park

Self-nomination. --mav 23:24, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Wow, nice pictures, nice sections, brilliant geology table. Good stuff. func(talk) 00:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object temporarily. Agree with preceding, but I just spent about half an hour fixing links and spelling and I just barely started. Needs more copyediting and checking of links. Elf | Talk 01:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) Support now; I did more edits, too. Not an objection, but my opinion: I don't care for the use of "media" rather than ":Image" for the "(photo)" links--I have no way of finding out more about the photo from the page that comes up, and I think that's useful info to see. Elf | Talk 16:43, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree about the media vs :image issue and changed it back. The only problem (and the reason why I changed it in the first place) is that [[image: and [[media: are the only way to get the page it is linked from listed in the File links section on the image description page. Oh well. Thanks again for all the great edits! --mav
  • Fair enough - I'll let you finish and then I'll do another copyedit pass. --mav 01:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Copyedit done. Thanks for the feedback! --mav 03:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support if you can make the captions to the pictures a bit more lively! Good work mav. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I added more to the captions. --mav 10:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Those are good captions, only they need to be full sentences. Could you fix this? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. One issue: you use both BC and CE in the article, which is inconsistent. I could change it myself, but I note your preference (CE) is different from mine (AD), so I'll let you choose. Jeronimo 09:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I avoid AD with extreme prejudice. --mav 10:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Ambi 08:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, great information, but strangely no links to or much mention of some of the other National parks in Utah, especially Bryce, but also Canyonlands, Capital Reef, and Arches. Do those have similar or related geology? - Taxman 16:16, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Great idea! I'll add that info later. IIRC Canyonlands and Arches have some of the same formations. Oh, and I've already mentioned Bryce and the Grand Canyon. --mav 23:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James I of England

Self-nomination. -- Emsworth 22:32, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support, with one qualification. In the second sentence of the section "Conflict with Parliament", you write "It voted four subsides to the King". Should that be "subsidies" instead of "subsides"? Otherwise, excellent work. - Karl Ward 03:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 03:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly support - Emsworth is one of the best writers on here regarding the British history. He also referred to the Scottish Parliament as being "milquetoasty", and you gotta love that... and Karl, I copyedited while reading through, and noticed that one (and fixed it as well). ugen64 03:22, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • • Tragedy that the word had to leave the article :-). -- Emsworth 14:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Also, should the first sentence read "was the first Sovereign to reign in the three realms simultaneously"? Just a minor quibble/question. - Karl Ward 03:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • You are correct; done. -- Emsworth 14:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: it seems to be going through a major reedit. Maybe I'll wait a bit and see. I need to know about James I however, so I'd like to support if possible. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I added a bit and hope I didn't mess anything up. --mav 10:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Excellent article again by His Lordship, but there's one internal contradiction. The lead section tells us that "James was a somewhat popular monarch,", while the "Legacy" section writes that "James found himself unpopular with many of his English subjects". Even though the latter refers only to his popularity in England, I still think this needs to be sorted out. You have my support once this minor issue is resolved. Jeronimo 14:10, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes; the merging of English and Scottish popularity levels does seem confusing. Done. -- Emsworth 14:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support! Zerbey 17:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Johnny Cash

Self-nomination. I didn't start this article, but I put a lot of meat on the bones. Karl Ward 21:19, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object for now. The picture is fair use. Is there a public domain picture available? Also, it seems the legacy section could use a little work. This is a very influential figure in the history of country (and to a certain extent rock and roll) music. It seems to me more could be said about his influence on music and culture. - Satori 21:59, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC) Support. The new legacy section is very well done, I retract my objections. - Satori 18:53, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

File:JCASH.jpg

The supposedly public domain image

• • The original image this article had was Image:JCASH.jpg, which according to its image page is public domain. However, this file was uploaded by a user currently under a hard ban, so I doubt that it is actually public domain. I figured it would be safer to replace it with a fair use picture than to risk infringing a copyright. Also, I can add some notes on his influence on popular music if that's what folks want. - Karl Ward 23:05, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • I have fleshed out the Legacy section with quotes and more info on his popular music influence. - Karl Ward 00:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • I have uploaded an image from a government source (the Arkansas Department of Corrections). It's linked into the Johnny Cash article in the Flesh and Blood section, next to the comments about his prison shows. Let me know what you think. I'd still prefer to have the San Quentin album cover as the head of the article. Not only is it a great picture, but it also manages to touch on several points at once (his massive commercial success in the 1960s, his famous prison records, and his Man In Black image). - Karl Ward 00:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Great work! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Full disclosure : I wrote several early drafts of this, much of which remain after Karl Ward put a lot of meat on the bones GWO 16:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Just a note: images from U.S. state governments are NOT public domain, only the federal government. Don't know how this impacts the article; personally, I support even if it has fair use images. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:52, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Good point, I didn't know that about state government copyrights. I'll unlink the image from the article and send them a request for permission to use the image. - Karl Ward 16:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, provided the image saga is worked out. Ambi 08:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)

Self-nom. See also Talk:Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown). Johnleemk | Talk 13:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Holy cow, man, isn't there supposed to be a limit on simultaneous self-noms? Anyway, the talk page for this article currently has several negative comments on structure and emphasis placed in response to the request on Peer review. I think Johnleemk has done a fine job of expanding and editing these song articles but I don't think any of them are crisp enough yet to warrant FA status. Jgm 14:38, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand from them how to restructure the article appropriately. I've already explained the idea behind the sectioning. As for the limit on self-noms, Emsworth has had four or five at once. Quite a few of these articles are actually backlogged from about a week or two ago. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I have not adhered to this limit on self-nominations; the policy was adopted without consensus, and, in any event, is (as presently worded) advisory, rather than binding. -- Emsworth 00:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, excellent writeup. Can't see any glaring issues. Another excellently written Beatles article! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It's not as long as many of the other Beatles articles, but still very good. Ambi 08:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

George Fox

Some amazing work by AlexG on this important historical figure. Full of good info. Quadell (talk) 03:12, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

• Acquiesce — Good article. --Blade Hirato 04:27, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. • Benc • 06:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Informative, but I have some reservations.

Frequently, the prose seems rather old-fashioned, presumably a residue or its origin in the 1914 Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia - for example 'he had begun to regard their conduct, in particular the drinking of healths, with dismay', and 'He brooded particularly on the temptation of Christ'.

The caption on the Oliver Cromwell image should be changed. The bit about being a dictator is POV, but more importantly not relevant to this article. It would be better if the caption said something about how Cromwell had met Fox and came close to finding a kindred spirit - possibly removig persecution of Quakers. -- Solipsist 07:15, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• (Support, if I'm allowed.) Thanks to Quadell for picking up on this page only two hours after my expansion spree. Solipsist has some good points and I will try to de-POV it a bit. My biggest worry is making sure that all of Fox's beliefs are labelled as such, rather than being presented as fact. The residual S-H text does have such phrases as "professing the same faith in the spirituality of true religion", which read oddly. --AlexG 11:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC) No longer. AlexG 12:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, good writeup. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Very good, but one issue: shouldn't the quotations give citations? -- Jmabel 10:24, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

How specific a citation is needed? That is, is it OK to say somewhere "most quotations from Fox's journal", or does each need a chapter/page reference? (I'll try to track down where the Ellwood and Penn remarks come from, other than "the S-H Encyclopedia" :-) .) --AlexG 12:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've added some in-text references now. Most are to the 1908 etext, which helpfully already has anchors at useful places. Journal editions do vary in inclusion and order of material, so I think this is reasonable for readers wanting context. I've also put in references to Quaker Faith and Practice, as well as the Marsh book. While Marsh is pretty rare, it's still the work I used to help write those bits. AlexG 19:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent work! Zerbey 17:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, but I'd like to see perhaps a section on his writings- I admit I only skimmed quickly, so if I missed it, I apologize (too much homework), but he does have a substantial body of work out there, that didn't really seem to be extensively mentioned. Lyellin 02:54, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

George I of Great Britain

This article is about 20KB long—shorter than some other articles on British monarchs. I, however, feel it is adequate, as George was not as significant as those with longer articles (e.g., Henry VIII and Elizabeth I). -- Emsworth 19:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. James F. (talk) 04:14, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. PedanticallySpeaking 18:01, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Ta bu shi da yu 08:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe Emsworth needs nominated for some kind of award for all his excellent work on documenting the monarchy? :-) --Zerbey 17:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fourth International

Self-nom. As balanced a history of the Fourth International as you'll find. Warofdreams 18:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Sorry, I have no idea what the Fourth International is. There needs to be a better and clearer explanation for those who do no not know anything about Russian history, etc. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Will try to write clearer explanation. Warofdreams 10:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I was never sure where the Trotskyites fit in to the Big Picture, Now I do. Great article. Denni☯ 17:57, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
• Object - no references. Also seems a bit on the short side. --mav 23:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Changed "see also" to "references", which it should have read in the first place. Not sure if the second point is actionable; the article looks pretty long to me anyway and should be a little longer once I have addressed Ta bu shi da yu's objection. Warofdreams 10:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rondane National Park

An article about the first national park in Norway, which I know very well. I've written all of the text. It has been on Peer review for almost a month; the only comment has been addressed (adding of table). [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 18:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• A comment, as I know anons can't vote. It really needs copyediting by a native English speaker. There are a few points where it reads rather awkwardly at present. --80.41.235.202 08:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I've had a partial attempt. Much more needed before it's Featured quality though. --80.41.235.202 09:08, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. I would have to agree with the above. every awkard part I knew of is fixed. - Taxman 15:51, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - the above concerns have been addressed. --mav 00:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: try clicking on "Hide" for the contents page... the images overlap the table. Not sure if this is something that can be resolved! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:40, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I thought I had solved this with <br clear=right /> , but apparently not. After some experimentation, I just moved down the image a bit. [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 08:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, now that the contents page is fixed. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mor lam

Self-nom: more minority-interest Asian culture. Markalexander100 06:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. All topics covered nicely, with sound samples. My only "complaint" is that the screenshot images are low quality. Jeronimo 10:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do with the screenshots: it may just be part of the VCD experience though. Markalexander100 07:41, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written, and it's about a topic few Wikipedians will already know a lot about. Quadell (talk) 03:26, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting, well written and a great example of a wikipedia article that's out of the ordinary. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. What Ta bu shi da yu said. Ambi 08:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Goomba

An article about a very prevalent and famous video game character. Probably the very first video game enemy most gamers saw when they bought their first Nintendo game system. It has also become a very common character in the various Mario video games, cartoon shows, and toys. 172.192.210.164 20:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Veto Object (I do not think that means what you think it means Ta bu shi da yu) — It's missing detail on the Goombas from the movie; and the information of their appearance in the things you listed. --Blade Hirato 02:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh ok. What do I do now? The guidelines on the top says to address any objections. I'm guessing the veto thing equals an "object". or does it mean something else? How do I address this? Do I add information into the article? Argue why it isn't there or what? I'm not sure what's next? 172.195.76.135 05:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI - no one around here can "veto" anything - his objection counts just as little/much as anyone elses. And the proper procedure now would be to fix what he says is wrong with the article. --Your humble featured article director 05:24, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what that means. Am I suppose to do something after someone votes "veto"/"object"? 172.195.76.135 05:27, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) Thank you. I'll try to do that. 172.195.76.135 05:28, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Even though I myself have worked on the article recently, and would be delighted to see it featured, I think it still needs more work (specifically, more info on goombas in the Paper Mario series). Maybe we should port this over to peer review. ~ FriedMilk 06:23, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Support-just an idea of making long article about this is amusing. Very good! [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 21:28, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object, too short. --GeneralPatton 07:10, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Ambi 08:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Aliasing

An article about an import effect in signal processing, which is most well written. I especially appreciate that it first explains the subject with en easy-to-grasp analogy, then with some not-too-technical explanation using graphs and even sounds (synthesized specifically for this purpose) as examples in order too then finally give the mathematically interested and literate user all the details. That's how it should be: one part for the interested layman, one for the expert. Simon A. 20:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support (tentatively). I am no expert (though I've had undergrad study in the area), so I cannot tell if there is anything missing. What is there is clear and reads well, is well presented. There are no references - probably some should be added. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 10:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I'm no expert either, but its a good, lucid piece. PedanticallySpeaking 18:05, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
• A good article, with excellent flow from simplicity to complexity. However, I have to vote to object until I can play the sound samples on my non-OSX Mac. Denni☯ 18:13, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
  • That is an invalid objection since ogg is a standard supported by Wikipedia. --mav
    • It may be invalid to you, but it's not to me. Wikipedia supports universal text/graphics formats; it seems it does not support a universal sound format (AIFF, for instance). Would I be ticked if I bought a TIME magazine with my Visa card, but got no pictures because I didn't use Mastercard? Yep. Denni☯ 01:27, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
• Object - no references. --mav 23:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Livestock

COTW, drastically improved, FA worthy IMO. LUDRAMAN | T 23:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. There is a lot of good material there, but it is not very well organized. The lead section is way too long and does not cover only the most important overview topics. Some sections are disorganized. The disease section specifically contains some misinformation. I will try to fix the latter especially, but I think the article needs some significant editing before it should be listed here. Peer review would have been better. - Taxman 03:09, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I agree largely with Taxman, the article is not well organised, and all in all far from FA worthy. Additional concerns: 1) The lead section goes in to far too much detail about what is considered livestock and what not. Especially the mentioning of HR 2559, with way too many external links, is unnecessary (and very US-centric) The discussion of what is livestock should be made into a separate section. Also, camels etc. are not "exotic" at all in their areas of domestication, so this i a Europe/US-centric view. 2) The history section leaves more questions than answer. When and where did domestication first occur? Which animals? What about outside Europe? 3) I miss a broader discussion of which animals can be domesticated and why. 4) The "Animal welfare and rights" section is chaotic and vague 5) Any book reference would be welcome, and the current set of external links is mostly US-focussed 6) Copyedit needed for the entire article 7) Some sections, such as "Livestock transportation and marketing" and "Stock shows and fairs" are hopelessly US-centric. Jeronimo 09:55, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I like this article, but the intro is too long, and in general it's not organised brilliantly. Rather long. Some details that may or may not be correct/comprehensive, some backup references beyond external links would be nice. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 10:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

History of Iraqi insurgency

• Support. It's VERY text-heavy, but a fine article. Add some images, etc. --Etaonish 00:38, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Object - No lead section. --mav 05:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. That can be easily changed, and someone has a start on that. Overall, it's a good article. User:Colinrorr 1:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) Copyrighted images. 2) No lead section, no context. 3) I don't think it is necessary to add the months in section headings. Some sections (e.g. "Early 2004" contain little information and could better be integrated with other sections. 4) This is an ongoing topic, which may make it less suitable to feature on the front page (yes, not actionable) 5) The article repeatedly mentions the "U.S" (I think spelling should be US or U.S.) death toll, but the Iraqi death toll, or non-US foreign death toll aren't mentioned at all. Also, it might be better to present this information in a single section, or with a table. In general, the article seems to be written from a US point of view 6) References are unclear, seem to cover a random part of the subject, and are likely to disappear quickly, and therefore useless. 7) There is no mention of the taking of foreign hostages by some Iraqi resisters. Jeronimo 07:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The subject in question happened far too recently, I think we should wait for the politics involved to die down. In addition, the name of the article is far too broad. Since the article only covers the recent (2003-2004) insurgency against the U.S.-lead coalition, the title should reflect this. In addition, it is extremely U.S. centric. --Admbws 23:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. On a cursory glance at the article I notice one of the images (Image:Nytimesgraphic.bmp) is a bitmap, it has a black line on the top of it (was this scanned in?!) and it's taken directly from the New York Times. Besides this, where does it get it's data from again? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• What would be everyone's thoughts if the article was rewritten to include more of an Iraqi perspective? (By the way, just because the article covers some recent events doesn't exclude it from being feautured. An attempt was made here to transcend the politics, which I think was somewhat successful. The next step is to transcend the U.S-centric perspective, and then I think it will be in good shape).

Charles I of England

-- Emsworth 23:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Zerbey 08:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent. Jeronimo 10:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Important dude, well written, lots of good links. I find Charles 2 more interesting, however. func(talk) 17:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support with one request -- Emsworth, the "Early reign" section's a trifle long. Is it possible to break it in two? I would suggest that the latter half could have some title relating to Buckingham, who's certainly one of the chief figures of that stage of the reign, or to Charles's abuses of the legal and legislative process. Any thoughts? Jwrosenzweig 00:19, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. (I have edited this article, but added little text.) Smerdis of Tlön 02:19, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. PedanticallySpeaking 18:05, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Object - The lead section is way too short for an article this size. The lead section at James I of England has three paragraphs and that article is significantly shorter than this one, and, IMO, is about a much less important person. Three paragraphs are needed for an article this size per the guidelines at Wikipedia:lead section. Other than that, this is a great article (esp after my small additions! ;). --mav 03:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Done. -- Emsworth 20:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, but request more about the Maryland Charter that Charles granted. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:10, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --mav 23:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Game programmer

Self-nom, but pretty complete. At least I think it is interesting. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:32, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Needs a copyedit and a picture first, but otherwise it's very complete. Zerbey 08:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

n/p. I'll work on getting a few pictures in there. It's been copyedited a few times, but I'll post it on peer review. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:20, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I like it. Looks complete and reasonably organized. Simon A. 20:34, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Baseball

Partial self-nom, as I've helped to reorganize and rewrite parts of it over the past few months. Its detail to rules has been cut down, (and preserved in appropriate articles) it has a brief history, and more notice is given to international and non-American baseball. Hasn't been nominated since May, I think. —siroχo 07:30, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I think it's a good article without becoming too detailed. Revth 08:18, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Minor nitpick, can the diagram of the baseball field be replaced with a bigger one? --Zerbey 02:35, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I increased the size, but maybe we just need a diagram with bigger words? —siroχo 19:02, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • That would be a better solution, the image itself is blurry (or my eyesight isn't what it used to be, pick one!) Zerbey 13:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Nice pictures, links and references. One nitpick, the paragraph on strikes needs to be made clearer. It doesn't seem to fit with the paragraph before it, and I'm not sure when any of the other strikes referred to occurred or else I would fix it myself. - Taxman 03:44, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Tried to fix that up, I just don't want that section to grow too much. —siroχo 19:02, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, although it really needs copyediting. Can someone just read through and fix minor issues like capitalization of proper nouns? Rhobite 04:38, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Object - Made a huge list of clarifications needed and disambiguations required in the Talk:Baseball page -- Please go through it. TOC is also lopsided. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:09, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Just like to respond that there is no problem with a "lopsided" TOC, if the article is written in that way; myself and others will be working through your objections as we find appropriate. —siroχo 02:10, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

• Very complete! Support. Sidenote: there does need to be a central History of baseball article to summarize and introduce the series of separate baseball history articles. But that is a separate issue. --mav 05:13, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The IBF-section would better be included in the history section. 2) The article is a bit America-centric. For example: "Since then baseball has enjoyed another surge in popularity.", "Both football and basketball use a clock", 3) For me (as a non-American), it seems that baseball statistics are a part of baseball, but they are not even discussed briefly (only links) 4) A brief discussion of the differences with softball (and perhaps other related sports) is missing. Otherwise, this is a fine article, and I will support once the issues listed have been resolved. Jeronimo 06:36, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Please see Talk:Baseball#Statistics and Baseball#Statistics, to see if i've dealt with #3 correctly. Regarding 2, I really can't help much aside from what I can find on the internet, since I'm an American. 4 might be good, although discussing differences with cricket or even rounders will be near impossible to do breifly (: —siroχo 07:39, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • • I'm doing up an article mentioning the differences between the sports. Perhaps you can copyedit the baseball part? It is incomplete, and I will add further details tomorrow. Added the link already. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:44, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Statistics is dealt with nicely (and quickly!). As for point 2), this isn't hard even if you're an American. My first example could easily be written as "Since then, Major League Baseball has enjoyed..." or "...a surge of popularity in the United States". And the second example could be "Many other team sports use a clock", or, "Baseball doesn't use a clock, marking a major difference with other popular team sports in the US (basketball, football and (ice) hockey)". I'll work through the article myself to see if I can help (but not now). Jeronimo 07:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Objections: 1. I believe that the Manual of Style suggests, "Grammatical articles should be omitted from the beginning of heading titles. Not: The mammals. But: Mammals." This article contravenes this policy, using "The fielding team," "The team at bat" (which is incongruous: to be consistent, one must use "The batting team"), "The play of the game" and "The style of play." I would suggest, that the first two aforementioned be renamed "Defense" and "Offense"; "Defense" may be subdivided into "Pitching" (or, perhaps, "Pitching and Catching") and "Fielding"; Offense, similarly, may be divided into "Batting" and "Baserunning." 2. "Innings and determining a winner" could be retitled "Structure" or some such thing; the present title seems unwieldy. Furthermore, mention needs to be made of the rare case of forfieture of matches; I believe that in such cases, the score automatically becomes 9-0. 3. The article states, "Scoring became so low in the American League due to pitching dominance, that they implemented the Designated hitter rule, a rule now thought to be one of the main differences between the leagues." I believe that the rule is one of the main differences (given the abolition of the outside chest protectors); there is, I feel, no need to use the circumlocutous "now thought to be." 4. The article states, "If the batter puts the ball in play in fair territory, he must drop his bat and begin running to first base; at this point he has become a baserunner." I was unaware that dropping one's bat has become mandatory; perhaps someone could check the Official Rules. 5. The article states, "If the batter swings and makes contact with the ball, but does not put it in play in fair territory—a foul ball—he is charged with a strike, except when there are already two strikes." What about the bunt foul third strike? 6. "However, a batter may replace another team mate when the team is at bat, and is referred to as a pinch hitter, similarly, a pinch runner may be used as a replacement for a baserunner. The above two roles are not substitutions." Really? So, if player A is the leadoff hitter, and player B hits fourth, player A could just replace teammate B? This would entail changing the original lineup impermissibly. This statement needs to be checked. 7. NPOV issues arise. The article uses terminology such as "beautiful, leisurely game" and "sudden and fierce beneath." 8. The article uses numerals for numbers below eleven; in these instances, words should be used, except for measurements and scores. 9. The articles "paragraphs" are too short. It includes at least thirteen paragraphs with fewer than three sentences. 10. Cuba's dominance in the World Cup is mentioned, but the historical dominance in the Major Leagues of New York is not. 11. "In the United States, baseball has often been called the "national pastime", and the total attendance for Major League games is more than that of all other American professional sports combined." Surely, this is because each team plays 162 games each season? The article should make mention of the same. 12. The article refers in all cases only to individuals of the masculine gender (as in "his"); as females find themselves capable of playing the sport, "his or her," and the like, would be preferable. 13. The layout of images in the section "The play of the game" seems messy. 14. "The four bases are approximately one foot squares, sticking up from the ground forming a 90 foot (27.43 meter) square; they are numbered counter-clockwise." Home base, if I recall correctly, is not a square but a pentagon. 15. A few grammar problems exist in the article, and need to be addressed; one example is "Some hitters hit better with runners in scoring position, and the manager of the fielding team might simply elect to intentionally walk him and face a worse hitter." -- Emsworth 01:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Since your thing is so long, I'll use <s>,</s> to point out whats been fixed, if i have any remarks about it, i'll put it in talk:baseball —siroχo 19:14, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Can see POV sticking through - see "It is a beautiful, leisurely game on the surface (some would say boring) but sudden and fierce beneath. Many people fail to recognize that baseball is a game of strategy and anticipation, as much as it is a game of skill and athleticism." - Ta bu shi da yu 08:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Removed "beautiful" and rephrased the sentences a bit. —siroχo 19:14, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Have the objections from the two previous FAC nominations ([1] and [2]) been addressed? →Raul654 19:17, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

  I believe so, it is not simply about rules of play any longer. It was decided we would move the main body of stuff about proffesional baseball out, so there is a link to that now. A history section and statistics section was added to broaden the article. The play section is less ponderous now, and gives a better feel of the game instead of nitpicky rule definitions (which are linked to instead). Nothing about college baseball has been added, but I'd suggest that that doesn't belong here since pro ball was moved too. About the punctuation, I'll look at that once the other objections are dealth with (esp Emsworth's. I don't want to keep having to do that every few edits. (: —siroχo 01:39, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

COINTELPRO

nominated by LegCircus 20:40, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1) Lead section is too long. 2) No images. 3) Most importantly, the article is rather short, vague ("other organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan") and misses vital information, f.e.: what did the FBI want to achieve? Why did they exactly want that? What was actually achieved with the programs? 4) Article contains some POV terms such as "anti-Communist paranoia" 5) The first sentence of the article is the same as that of the first external link [3], so this might be a copyright violation. Jeronimo 21:37, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Way too short. --Tothebarricades.tk 17:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object for same reasons as above. More info needed and a going over for style is needed--certainly the lead is awkward. PedanticallySpeaking 18:08, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Too short, lead too long, no pictures. I feel I'm missing information in this story! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:50, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James Joyce

Partial self-nom. I like it and he's an important figure in world literarure. Not built by slashdot! Filiocht 13:58, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• support. Bit late for it to be on Bloomsday, unfortunately... Kiand 18:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Reads well, comprehensive, ordered, nicely formatted, images, full reference section and external links. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 20:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. • Benc • 20:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Good stuff. Markalexander100 09:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Here's to Aloysius. Support. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:38, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Very infomative! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:14, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Objection: According to the Manual of Style, headings should not include grammatical articles and other superfluous words. "The writing of Finnegans Wake" and "The style and structure of Finnegans Wake"—both already subsections of "Finnegans Wake"—could become merely "Writing" and "Style and structure." The same goes for the second section of "Ulysses." Furthermore, "Joyce's legacy" could become just "Legacy." -- Emsworth 01:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• For the record, I've fixed those objections. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Just a quick comment (not an objection): the references section is subdivided. Is this really necessary? Why not mix all of the references together, in alphabetical order, as a scholary publication might do?-- Emsworth

• Object. There appears to be a lack of information about his other published works, and on the talk page someone noted that his biography could be fleshed out (no pun intended) considerably. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I raised that objection on the talk page and then fleshed it out in the article. While Joyce published a number of works, it is the two last novels on which his reputation really rests. It would be possible to add sections on Dubliners and the portrait and on his poetry, but I cvan already hear the howls about the page being overly long. Filiocht 07:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I have tried to address the other works objection. I think the page contains enough bio. Filiocht 08:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Good job, no more objections from me. I fully support - as I said above already (doh!) - Ta bu shi da yu 13:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Penis

Well written and researched. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: It's all about the human penis. Isn't that a bit, um, POV? ;) Seriously though, it should include much more about non-human (specifically non-mamalian) penises. If it was called "human penis" I'd support. —Rory ☺ 14:03, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Object: We don't want to turn off newcomers with such a potentially objectional article. It deserves to be in the 'pedia, but we don't want to shove it in visitor's faces. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:01, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not an actionable objection, is this? I remember reading that objectionable articles can become featured, but discretion is advised about featuring them on the front page. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object: For a while now, all articles on Wikipedia that could in any way be seen as involving the issue of circumsicion have been the victims of frequent revert and edit wars. If you look at the edit history, you will see that Penis is under constant revision... and these people are unrelenting in pushing their POV, (both those for and against). func(talk) 00:17, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object, but only until the following fixes are made. 1) The link to the Cat Dick site under Oedema is inappropriate. A true medical "case" would be appropriate; but the Cat Dick pornography site is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It is however a very funny prank. :)) Under the "Animal penises in general" section 2) the last two sentences on animal circumcision need a citation to a medical or anthropology reference--preferably a direct quote with citation; otherwise they should go. 3) As User:Rparle notes above, the shortness of the "Animal penises in general" section makes the article out-of-balance. You should go through samples of the major vertebrates that have penises. You need about three more paragraphs. I changed the section title from "Animal penises" to "Animal penises in general" because "Isn't a human an animal?" Other than my three objections, in my last reading, I thought this page should get Featured Article status. Bravo to the editors for all your edit war pains. :) Are you ready for the big leagues of what will come under Featured Article status? ---Rednblu 03:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what a "major vertebrate" is, but that sounds a bit excessive. I'd suggest coverage of the interestingly-penised: biggest, smallest and so on. We really need pictures of the kangaroo and barnacle specimens, of course. Most people have a fair idea of what the human one looks like anyway, so the animals should be the most interesting part of the article. Markalexander100 07:30, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object - human-centric. --mav 05:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Darn humans!!! Are there no animal writers on Wikipedia at all ?! func(talk) 20:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Humans are animals. :) --mav

Darn human animals!!! Are there no sentient, non-organic beings with penises who... oh, never mind. ;-) func(talk) 17:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object - human-centeric, alot of these articles about bodyparts are way too human centeric. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:55, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Kasparov versus The World

Fascinating reading with stories of human conflict and cooperation. --Yath 07:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Strong support, but...could we have a slightly more condensed lead section? Perhaps a picture or two of the influential players, such as Kasparov and Krush? Still, this is a brilliant article. Johnleemk | Talk 11:26, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support - a wonderful, engaging read. Some photos would be nice however (a screenshot of the forum?). --d 14:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, briefly : I'd like captions on the diagrams to tell me after which move each corresponds to. GWO 14:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article does not follow encyclopedic style and is not written from a neutral point of view. Bits like the game being "fantastic" and comments along the lines of "While chess lovers can take from the game lessons in the opening, middlegame, and endgame, fans of open collaboration can learn about the importance of courtesy, patience, inclusiveness, and the attribution of original ideas" need to be eliminated, and much of the analysis offered appears to be no more than one interpretation out of many possible. Wikipedia is not a place for original interpretation ("direct observation" is OK, but this article goes beyond that at several points). If the analysis offered here borrows from analysis by published commentators, attribute it to them instead. Finally, there is too much text without links and I also agree with GWO about captions. Fredrik | talk 19:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral, so far. It's a very good article, and the play by play recap is good, though perhaps as noted above a bit POV. What I think this article needs is a summary of the gameplay before the move by move description, an overview of why the game play was unusual and significant and the roles of the participants, esp. Krush. Right now this material is scattered throughout the move recaps. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 19:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, on a second reading, I noticed that the POV is a lot more pronounced than I thought it was on my first reading. It needs a lot of work in that respect. Also, I do like the sectioning as it stands. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Objection; the moves should be in the section text, not the headings. We should find a better model for sectioning this article. [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 12:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Objections: 1. Moves should be in the section text. 2. Article is not NPOV (I would not object to the mere retention of symbols like "!" and "?" however). 3. The article mainly addresses analysis, but does not make comments about the game's significance. 4. The last paragraph unnecessarily refers to this encyclopedia. 5. It might appear more elegant if the images were on the right side. -- Emsworth 20:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support IF the NPOV issue is resolved: I agree, the POV seriously limits the article. --Etaonish 00:40, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral: Until the article makes at least some slight attempt to explain what things like 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ mean. Is there some link to somewhere where the chess ?math? is explained? func(talk) 20:20, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Find a better way of sectioning the headings! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now. I find the article quite interesting, and I don't mind POV that much. But a shorter heading and link(s) to explain the 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ are quite necessary. After those are adressed treat my vote as support. I'd like to see a 'See also' section refering to similar games, but that is only a wish, not an objection. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Caterpillar D9

Wow. What can I say? Interesting, well researched and informative. Plus has a cool picture. :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 04:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose at least as long as the article is qualifying the Palestinian as terrorists every 2 sentences. Ericd 10:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose as unsubtle propaganda. Filiocht 11:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose while you fix all the spelling mistakes. --Phil | Talk 11:46, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

• Me? I didn't create it or even edit it. I only nominated it. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Well, yes, but even it's not a self-nom, nominators traditionally fix the article, because there's nobody else interested in doing so. Johnleemk | Talk 15:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• If an article is so uninteresting, why would it ever become Featured? Filiocht 15:37, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Well, considering other authors have their own interests, you can't expect them to devote their time to fixing something. If they don't have the time, someone else will have to do it, and the onus is traditionally on the nominator to fix the article if nobody else volunteers. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1) This article has one picture labelled as a copyright violation, and two more that are copyrighted without indication of public domain or so. 2) The lead section is way too long. Also, it duplicates many facts from the table. 3) The units in the table (and elsewhere) are not linked. 4) The sections headings are very general, but the sections themselves are much narrowers. "Military use" mostly focuses on Israeli military use, while "Famous incidents" only discusses a single incident. Jeronimo 22:07, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area

Self nom. What else (if anything) needs to be done? --mav 01:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Good article, lot's of illustrations too. One tiny remark: I personally don't find it necessary to link the same page more than once, especially in case of topics that don't need explanation (such as North America or Earth). But I can live with it ;-). Jeronimo 07:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I try to keep one link per section for important links. But I may have double/triple linked some not so important links that way and will take a look later to make sure. --mav 07:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It needed some cleaning, but now I think it's quite good. →Raul654 05:17, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Even as a Creationist :o) zoney ▓   ▒ talk 11:56, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Suppor. Nothing needs to be changed, as far as I can see! Well done mav. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exploding whale

Re-nomination: last time it failed for technical reasons and they have since all been resolved. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:46, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) (It failed because 4 people supported while 3 people said it was too short →Raul654) (And those people who said it was too short have mostly said the length is OK now, during that time the article doubled in length Ta bu shi da yu)

• Oppose. A good topic for Weird World News, but neither the topic nor the tone strike me as appropriate for a featured article. The writing is inconsistent and the whole article needs significant tightening up. Denni☯ 23:06, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

• Regrettably, there's nothing I can do about the topic itself. The tone, however, I'd like to resolve if you don't think it's too good. What in particular about the tone of the article do you have an issue with? - Ta bu shi da yu 16:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Denni, could you address my query about the problems with the article's tone? I realise you don't like the article topic, but I'd still appreciate a response. After all, if I can't get a more specific objection about the tone then it's not exactly an actionable objection, is it?

Note: I've also left a similar message on Denni's talk page. Also, Denni wrote the following on my talk page:

Sorry, Ta bu shi da yu, my vote remains to oppose. This story strikes me as one which is most appreciated by the rubberneck crowd - I can see nothing in it to enlighten, elicidate, or instruct. It is entirely sensationalist, and though it may teach a minor moral lesson about sticking explosives in without considering where the results may fall, it is first and foremost an off-color joke, and nothing near a featured article. Denni☯ 00:21, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu 02:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Please note that User:Denni has not replied on this page (actually he did, but I didn't notice because he managed to somehow duplicate this nomination) (I'm an idiot.) so I'll include what he wrote on my user talk page:

My objection is not with the concept. It is with, as I have already said, the topic and the tone. I oppose the topic because it consists of only two events, hardly a common occurrence, and in the two cases, the cause of explosion was completely different. Second, I find the writing style flippant and irrelevant. For example, Paul Linnman's quote is foolish, and the fact that the blast scared away scavenging birds is (a) no surprise to anyone, and (b) an utter irrelevancy.

This is a fun story, and it is exactly the kind of article I like to see appear in Wikipedia to ease the tedium of charged politico-economico-cultural articles. But I cannot bring myself to see it as having any value as a feature article. Sorry.

Denni☯ 03:12, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

I replied:

I'm sorry, but you're wrong about the Paul Linnman quote as being irrelevant. Had you actually viewed the footage, you would have noted that it is a highly significant part of his news footage. You may believe it was foolish, but I'm quoting him as straight out factual (and might I note interesting) material for the story. Just because you deem it foolish does not stop it from being relevant. Secondly, the fact that the birds were scared away is relevant because "they [Oregon Highway Division] believed that the use of dynamite would cause an explosion that would disintegrate the whale into pieces that were small enough for scavengers to clear up", which clearly did not happen. This fact is pointed out to show clearly that their theory was incorrect. Obviously you are wrong about it being obvious to everyone, because it certainly wasn't obvious to the Oregon State Highway Division! So also you can see it's not irrelevant to the story: on the contrary it's highly relevant.

And finally, your objection to the article topic is not actionable or valid as a reason for objecting to the article (as has been pointed out several times by various people (among them being Meelar, who wrote "Neither support nor oppose, but note that we should not be biased against an article because of its topic; specifically, that's pretty far from actionable."). Please also note the top of the Featured Article candidates page says "If nothing can be done to "fix" the objected-to matter, the objection may be ignored", which we'll have to do with your objection to topic in this case. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu 03:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The writing style is non-encyclopedic, specifically the lead section is not a proper overview, but instead a narrative continuation with the next section. The first sentence in the paragraph starting with "While this story was widely known..." needs some restructuring for clarity. Does the Usenet bit have anything to do with Dave Barry and his video? Finally the Taiwan section seems out of place and the title of the section doesn't properly introduce the idea the way the article is currently structured. - Taxman 03:03, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've modified the lead section, the paragraph in question and with a modified lead section hopefully this makes the Taiwan connection more clear. Would you suggest modifying anything else? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:23, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Nice work taking care of those. Only thing I see now is the noting that exploding whales are a "popular" or "favourite" theme of authors seems a major exaggeration. Perhaps you could say the idea has been covered by a number of authors. Three certainly does not a popular theme make. - Taxman 12:15, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • Done :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 22:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • After further review, I still object on a number of grounds. I see more non-encyclopedic writing. But primarily that it simply fails to reach the bar set in Wikipedia:What is a featured article. Specifically it is still very short, and being not a truly important topic nor notable beyond its humor, I'm not sure much more can be written about it. With that, the guidelines say a short article should be "excellent", and I find nothing compelling about the writing in this article. Much of it seems to be an attempt to pass off a humorous incident into an encyclopedia, which should only become featured if indeed excellently written. - Taxman 15:58, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Again, which bits are non-encyclopedic? Also, may I point you to heavy metal umlaut? This is not a globally important issue by any means, yet it still got to featured article status. Also, it's an actual event and not just an attempt at trying to pass off a humour incident into an article. It's also documenting a well-known Internet meme, so it could be argued that the article is very informative for those who want to find out more about this meme.
      For the record, I also disagree that this is a "short" article. I did a test, and printed Heavy Metal Umlaut. That came to 3 A4 pages. Then I printed Laika, another front page featured article. This came to just over 4 pages long. Milgram experiment came to 4 pages long. The exploding whale page prints to 3 pages.
      • Many articles became featured that would not make it now simply because more and better articles are nominated. That doesn't affect the standards current articles should be held to. Two of the three you mention happen to be very well written and important. If the article were not an attempt to pass off humor (which it is funny btw), then it would have been titled something like 'disposal of beached whales'. Or instead, as you mentioned, an acceptable point is that it is covering an popular(?) internet meme. If so, then I think that section should be expanded if it is/was truly widespread, with something like a quick and dirty estimate of how many usenet posts discussed it, etc. I shouldn't think that would be hard to run. With that, I would withdraw my objection. Also, one word which seemed un-encyclopedic to me--bastardized, is in fact used entirely correctly. - Taxman 18:55, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't be placing this under "disposal of beached whales" because it doesn't cover all methods of disposing of beached whales. It is only referring to incidents where whales have exploded. However, I have attempted to clarify the newsgroup discussions part of the article and reference the earliest mention of the exploding whale in the alt.folklore.urban FAQ and snope's query about whether it was real. It's quite hard to get google to give accurate search statistics on how many times exploding whales are mentioned, because "blow up" and "exploding" and "explosion" are all mentioned in the messages and it doesn't give accurate numbers of articles that were posted. For instance, if I type in "oregon whale" into Google groups search [4] then I get 463 entries. If I type in "exploding whale" then I get 245 [5]. The most significant reason it's important to alt.folklore.urban is because it's in the FAQ I would posit. - Ta bu shi da yu
    • Note that the Wikipedia:What is a featured article says

"Some people feel that every featured article should have a certain length, and if not enough can be said about the article's subject to reach that length, it should in most cases be merged into another article. However excellent short articles are also accepted."
Also, it says that it must be:

• comprehensive, factually accurate, and well-written. Please read Great Writing and The Perfect Article to see how high the bar can be set. - check

• Accurate: support facts with specifics and external citations (beware vague justifications such as "some people say") - check
• Well-written: compelling, even "brilliant" prose--the former name for featured articles. - I hope so!

• Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and accuracy (no ongoing edit wars). - check
• Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet. - I think it's pretty good
• Include a lead section which is brief but sufficient to summarize the entire topic (see Wikipedia:Lead section). - this was fixed
• Include images (pictures, maps and diagrams, with good captions) where appropriate. Please be sure of the images' copyright status. - check
• Include headings (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)) and have a substantial, but not overwhelming, table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section). - check!
• Comply with the standards set by any relevant WikiProjects, as well as those in the style manual. - check - Ta bu shi da yu 07:38, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Neither support nor oppose, but note that we should not be biased against an article because of its topic; specifically, that's pretty far from actionable. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:54, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
  • Sure topic can matter. If the topic is Taxman's bikeshed, it will be summarily deleted, no matter how well written or researched. So a non encyclopedic topic could fail to meet the featured article standard just the same. I'm not saying that this article is entirely non-encyclopedic, but I don't believe that topic cannot affect whether an article becomes featured. - Taxman 15:58, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Taxman's bikeshed would be deleted because it would be an inappropriate subject for an article. The principle is that any valid article can, if good enough, be a featured article. Markalexander100 02:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • In theory, yes. But I'm willing to bet that List of dog breeds won't ever become a FA. :-) I support exploding whale, by the way. • Benc • 02:38, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Its fun and its well enough written (William M. Connolley 22:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
• Support, well written. The topic is fine. —siroχo 20:28, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A well-written article about an unsual subject, exactly what Wikipedia is best at. --Zerbey 02:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Article topic should not preclude Featured status. Lyellin 15:00, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Support --Phil | Talk 16:15, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Object - the introduction needs some work. The prose is pretty bad. →Raul654 20:19, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • What in particular is no good about the introduction? It seems to introduce it well and it summarises what the article is talkign about quite accurately. I'm happy to incorporate suggestions though! Also, with the prose, could you let me know which parts/sentences aren't very good? I'd really like to fix this up and address your objections! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It took me several times re-reading to figure out exactly why I didn't like it. The two issues I have with the introduction are the (1) the layout of the first sentence. I think the best way (and by far the most common) is to have the article name as the first word or words in an article (excepting for articles such as A, An, or The) - so I would rephrase it to start with "Exploding whale..." or or "Exploding whales..." or "An exploding whale" or "The exploding whale" or something along those lines. I'm not quite sure how to make it work for this article, though. (2) My second objection is that the first paragraph lacks any kind importance. News-format introductions really should tell you why should care, and I don't think this does. There's a tendancy to read it and say "So what?" which is something to be avoided in our featured articles. →Raul654 08:31, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, now I understand. I've modified the intro to make it more news worthy and bold the exploding whale phrase, as most good articles have done. Is this OK? Could you check it for me and let me know if you can see any more ways of resolving this? - Ta bu shi da yu 20:32, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • There has been some improvement (the addition of the Dave Barry fame reference at least gives some idea of why the reader should care). But the first sentence is still very cluckly, and the importance is still weak. →Raul654 21:32, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
          • I agree. I've modified the first sentence to say "Two exploding whale incidents have so far been documented worldwide." What do you think? Actually, I'm going to take this to the talk page... - Ta bu shi da yu 04:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support (weakly). I'm a little torn - I like the article but it is not quite the best writing. I've made a couple of changes, but for example the Slashdot paragraph at the end of the Oregon section is still rather ragged. I'm slightly troubled by the quality of the TV captured picture at the top. Also questions remain; if decomposition caused the Taiwan whale to explode, why don't more corpses do so - or was there a pecularity due to the transportation. However, on balance, the article's good points outweigh the bad, and it would be better than many alternatives for the front page, so I will support. -- Solipsist 21:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • With regards to the first image, no better image exists. The footage, even on the KATU Channel 2 website, is pretty awful. I can't say why more corpses don't explode, only perhaps mention that most whales are transported through the centre of town... we really don't have any more information than the news reports of the day. Unsure what you mean by the slashdot paragraph at the end of the Oregon section... could you clarify? BTW, I appreciate your efforts at cleanup! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can see that it is not easy to get a better image, it is just that the grey and over-compressed picture is a bit of a turn off. I suspect someone could do a better screen grab from the video file. It might also be better to focus on the explosion than the whale - the image on the Katu web site is better.

WRT slashdot paragraph - it is just a question of emphasis. Wikipedia suffers from being called the 'encyclopedia that slashdot built'. Whilst the discussion about the story's history in the Miami Herald and on alt.folklore.urban is not irrelevant, it is more about the story's influence in culture rather than the event itself. Also "The story was confirmed..." it doesn't need confirming at this point, we've just discussed it as fact. So perhaps the last two paras should be moved to a later section on cultural influences, prefaced by a comment that for several years the story was thought to be an urban legend until someone did the work to relocate the original news story. I'm also not sure that the discussion about Peter van der Linden and Snopes adds much at all - it hints that there is some kind of priority dispute regarding who talked about it first on the internet - that might be relevant to the individuals, but doesn't seem particularly relevant here. - Solipsist 08:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, pretty good idea. I've added a section called "Popular culture" "Urban legend status" to the "Oregon" section, and clarified the sentence that seemed like there was some sort of priority dispute regarding who talked about it first on the Internet. Also modified the first sentence to make it clear that many people believed it to be an urban legend, though it isn't. Is this OK now? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Completely support. This article is great. -Seth Mahoney 07:12, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- Kizor 14:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object Support (-- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 09:05, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)): Needs a bit more wikification, gas, carcass, theme, transported and decomposing were not wikified in the lead section. I linked those words however the article needs to be wikified throughout.
  Furthermore Image:PDcapture1.jpg should be updated with a capture from the original video as opposed to some internet stream, Ta bu shi da yu said that no better image exists, this is untrue - KATU Channel 2 no doubt has the original in their archives and someone could contact them for a better screengrab. If these things are fixed i will withdraw my objections. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:14, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
  • I've done the next best thing and included a better picture from the KATU website. Is this OK? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:06, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't believe it's untrue. The only footage they have on their website is a just as grainy as the other footage you see. I have no way of contacting them myself, however. Perhaps someone else can? The other thing is, don't we risk overwikifying the page? - Ta bu shi da yu 19:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • That was the point, that is their website footage which is made from the original tapes which they still have.
      And i do not think that my additions are overwikifications. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:12, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
      • OK, fair enough on the overwikifications. With the screen grab, all I'm saying is that I'm not sure how to contact KATU to get a better picture. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:27, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Surely a news agency must have a contact address at their website. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:33, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
      • Are you sure that we are allowed to use this image at all? Here is a notice from KATU 2's webiste: "This site contains copyrighted material of Fisher Communications, Inc. (KATU TV) which may not be copied, distributed or re-used in any way without KATU TV's prior written consent." -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:22, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
        • Under fair use copyright we are able to use it. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: I've come across some bad grammar in the article for example "The whale that exploded in Taiwan happened due to a natural build-up of internal gases during transportation". This doesn't really mean anything because it says that the whale happened as opposed to the explosion happened, i've changed this to something better however others might want to look over the rest of the article. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:22, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
  • Look (this might seem a mite defensive), are you saying the whole article is riddled with bad grammar based on one fairly awful caption I added late one night? - Ta bu shi da yu 20:39, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I mearly suggested that it it be looked over, i've found some other examples e.g. "In November 1970 a 45-foot (approx. 14 metre), eight-ton gray whale beached itself near Florence, Oregon and died." i think it would be more natural to say "In November 1970 a 45-foot (approx. 14 metre), eight-ton gray whale died as a resault of beaching itself near Florence, Oregon.". The current version mearly states that he beatched himself and died but not that he died as a resault of beatching, if that was not the case and the two events were completely unrelated and it was mearly a coincidence that he died at that time then the current version should be kept, however in the much likelier case that he died as a resault of beaching the paragraph should make that clear.
      Furthermore it would be even better to use "In November 1970 a 45-foot (approx. 14 metre), eight-ton gray whale died as a resault of beaching itself at [beach name here] near Florence, Oregon." some beaches have names and this one could. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:10, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
      • Look, no offense, but that made perfect grammatical sense, and in fact was very clear that the whale beached itself and then died. Sure, your sentence is better, but this did not make the other sentence bad grammar. It merely makes your sentence better. It is extremely obvious that the sentence implied that the whale died as the result of beaching itself, any reader would understand this. I'll take your change on board, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • What i actually meant to say is that it was a bit vague, the grammar was correct (i confused the two at the time). -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 09:05, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
        • Actually, I think the original sentence is better. Since, presumably, no-one carried out a post-mortem on the whale it is just an assumption that it died because it beached itself. It's a natural assumption, but that's all the more reason why readers should be allowed to draw the natural conclusion themselves rather than have us spell it out in wordier form. Markalexander100 02:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I've listed more of these on Talk:Exploding whale#Rewordings, elaborations and grammar improvements. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 09:50, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
• Object. I suggest we keep it for April 1st though, it would be perfect for the main page at that time - and only at that time. Treat my vote as support on that day. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:54, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • What? April 1st is for fictional news, this actually happened. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:04, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
  • Ummm... that's not really a valid objection you know. What specifically do you object to? Also, April the 1st is for fictional things, this really happened. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Invalid objection, IMO. This page is for nominating featured articles, not articles to feature on the main page. Johnleemk | Talk 07:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Somehow Denni managed to duplicate this featured article nomination... I've fixed this. Hopefully I haven't lost anyone's nomination in the meanwhile! He wrote:

• My objection is not with the concept. It is with, as I have already said, the topic and the tone. I oppose the topic because it consists of only two events, hardly a common occurrence, and in the two cases, the cause of explosion was completely different. Second, I find the writing style flippant and irrelevant. For example, Paul Linnman's quote is foolish, and the fact that the blast scared away scavenging birds is (a) no surprise to anyone, and (b) an utter irrelevancy.

• This is a fun story, and it is exactly the kind of article I like to see appear in Wikipedia to ease the tedium of charged politico-economico-cultural articles. But I cannot bring myself to see it as having any value as a feature article. Sorry.

Denni☯ 03:12, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

• Ta bu shi da yu jumps to the conclusion that I "somehow" duplicated this page. He is wrong. It was already duplicated when I dropped by to answer yet another insistent question. If you want to jump to conclusions, Ta bu shi da yu, then I guess it's your skipping rope, but I for one am getting more than a little tired of your trying to twist my arm into a support vote. I have no problem with persistence for a good cause, but when it starts to edge into rudeness, I have to ask you to back off. Wikipedia is not Weekly World News, which would be a good repository for this story (yes, I can be rude too.) It certainly cannot hold a candle to the great majority of articles which have been featured, and many articles which have not. I have nothing more to say on this matter, and my vote remains unchanged.

• Gah! Denni is totally correct. Please accept my total complete and unreserved apologies for saying you caused this! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• P.S. This does not change my opinion that he is wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

• Support. Seems to me that the objections mostly lead towards a listing on VfD. Not, I hasten to add that I'm suggesting this coruse of action, but either the article belongs here or it doesn't. There can be no category of (non-list) article that belongs but can never be featured, surely?. If one accepts that the article is valid, it seems well enough written, nicely structured, and well researched with good references. It makes more sense to me that having the Simpsons in the Beat generation article, for example. Not the sort of thing I'm ever going to write myself, but I enjoyed reading it and Wikipedia needs a lot of stuff that falls outside my sphere of influence, or yours, gentle reader. Filiocht 14:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Parliament of the United Kingdom

-- Emsworth 18:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Bmills 13:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 14:17, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. func(talk) 20:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Very informative and well written.
• Support Deus Ex 21:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Well written, coherent
• Object for now. There is no external links section (I'd expect at least a parliament homepage?). I'd also like to see a link to the lists of PMs past and present, on or off-Wiki, or at the very least a section on famour PMs. The article is also a bit long (38kb now), perhaps some sections should be moved to a separate artucles? The existing sections are very informative and well written, and I will likely support this after my concerns are adressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • With the progress being made I change my objection to abstain for now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • There is an external link to the UK parliment homepage! As for an article being too long, I personally do not think that is a valid objection, if the subject matter requires the space. I'd hate to see any sections removed from this candidate. Filiocht 12:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes; there is indeed an external link. As far as the length: the topic is an important one, and requires an great amount of space. Actually, I did not go into as much detail about ceremonies, procedure and constitutional theory as I would have liked, for I foresaw such an objection. -- Emsworth 20:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Please do go into said detail, either here or in a sub-article. Personally I find the length objection ridiculous, but each are entitled to their own opinion. But certainly if you have good info add it somewhere. - Taxman 03:24, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • Length objections are not ridiculous since we are an encyclopedia project not a book project. That said, I don't think the current article size is too large (given the topic) but if it does get significantly longer then, and only then, should there be an effort to summarize longer sections and move the more detailed text to daughter articles. See wikipedia:summary style. In fact I think that the lead section is woafully short for an article this size and therefore object until that is fixed. Otherwise this is a good article. --mav 05:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Expanded intro to two paragraphs.
• Support. Zerbey 08:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support; some suggestions though: 1) add some more subsections, especially in the long history section. This makes it easier to find a particular topic within the page. 2) Another picture or two would be nice, perhaps a painting or photo from inside the House of Commons or Lords? Jeronimo 07:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Very thorough article, but I have two minor issues. One, I found the lead very clunky. Could some of the content there be moved elsewhere? And two, the article needs materials on the qualifications of members, e.g. age, citizenship, not being bankrupt or insane, etc. I also think a mention of how peers couldn't be members in the Commons or vote would be useful. The Tony Benn case over sitting in the Commons and the right to disclaim a peerage should be mentioned. (If this material is covered elsewhere, then ignore me; I only read the nominated article). PedanticallySpeaking 18:15, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • All this is covered in the article Peers and Parliament, British House of Commons, etc. -- Emsworth 18:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. A lot of good material, but I agree the lead section is a bit rough. Especially hard to understand is the second paragraph. Is the sovereign the one with the ultimate power or not. One sentance seems to say one thing, the next another. For ex, what does 'parliamentary sovereignty' even mean in the lead section, that parliament has the final say or the queen has the final say over parliament? Also, no mention of the greater concept of parliament, such as parliamentary procedure in general. Nor any mention of whether the UK parliament was the first parliament and how it relates to others. - Taxman 16:38, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, the point of the second paragraph was that the extent of parliamentary sovereignty (shorthand for the sovereignty of the Queen-in-Parliament) is unclear. But, it appears that the paragraph itself became unclear; so now, detailed discussion is reserved for the main portion of the article. Procedure should not be discussed in detail; each House has its own separate procedures, which are discussed in the separate articles on the chambers. The concept of Parliament is covered in Parliament. The relationship with other Parliaments has been noted (but briefly); all this is also covered in Parliament. -- Emsworth 01:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Greco-Buddhism

Well-written article on this little-known but interesting topic, with good images. --Erauch 03:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object: I find the liberally sprinkled quotations a little undigested into the main body of the article. Bmills 11:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Fascinating, well-written article. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The quotations didn't bother me. I learned a lot. Plus it involved two topics I knew a bit about (Greece and Buddhism), but covered a topic I wasn't very familiar with. Lots of nice images. Quadell (talk) 03:30, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, if I may. To accommodate the comment by Bmills above, several of the quotations have been incorporated in the text. PHG 06:24, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Still needs to be worked on. GeneralPatton 07:15, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Point taken. Please check improved version with a better integration of the quotations within the narrative flow.PHG 12:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Markalexander100 05:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Second nomination for this article, after the first nomination in June 2004. Changes made to the article since that time have included moving the lengthy section on debunking Holocaust denial to its own article, and an expansion and reorganization of the section dealing with the history of Holocaust denial to make it much more prominent. The article now focuses more on Holocaust denial itself, rather than simply proving why Holocaust denial is a hoax. -- Modemac 12:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. No lead section. Johnleemk | Talk 13:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I objected to the previous version of this article, and I still object, as most of my objections remain (others have been addressed). Jeronimo 11:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I still find the article as a whole to be somewhat incoherent. Also, some sections are just a combination of several facts, which doesn't read well (eg Public reactions to Holocaust denial).
  • The history section talks about a denial movement. Does it have a name? Is is organised?
  • "Beliefs of Holocaust deniers" is brief and unclear. Do they all believe this? If not, are there any major "streams" in who believes what? Some references to sources used for this are also desirable. It should also be rewritten as prose, rather than a bullet list.
  • The question "Why do people deny the Holocaust?" is hardly addressed satisfactory. What are the scientific views (if any) on this? Are there pyschological reasons behind this? Related, who are the deniers? Are they "angry white men"? Which countries are they from? Or are their numbers too few for such observations?
  • The fact that "holocaust denial" is illegal in several countries deserves more detailed information.
• "Why do people deny the Holocaust?" is a very interesting question, and should be addressed further. Possible answers:
  • Deniers want to retain sympathy for Nazism, or for their more general right-wing beliefs
  • Deniers may have participated in WWII on the losing side, and are in denial about the misdeeds of their countries
  • Are there any detailed studies of this? -- The Anome 12:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • A (not NPOV) study or two of this have been done by Michael Shermer, I think. But I haven't read them. --Fastfission 15:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I like Shermer as a writer with interesting opinions, and I have read his thoughts on these questions, but we can't really call them studies. I'm not a psychologist, but I would say that Shermer's speculations on "Why people believe weird things" are pretty far from scientifically well-grounded -- most charitably, I think they could be described as the thoughts of an intelligent and openly-biased individual. He may be right much of the time, but I don't think we can quote him at all authoritatively -- at most, his theories would need to be balanced by significantly different perspectives. Jwrosenzweig 20:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Other than for encourging revert wars, why would Wikipedia wish to feature this article? I find it hard to believe that there are enough people in the world who actually do deny the undeniable to make this article a prime candidate for being put forward as one of Wikipedia's best, (no matter how well written or not it happens to be). func(talk) 16:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • object to this objection: Firstly, the size of the phenomenon doesn't change the quality of the article. Secondly, the thing about Holocaust Denial is not that it is huge, but that it exists in such an important issue despite such strong evidence. This has made it a very important issue of study and debate by many people. Thirdly, if the article is good then we should not allow revert wars to intimidate us from decaring it good. They may, however, be a reason not to put it on the front page. Finally, according to the first source I could find on the internet, [6] 50% of Canadians think the Holocaust is "exaggerated" and one in four people in Idaho answered "no" when asked "Do you believe that the Holocaust really occurred?", so at least surveys show that holocaust denial is actually a big issue. Mozzerati 19:57, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

Idaho doesn't surprise me, but the Canadian statistic is rather shocking. I agree with The Anome, if there was more of a focus on why the denial occurs, I'd support. func(talk) 20:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• object. The article doesn't say how many holocaust deniers there are. It also doesn't say what level of influence they have. The title "Other Holocaust denials" should read something like "other denials of genocide and mass murder". The examples here should be expanded to show common examples of minimisation of murder of all kinds for political and other gain including by a larger variety of sources (Americans/Russians/Israelies/Maroccans etc.) The statement about Syrians and the Palestinian authorities having released holocaust denial literature (and several other statements) should be backed up with a specific reference. Mozzerati 19:57, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
• Belief disturb me... Is it belief or lie ? Are holocaust deniers sincere or is it simply propaganda  ? - Ericd 19:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • yes this should be differentiated. Certainly many of the leaders seem to be liars trying to make Nazism and Hitler acceptable again, but there are many people who learn from these people and honestly believe. So there are both liars and believers, a proportion of whom are probably self-decievers. Again, how many of each there are and their relationship to each other should be covered in the article. Mozzerati 20:02, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
    • Assertions seems more NPOV to me ? Ericd 22:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, and please forgive me for my previous objection, (I often live in my own little world, which is much nicer than the real one). func(talk) 20:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. This is certainly to the standard of many FAs. I don't consider it against NPOV - there is an immediate list of popular mis-conceptions of "Holocaust denials", something that I would not be as eager to add. It has a healthy selection of references and links, as well as referring to many groups/individuals throughout. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 12:10, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral, the article does not answer essential questions i.e. why do they believe it? And do they believe it? But if there are no scholarly articles that deal with the question then I think it can still be featured. Are there any scholarly articles that deal with these very difficult questions? Andries 18:02, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object - no lead section and way too short for a topic this expansive. --mav 21:58, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fugu (formerly Pufferfish)

A large part of the featured article Pufferfish was recently moved to fugu (as for Terafugu, the poisonous fish eaten in Japan). When Pufferfish turned into a featured article, it was mainly about fugu, and only later expanded into all fish of the family Tetraodontidae. Now most of the interesting parts of the former article are at fugu. Therefore, I would like to move the nomination to Fugu by nominating Fugu and remove the nomination from Pufferfish. See also Pufferfish on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. (Disclaimer: I contributed significantly to fugu/pufferfish) -- Chris 73 Talk 09:17, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. No lead section and references (Wikipedia:Cite sources). Johnleemk | Talk 13:48, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Expanded lead section, and also changed style of two external links to refrence style. Not sure if the other external links can be converted to refrence style, or if it should be done this way.-- Chris 73 Talk 20:43, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Hm...maybe a couple of references for the history of Fugu and the list of species? Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Added some references about the species, and also some about how to keep it in an aquarium. These also had a lot of other info, too -- Chris 73 Talk 09:14, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
        • Objection withdrawn. Johnleemk | Talk 07:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Very interesting article with a lot of potential, but it is very repetitive and even disorganized in places. For example, the notion that some unkown number of people die but the risk is low must be stated 5-6 times in the article. The actual mortality stat of approx 50 food deaths per year by Fugu in Japan from the linked pdf would be a good addition too I'd think. It's actually from a 1979 source, so could use some verifying. - Taxman 02:55, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Reorganized, added section about Fugu poisoning (including some info about death statistics), and weeded out a few "kills people" references, although there are still some left, since this is one of the main features of the fish -- Chris 73 Talk 07:15, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • The article is still primarily about eating the fish, with very little about the fish itself, such as what is it's food source and various other biological information. Also the misc section needs to be merged into the other relevant sections. There is nothing in there that doesn't have a better place. - Taxman 12:28, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • Most fish are not very well researched, but i added info about diet, behavior, color, teeth and also the more detailed method for inflation. For T. Rubripes also a sentence on breeding. The misc section is now completely moved to other sections. Looks better now, I think. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:14, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
        • That's better, but the intro is still almost entirely about eating the fish, and that is what the bulk of the article covers. If that is what you want to make the article about, that's fine, but maybe it should be titled something like 'Fugu consumption' or 'Fugu as a food'. Then the title would match the content. - Taxman 16:04, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
          • Ok, i think i understand you better now. I have expanded the lead section to cover also some fish specific info. The article is still 50% about eating fugu, but I think any encyclopedic article about Fugu would haver a large section about consumption, so I think this is OK. What do you think? -- Chris 73 Talk 17:32, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Starting back at the left. Well it is much more than 50% if you take out the species table, which really shouldn't be in the main article if there is not more to say about each. I really think you'd have a much better article if you moved the material about eating the Fugu out to an article focused on that. Then it would be consistent topically. - Taxman 16:42, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • In that I disagree. I think the fish and the consumption belong together in one article. The article is still below 30kb in size, and that is a good length for an article. An article about consumption alone would be in my opinion too short to be featured. Could you consider supporting the entire article, or is this a definite exclusion criteria? -- Chris 73 Talk 17:36, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Almost forgot that the nominator can vote, too. -- Chris 73 Talk 21:58, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

India

A self-nomination, this page is has all that epitomises a great article. Also has a huge list of linked articles for further reading. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 21:08, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

• Object - Two sentences does not make a lead section and there are way too many stub sections (overuse of the Main article set-up). The TOC is also huge for an article this size. In short, the article needs more fleshing out. --mav 21:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Aren't articles to be 'fleshed out' only if it exceeds 30 kb? Also made some major structural changes. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Overuse of the Main article set-up is most apparent in the culture section. Keep is a couple summary paragraphs and leave the details in the main Culture of India article. There are also POV issues with the map caption. --Jiang 22:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Addressed the lead-in and TOC issue, also made some changes to the Culture section. Seeking further opinion on the culture section. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:56, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • My objection over the map caption is over the statement "Refer to [[Kashmir#Map_Issues|Kashmir Map Issues]] for a discussion regarding Indian, [[Pakistan]]i and [[China|Chinese]] claims". A quick glance at Kashmir#Map_Issues will show that the explanation is not NPOV and will not suffice. It also doesn't belong in the External links section. Therefore, this article should not feature that one so prominently. The culture section still needs to be converted into the a couple summary paragraphs. The bolded headings need to be removed completely and the cultural links made within the text, not as see also listings.--Jiang 04:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Made several structural changes in the culture, sport and religion sections.' Please check if you still have any objections. I guaged the section size based on the Belgium article (a FA). As far as the map is concerned, what is mentioned in the caption is a fact, not a POV. While the linked article may be a POV, it shouldn't be a major objection as the focus currently is of the India page not Kashmir. I have also made some minor heading changes in the Kashmir page. Will see to Kashmir later nichalp 20:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Culture section now greatly improved. However, popping a link to the external links section of another page is bad form. Consider making a footnote on this page instead? Or will I be reverted if I decide to remove the link myself? --Jiang 01:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I have delinked the Map issues in Kashmir under a seperate heading free from external links. I will consider making a footnote tomorrow. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:08, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • I made the edits to resolve my own objections over the map captions but they keep getting reverted by Rrjanbiah who calls them "terrorist". As long as he keeps reverting for such reasons without attempt to achieve NPOV, I cannot drop my objections. --Jiang 21:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • You are a chinese POV pusher. You shouldn't be allowed to vote here. You keep on vandalising the article quoting CIA map which no one ever agreed, even encylopedia Britannica. You always wanted to push wrong map of India to the WikiUsers.--Rrjanbiah 05:03, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • First, Rrjanbaih, please be civilized here - calling good users vandals and POV pushers because you disagree with them can only result badly for you. Second, I have edited the caption to a compromise version - I hope both of you find it acceptable. →Raul654 05:16, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
          • Why don't you follow your own advice? If he is a friend of you doesn't mean that he is good user. It's a known fact that he is a chinese POV pusher and great vandal. As your compromised version suggests that you don't know about the issue and so can only result badly for you. --Rrjanbiah 05:26, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Please take a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If there's something wrong with mine or Raul654's edits, then please explain on the talk page what is specifically unacceptable about them. Making personal attacks does not do the trick as I nor anyone else other than you cannot easily see a "chinese POV" in my edits. Perhaps you can make yourself clearer? --Jiang 05:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object:
  • Many sections are rather fragmented, and appear to be mostly a summation of facts.
    • Could you be more specific? [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]]
      • Specifically: economy, geography (which fails to mention the major cities in the country) and demographics could use some editing. Jeronimo 22:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Most populous cities are mentioned in demographics. Also added some data to demographics. What is missing in economy? [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]]
  • The Indian States and Territories-footer looks weird in the middle of an article, and results in ugly layout. Please replace this by a normal table or list.
    • The {India} template saves valuable space, both in terms of real estate and page size (<30kb). If this is an unaccepted wikipolicy, I will certainally remove the template. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]]
      • I don't think space-saving is the most important issue here. It looks plain ugly, and the footers seem to be more in place at the bottom of a page. Jeronimo 22:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Made necessary changes. Please review. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:08, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • This article lacks photographs. Even a few "corny" Indian subjects such as the Taj Mahal would qualify for a picture in the article.
    • Added the Taj photo. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]]
    • PRC China was a featured article. It too lacks photographs. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:45, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't review these articles, and I would have objected against them if I had. It shouldn't be that hard to find one or two pictures of India. Jeronimo 22:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I find an article about India without even mentioning the (arguably) most famous Indian, Mahatma Gandhi a bit dubious.
    • Now mentioned. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:44, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Could we have some books as further reading/references?
    • I have mentioned one, I'll try and scout around for some more. However this doesn't seem to be a major criteria for rejection as both Belgium and China (earlier FAs) lack comprehensive references. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]]
      • Again, the fact that other articles "have gotten away with it" doesn't mean I can't object to it here. This is not a major point though, but I personally prefer to have at least one or two written references. Books do not tend to change or disappear, like webpages, and often contain more and more reliable (or better traceable) information than webpages. Jeronimo 22:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • China is not a featured article. People's Republic of China is. --Jiang 01:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • One book is mentioned. As for more refereces, I have put up a bulletin on the talk page asking for a few more. This is now out of my hands. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]]
  • Jeronimo 13:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Re-summarizing my objections (some resolved), because this is getting messy: 1) Picture added is nice (more would be great), but location is a bit strange, since the economy section doesn't discuss tourism at all. 2) I'll await your search for further references. 3) The subdivision section is much better now, I like the reference map. However, on my screen the two images overlap with one corner. I'm not sure this can be solved easily. 4) The economy is section is very brief, and for example fails to mention that - despite being one of the largest economies in the world - India's per capita income is rather low. Most of the other mentioned topics could do with some more text. 5) Similarly, geography section is mostly a summary of names. It might - for example - tell something about the fact that India is on its own tectonic plate. 6) The last paragraph of the history section fails to mention Pakistan, even though this country is related with to of the actions described. The "society and religion" section should probably be merged with the demographics and culture sections. Religion is already mentioned in the former, and the rest fits well with the latter. Jeronimo 21:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • 1)I know the pic is in a strange location, but I'm still searching for an apt pics+location. 2)I can't find real decent print references (India in general) to qualify here. Hope for wikipedians to read the bulletin on the India Talk page and contribute. 3)I'm not sure what 2nd image you mention of. Is it a multicoloured state image? I removed that long back. 4) tackled per capita income 5)tectonic plate would have to do more with South Asia, I don't support mentioning it here. 6)Pakistan mentioned (although... 1 war was fought against China. The nuclear explosions were carried out not because of Pak, but China.) 7)I would personally prefer to stick with religion and society else it would make the culture section too large. 8) Although I would like to add more info on the page to address your objections, the page size is 29.5 kb. Since I do like being a perfectionist, I would hate it going above 30k. I also don't think current matter can be excided from the page as a compensatory measure. 20:16, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • The 30KB border is not a holy limit. Please do not withhold information from the page because of that limit! Not combining semi-duplicate section is also strange, I don't think there's any problem with the culture section getting too large. I'll do this myself when I have time. As for the economy and geography sections: my suggestions were just that, nothing more. However, I still think these sections are way too short, contain too little information, and are written in a "fact by fact" style. Jeronimo 06:45, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • • I'll try and rework the above and add it in two days. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:48, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • The CIA map and the states of India map overlap for me (Mozilla browser, no idea what skin I use). Markalexander100 07:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • This, I think is a Mozilla specific case. Some users too have mentioned this bug in Talk:Cricket.
• Weak support - recent changes have greatly improved the article but Jeronimo does have some good points. --mav

---

• Addressed some of Jeronimo's objections [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:30, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Mark Latham

Came across this while trying to find out about the Australian election and its just utterly sound. I'm keen on biography on wiki and this is an exemplar of a very nicely written piece. I've no idea who's written it but I feel featuring it would be very topical and a reward for tight, entertaining prose and also bring to the attention of people outside Australia a man who, firstly, could be the next Oz PM and secondly seems something like an alien compared to the sort of rather dry politicians we have here in Britian. With the exception of John Prescott of course who is similiarly punchy. --Mr impossible 14:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. No references (Wikipedia:Cite sources) and no lead section (Wikipedia:Lead section). Johnleemk | Talk 16:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object - same reasons as John. --mav 21:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I've removed my objection since there is now a lead section and inline references. --mav 04:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I've expanded the lead section, but it isn't exactly my forte, so it could probably do with some improving. Ambi 00:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Of clear current relevance. Lacrimosus 00:27, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support - though I'd like to see the lead section compacted and a metion of Latham's political cue regarding superannuation. Many regard this is as the event that gave him credibility. --d 03:54, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. For an article this size, the lead section should be only half as long.--Jiang 05:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I've tried to shorten it somewhat. As I said above, lead sections really aren't my forte, so I'd appreciate someone else stopping by and giving it a go. Ambi 06:03, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I've reduced the lead section to two paragraphs. Is this better? --d 07:22, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Absolutely object. This is nowhere near as complete as it should be. Where the heck is commentary of the five books he's written? What about his relationship to Gough Whitlam (get the latest Quarterly Essay if your an Aussie)? Where is the information on his leadership of Liverpool Council? Where is the information on his colourful language? (oops, that's there) I could go on and on... though I might just start adding to this. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CPU cache

Just stumbled across this- it's got pretty pictures, it goes into detail, the terminology isn't too bad (and there's a quite readable intro...) - very good work. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 04:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Nice article. I do not object, but for me to support I'd like a more concise lead-section (redistribute superfluous information into another section(s)) - ensuring the leadsection appropriately conveys the concept to a layman; a more aesthetic image in the lead section; and better paragraphing. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 10:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Tell me how to fix that image and I'll do it. Iain McClatchie 18:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support - if lead section were reduced to 3 paragraphs. --d 00:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support - cool article! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support - some of it seems wordy and technical, but it's still a very good article with great information. -- KneeLess 07:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The technical bit is deliberate. If things seem wordy, just let me know, and I'll take another whack at it. Overall, I think the article needs a good hard round of criticism before it's ready for prime-time. Iain McClatchie 18:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Under "More hierarchies" the article reads "This section should be rewritten." Presumably it should be, or the notice removed. Dan Gardner 17:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I've got quite a bit to do in that section, but other commitments... you know. I'm hoping to fix this bit in a month or so. Iain McClatchie 18:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I skimmed it and it looks good, but Dan Gardner makes a valid point - any little to-do notes need to be taken out of the article. Generally speaking, meta data doesn't belong in the article. →Raul654 04:44, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Object - no references. --mav 00:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree, certainly there are more and better standard references in the field than the two external links in the article now. Lack of solid references means the material could have been made up out of thin air, and thus unreliable. In addition the lead section needs to be reworked to carry all the most important information about the subject in a clear way. The simple fact of why cache is faster is never noted. - Taxman 16:48, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

The first list is featured articles that do not have a picture and hence would be problematic to put on the main page. Please add pictures and then move to the second list. GFDL or PD preferred — avoid fair use images where possible (they may not be fair use on the main page).

Tangentially connected pictures may also be suitable for the main page, even if they wouldn't sit well with the article itself. Use your common sense.

Featured articles missing pictures

• Chuck Palahniuk (needs picture of author)
• Computational complexity theory
• Computer security
• Donegal fiddle tradition
• Gram Parsons
• Indus Valley Civilization (fair use picture)
• Negligence
• Not the Nine O'Clock News
• Peloponnesian War
• Vacuous truth

These now have pictures

• Ackermann function - use pic of equation
• Anno Domini - Smerdis of Tlön 19:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Application programming interface - use UML lollipop symbol for an interface.
• ASCII (a lame one)
• Have I Got News For You (fair use)
• Illegal prime (It now has 2 images.)
• Jazz (still needs free image)
• Jim Henson (still needs free image)
• Korean name - use Image:Hangul_seong.png
• Madonna (singer) (still needs free image)
• Markup language (well, sort-of; suitable for main page? James F.

(talk) 15:02, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)) (don't see why not Lupin 00:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC))