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

Mix tape

Self-nomination (although I'd love to see more people contribute). Seems like the sort of article that you couldn't find anywhere but here. Nevalalee 16:37, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Nice article on what was once a major piece of youth culture. Kiand 17:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) (oops, forgot to sign)
• Not-an-objection (yet) - article is very list-heavy. Can this be fixed? →Raul654 17:02, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Good point. (The original lists ballooned considerably since my original draft.) I've restructured the article to reduce the list-heaviness. Nevalalee 19:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Not bad, but I have two objections: 1) The list of references in pop culture is too long. A few (notable) examples are enough to be illustrative; there's no point in trying to be exhaustive. If desired you can make a separate "List of" article, but that would seem of little value. 2) It's not clear if this practice is only popular in the US or also outside of it (it is; the article also has an external link from the Guardinan (UK)). While this is not a US-centric article (there are hardly any explicit references), it would be good to indicate where the mix tape is popular. Jeronimo 18:49, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Good comments. I've weeded out a few of the more arcane examples, and added a bit about mix tapes in other countries. Nevalalee 19:31, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I think it's safe to say that wherever there were two-deck tape recorders and blank tapes available, mix tapes were popular. I don't think it needs to be explicitly said in the article. Support. Exploding Boy 19:12, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Margin of error

--Fadethree I am self-nominating this because I have seen some amazing misinterpretations of this concept by both members of the press and the voting public. I think the topic is particularly germane given the election seasons in the US and elsewhere, which is why I am rushing to self-nominate. That said, I am very, very open to feedback, especially relating to how to make the page more accessible to the interested reader. I hope that the Do-It-Yourself Excel heading is appropriate; I think it would be useful. (<--edit: moved to Wikibooks.) I look forward to hearing from you all. 23:59 03 Oct, 2004 (UTC)

• Certainly it is timely during a presidential election campaign. The article still needs some work in some of the "displayed" TeX. Michael Hardy 00:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. An overall good article that has a big problem. It uses an overly conversational tone (eg "Let us use an running example..."), much of the article must be rephrased. Keep in mind that wikipedia is not a textbook but an encyclopedia. Also the do-it-yourself section needs to be removed, put that on Wikibooks if desired. Support. —siroχo 06:34, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the excellent recommendations, Siroxo. I prefer the conversational tone to make the topic less intimidating, but I understand that it is informal, so I have changed it. I have moved the do-it-yourself section to Wikibooks and provided a link in this article. Thanks again for your comments; let me know if you have other suggestions. Fadethree 08:19 04 Oct, 2004 (UTC)
• Object because it is written from the point of view that everyone is wrong about margin of error. Perhaps if the misconceptions section was moved downwards then that would sort out the POV problem. Also, I don't know what margin of error until about halfway down the article. Again, moving the first section to after the second section might solve this problem. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Mgm, for your support. I agree with ta bu shi da yu (big fish??), however, that there is sufficient POV to try some changes. I have shifted the misinterpretation section down and kept the example in place. I was going for a pedagogical approach by addressing readers at the level of their misconceptions, but this may indeed come off as POV. (continued...)
  • Your point about not knowing what the margin of error is until halfway down... this is a bigger challenge. Many difficult concepts cannot be truly understood until at least halfway down. The problem with "margin of error" is that it sounds like it should be much more than it is. Really, all it is, like I noted in the opening, is a transformation of the sample size that tries to reflect sampling variance. It picks a random percentage (50%) and reports the 99% confidence interval radius at that point regardless of whether that percentage is actually reported by the poll. Many users then take the margin of error and apply it to other reported percentages, though this is inappropriate. There are thus many opportunities for confusion that I am trying to address. I have made changes to the opening paragraph that I hope make this clearer. Let me know what you think. Fadethree 10:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC).
• Support. It made a confusing mathematics topic easier to understand. I don't think the article suggests "everyone" is wrong about the margin of error. It only says it's often misinterpretted. And I think that could be considered a fact instead of POV, especially when Fadethree can prove it by linking a news article. That said, the article's language might benefit from some less loaded word choices. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:44, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

William I of Orange

Self nomination. Jeronimo 17:26, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support: A brilliant article. Just a question: I have read elsewhere that William lost his ability to speak in the assassination attempt of 1582. Is this true? If so, it should be mentioned. (On the other hand, this may just be a myth based on his nickname "William the Silent"). -- Emsworth 17:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks! As far as I know, he didn't lose his ability to speak permanently, but I know he was shot in jaw in 1582, so he may have been temporarily unable to speak. I'll look into it. Jeronimo 18:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 18:19, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Support GeneralPatton 22:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Philosophy

Very nicely written. Vacuum 16:01, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act

Encyclopedia style is well done, non partial, almost no POV (found two instances, but they are balanced against each other, and its argueable that they are POV). Bulleted lists do not detract, provides enough information without listing the whole laws in annotated form. Very good treatment of the support and the movements against it. Written in informational perspective, can be seen in many ways as a "Model" article. Only concern I have is that it may be very conteversial to feature this article, but on the other side of the coin, the article is currently very relevant. Ctrl_build 02:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• If any of you have issues with me listing 2 articles at once, I wish you to realize that I understand that the Columbia University article needs a lot of work, and probably at least should be refered to peer review. Ctrl_build 02:25, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Needs information about the recent court decison regarding the Act. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:11, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Horrible. 1) The lead does not tell anything about what the law enables (or disables). 2) The overview section is half of the article, while other sections are only a few lines. The overview also doesn't really give an overview. 3) There's too much "critics say" and "supporters say", and too little fact. If supporters/critics say something: a) back it up with a reference or mention them b) relate their arguments to facts. Most of this is just a collection of what some anonymous people have said. Why not put in my or your arguments as well. This is an encyclopedia. If we present opinions, we should present view of large groups or important groups. Not anonymous people who have claims that cannot be validated. 4) the Domestic vs foreign law enforcement and surveillance section is totally unclear. What is compared here? 5) We need to know what abbreviations mean. Best is to properly introduce them, or at least link them to the term they abbreviate. Eg: PEN/Trap, FISA, D-OH, I-VT, Reps, etc. Also: please use United States in the lead section, not US. There's no need to save letters. 6) It is not at all clear that all bullets (ugly!) under "Alleged abuses under the PATRIOT Act" have to do something with the PATRIOT act. Are these all cases? If not, why are these listed here? Do they have any special importance? Also: what about successful applications of the law? I didn't find any of these here. 7) What is "Sunset information"? To me, that's information about when the sun sets. I'm sure that's not what you meant. 8) If there are indeed "Historical similarities to other laws", this needs a real section, not just some links. 9) There's no picture. Surely there are many pictures that can be used, even if not one directly of the Act itself. 10) If Padilla and Kemal were not arrested under this Act, why are they mentioned here? 11) The fact that many cities and states have condemned the Act is interesting, but what are the legal consequences of this? Are there any? Have such things also happened to other laws? 12) The ACLU claims the Act is unconstitutional. Please elaborate on this. Has there been a lawsuit because of this? Is there not some body that checks an Act against the constitution to prevent such problems? Whatexactly violates the Fourth Amendment? Jeronimo 16:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cathedral of Magdeburg

Recently on the front page as a new created article. Comprehensive and well organised. Deus Ex 23:21, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I think the tourst info needs to be taken out or reformatted. But overall it's a good article. Support. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 00:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I would support if this article got any references. (If possible, some written references would be great, or otherwise list some as further reading.) There are also some small outings of POV, e.g. "fortunately", "interesting", but these are not a big problem. Jeronimo 17:00, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I understand why lack of references is a problem, but the use of Fortunately is hardly POV- 'Fortunately the fire brigades were able to extinguish all the firebombs in the roof structure in time' and the use of interesting - 'This makes the sculpture interesting to look at from all sides.' Deus Ex 19:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Hmmm yes, the "fortunately" was a bit unfortunate, but the "interesting" qualifies the sculpture as interesting, which is an opinion, not a fact. But, like I said, not a big problem for me. Jeronimo 07:07, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • • I will add references shortly. I am on a trip, and will be back on Thursday with access to my paper sources. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:39, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

William IV of the United Kingdom

-- Emsworth 22:08, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral, with reservations, for now, article reads well, has a lot of facts, but it seems very POV in syntax, feeling like it is offering an opinon on various historical issues, and persents the couse of events as active observer instead of an passive observer. That said, the feel of an active observer may be a good thing, it makes the article unique, but that may not be fit for an encyclopedia enviroment. Ctrl_build 02:35 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Addressed. -- Emsworth 13:22, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. However, there are some rather odd capitalisations (e.g. "People", "Ministry") and the odd typo ("ministery"). It may also be worth mentioning that the threat that forced the House of Lords to pass the Reform Act 1832 (viz, ennobling a sufficient number of new sympathetic peers) was also required to pass the Parliament Act 1911. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:42, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Addressed, but "the People" (capitalised and with the definite article) refers to the political unit or electorate. -- Emsworth 20:05, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Great - still support - but I think it is a bit misleading to refer to the British electorate in the early 19th century (before the Reform Acts; before universal suffrage) as "the People". There were an awful lot of people who were not members of "the People". -- ALoan (Talk) 20:25, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • You appear to be suggesting "the Electorate" - does this fit? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:30, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Not really - in context, "the People" seems to refer to the "common people" - that is, the average person in the street. I would be quite surprised if that average person was enfranchised. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:01, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Brainfuck

An interesting esoteric programming language! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:17, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Very short and non-notable. violet/riga (t) 18:17, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object Utter nonsense - definitely esoteric and with an offensice name.Jongarrettuk 18:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The offensiveness of the name is irrelevant to the quality of the writing, which is what one is supposed to judge here. The notability of the subject is also not to be considered. That said, I object on the grounds indicated by Cecropia below. -- Emsworth 18:54, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • My first comments 'utter nonsense' were meant to imply that I couldn't understand it (which essentially the same as Cecropia's. I certainly think the offensiveness of the name is appropriate when discussing the main page - it's what most people, and most potential newbies see first. If newcomers are offended, they won't come back. Jongarrettuk 19:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Considering that this is not a page to vote for articles for the front page, I don't see how this objection is actionable. The clarity of the article, however, is most defintely actionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:58, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • But the instructions above indicate that objections must be "actionable," which is untrue of the above objection. Note, however, that it is possible to feature an article, at the same time prohibiting its display on the main page. (To my knowledge, however, this procedure has never been invoked, though it has been suggested for articles with obscene titles.) -- Emsworth 20:00, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Still object on the grounds that I can't understand it. Happy to refine the part of my objection on obscenity to just being an objection to it being on the main page (not that this is important until my first objection is dealt with). Jongarrettuk 20:10, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Please define what parts you don't understand and we'll be happy to refine the article. Although even though one could call me an esolang enthusiastic, I, too, have to object the nomination for now... It focuses on examples and leaves other discussion out. Maybe the main article, esoteric programming language, could some day be nominated. --ZeroOne 13:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object It is not even understandable except to someone interested in artificial language internals and the basic format is, "Well C does this and Brainfuck does that." I especially like the comment: "Note that since each array location is specified as being a byte here, the - command is superfluous and could be replaced by 255 + commands." Oh, yeah, I'd do that. The article does not have either the clarity or depth to be presented as a best of Wikipedia. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:40, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object, though I'm not sure it's actionable: Brainfuck is actually interesting for being a notable esoteric programming language (how many are - this and INTERCAL?), but I'm not sure this article gets across why it's notable - David Gerard 23:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. As David Gerard says, this is one of the more notable of the esoteric programming languages, but the article doesn't really say why. Also, the article gets so bogged down in examples without real explanation that it is very hard to read. (The Shakespeare programming language has the same problem, though it did inspire me to go to the project page and read up a bit...) I'd like to see some discussion of why being Turing-complete is important, why computer scientists bother with creating esoteric languages, etc. Obviously some of that is in the linked articles, but some of it has to be here to keep this from being gibberish to the unitiated. The examples would have to be carefully explained to make the article accessible. Mpolo 08:14, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The topic could be made interesting, and it definitely has Featured Article potential, but I couldn't understand any of the examples. Make it understandable to people who don't even know what the Internet is and then'll I reconsider. Cyopardi 22:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

George IV of the United Kingdom

-- Emsworth 20:51, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Neutral for now. A good article, but I was a little confused about what porphyria is, and what "severe symptoms of insanity" the King showed. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:38, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not being a medical expert, I could not explain porphyria, but see porphyria, to which the above nominated article links. I have rephrased "severe symptoms of insanity"; see also the rest of the paragraph in question, which quite clearly indicates that the King became deranged due to the disease. -- Emsworth 22:59, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Filiocht 11:26, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support GeneralPatton 22:10, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support - more classic Emsworth. - ALoan (Talk) 18:24, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cristero War

A self-nomination. After a week on WP:PR, I had no comments. I have added a references section nonetheless. Mpolo 08:34, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

• Support, as long as that image at the start is moved to the right. Looks really ugly at present. Ambi 08:52, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Filiocht 11:26, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) Object for now. The lead section needs to be expanded into a summary of the article. If this is done, I'll change my vote to support. Filiocht 10:15, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the lead somewhat. That got a red link for the U.S. Ambassador into the lead paragraph, though. Presumably he is important enough for an article, but that is not written yet. -- Mpolo 10:55, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Not bad, but needs a copyedit before I'll support it. There several instance of POV ("turned out to be military geniuses", "finally defeated"). There are also some strange constructions ("Unfortunately for the rebels, the Mexican bishops were not entirely behind the uprising. In fact the majority opposed the Cristeros."), and some style issues (e.g. -- should be replaced by —, Fr. should be written in full). Some other points need clarification (e.g. "making them second-class citizens"). As a minor point, the example of Vera Cruz/Veracruz is not a very strong example of the "anticlerical mindset". Jeronimo 17:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I went through the article once more, but it would be good to have another set of eyes do another copyedit. I modified the three phrases you mention and the em-dashes. The "making them second-class citizens" was actually explained in the next sentence. I repunctuated with a colon to make this clearer. I also described the spelling changes as superficial attempts to laicize the names. Is there more to do? —Mpolo 18:35, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems ok. I'm not sure what the policy is regarding abbreviations (I couldn't find the appropriate section in the Manual of Style); I think it is better to writhe the full word (Father). There's no need to use abbreviations, IMO. Since this is only a minor issue, I'll support. Jeronimo 18:37, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bidet

A very interesting, well written, and detailed article. Given the large numbers of our American readership, the relative uncommonness of this may give it greater appeal.

• Support Dysprosia 08:09, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now. The lead section needs to be expanded and some of the very short paragraphs need to be expanded/merged. Also, I would like to see the Usage section renamed Uses (usage tends to imply uses for which not originally intended when used in in a non-linguistic setting). Generally a very interesting article, however. Filiocht 08:22, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object: comma splices. Markalexander100 09:37, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • ... Dysprosia 13:18, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• (Not a vote): I was just planning to expand the article with a larger section about Japanese Style Bidets. Will take some pictures on my business trip soon, and expand the article when I am back (~ thursday). -- Chris 73 Talk 10:43, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Too conversational (i.e. "you" should be replaced with "one", etc.). Also reads like a user's manual instead of an encyclopedic article. And are pharases like this neccessary: "Although using a bidet may include touching the genitalia and the anus with the hands after using the toilet, it can be more hygienic than toilet paper. In fact, most people with bidets use both, wiping with toilet paper before washing with the bidet." You can almost hear the snickering of the writer as he was typing this. Marlowe 18:41, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with the above. Second person is innapropriate. Also it seems to clearly be an attempt to use otherwise vulgar terms as many times as possible, wether needed or not. Nothing is covered on acceptance by those outside the areas they are common. - Taxman 02:02, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have reworded one paragraph to remove the second person pronouns. Smerdis of Tlön 16:07, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This sentence is not exactly brilliant writing: "Bidets are principally used to wash and clean the external genitalia and the anus, as well as the skin near these areas.". Also formulations like "excellent solution" doesn't sound very good, nor should the Usage section take the stance that the bidet is a strange thing you've never seen before. ✏ Sverdrup 14:39, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. A big part of the history section seems to be a joke. (see its talk page) FoeNyx 22:54, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cyclone Tracy

This is the first Australian collaboration of the week. We've even put it through peer review with no comment, and I managed to secure access to a decent picture of the devastation that happened to Darwin. Cyclone Tracy is also a significant event in Australian history. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:39, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Ambi 06:50, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- Chuq 07:16, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support Dysprosia 08:09, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Nicely put together article (with references!). Filiocht 08:24, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Mark 08:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Mpolo 20:41, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - MarkS 21:51, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support - T.P.K. 13:15, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent. Some more images would be nice, though. Jeronimo 15:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Cheers :-) There are a ton of images out there... it's just hard to secure copyright for them. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:52, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Strategic management

• This is an "umbrella article" covering many strategic management topics. It is comprehensive giving the 40 year history of the topic and describing current theory and practice. It is very accessible to the average reader, containing little specialized jargon or mathematics. Of all the areas of business, this is interesting enough to have a general appeal. It is well referenced, with over 100 citations to journal articles and books, everyone of which is cited in the body of the article. I know of no better source of information on this topic (but then, I am a little biased). The article has been under peer review at The Business and Economics Forum for a month, but there have been no substantive changes for a week so I feel it is time to list it here. mydogategodshat 20:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) (was archived, but should have been left here longer. Relisted. →Raul654 02:43, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC))
  • Good work. Did you seriously read and consult all of those sources? If not, even if they are relevant, perhaps they should be moved into another article such as 'references and works about...'. I know you agonized over who to include, but Ed Deming is listed as a reference, but not discussed and was arguably more important than some of the others that were included in the article. Needs some kind of overal diagram or picture too. - Taxman 20:51, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have most but not all of these references on my bookshelves. Some of the articles are hard to find, but I included them because they are the primary reference or originator of the theory. Deming was infact mentioned in the article but I did not go into great detail. The reason is that his work more properly belongs in an article on production management. He was included because production management techniques (of which he was a leading authority) can have a bearing on strategic management, that is, some companies use product quality as a source of strategic competitive advantage. But many aspects of business can be used as a source of competitive advantage (eg: distribution, personnel, IT systems, ect.) My intention was not to list all of these. If I had, the article would be twice as long as it is now. But if you want to add to the part on Deming and product quality, you may certainly do so. I'm not sure what purpose would be served by putting the references into a separate article as you suggest. The whole purpose of citing references is to allow readers to go to the originator of the idea to verify the claim or find out more about it. To break this connection defeats the purpose of having the references there. I know that the extensive use of references is not very common on Wikipedia and there will be some people that react against them, but I see it as the inevitable next step in Wikipedia's growth and maturity. The common Wikipedia practice of attributing a statement or theory to nebulous phantoms such as "Many people feel..." or "It is sometimes claimed..." or "One critic said..." is why so much of Wikipedia consists of half truths, mere opinion, and outright rants. Until we start to give clear references for every major point in the article, we will not be taken seriously. As long as we retain the "junior high school" essay writing style of vague allegations and insinuations, we will be preventing the project from being what it could become. As for the picture, I included one that I thought gave a good representation of current strategic management theory. If you can think of a better picture, please add it. mydogategodshat 16:41, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was certainly not asking you to move out references that have been used to support actual facts stated. I was thinking the ones that had not been used or cited in the article could be moved to an 'additional sources in...' or something like that. Being in a separate list does not invalidate them, it just keep the references listed to those used in the article. As for Deming, I was thinking more of his general work, not just production management. His last book, The New Economics, focused on much broader topics and especially on systems thinking and how competition can fail to reach the goals of the organization by ignoring how the system works. Though he may not be as influential on others I don't know that intimately. The professor and businessman I learned about Deming and studied that book with was a friend of Deming's, so he was hardly unbiased now that I think of it. Only add his work if there is some information that he influenced this topic significantly. I didn't see any mention of him in the text, btw, but I'll check again. Support by the way. - Taxman 02:36, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

But every one of the references are cited in the text. I didn't add references to just fill up space. :) You will find Deming mentioned in the competitive advantage section, but only in passing. By all means add some more on Deming if you wish. I am not familiar with his lasted work. I am familiar with his early groundbreaking work in quality management, statistical process techniques, variances, run charts, and quality circles, but this is definitetly in the domain of production management. mydogategodshat 15:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now that I look very carefully at the references, there are a couple that were not cited in the article. There are two Drucker, two Minzberg, and three Porter references that are not cited. I included them because they are seminal articles by the leaders in the discipline. You can move these to another article if you wish (but I still don't really understand what that will accomplish). mydogategodshat 20:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support Worthy of addition to Britannica. Jrincayc 01:04, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support. Ambi 14:49, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support. But could "Also See" be changed to "See Also" for intra-WP consistency? -- Mpolo 06:58, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Alexandria

a good read. nice coverage of history. seemed like one of the better articles i've stumbled across.Wolfman 15:46, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. (1) The headers need sorting so that they are in order, (2) Would like to see some (simple) maps to accompany the sections that describe the various layouts of the city - much easier to visualize these in a map (3) Would like to see a timeline early on to draw together the various historical sections, (4) Don't think it all flows very neatly eg. (a) Bottom of the medieval section is a paragraph on a modern library, (b) The 1800s start with a comment about the Ottoman period but I can't easily see how this flows from the previous section, (5) The modern city section seems too short in comparison with the rest. Overall: Lots of good information but needs better presentation to make the best of it. MarkS 18:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I have added a timeline (see 3 above) edit this addition as necessary. The rest of document would need some restructuring to match the timeline, if people like the timeline. MarkS 22:09, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I've moved the section on the modern city to give the article a chronological timeline in the history. The article could still use some more wikification, especially in the Antiquities section, for which I don't have time at the moment. I'll withold my vote for now, but once the wikification has been done, I'm happy to support it. Just drop me a note :) BTW, like the timeline, coudl I have a link to the syntax rules of that thing? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 08:10, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Object; history jumps from 1904 to modern day. Worth mentioning World War II since it was a big Royal Navy base atleast. Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object - Agree with the abnove. I've moved some more headings to give it a more logical structure, but it needs some effort to make it flow properly and to make sure information is under the right heading. Also, there must be something to say since 1904! Wasn't Alexandria one of the Afrika Corps' main targets? El Alamein is only 64 miles west. Also little popular culture - e.g. Ice Cold in Alex. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. A sentence like See Library of Alexandria for stories and theories regarding its destruction at about this time. appearing as a stand-alone paragraph jars, and even more so when the library is not covered until the next paragraph. I'd also like something on writers associated with the city: e.g. Lawrence Durrell and Constantine P. Cavafy. Filiocht 12:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Lots of stuff has already been said above. The significance of the city for Christianity is only one paragraph long, leaving out Origen and the effects of the Alexandrian school on the Cappadocians, for instance. Alexandria was one of only four original patriarchates, so should have more than two sentences. (The cited point is probably the most important, but not the only one.) Mpolo 08:21, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

William Butler Yeats

Partial self-nom. Another Irish literary subject. I found it in a poorish state a week or two ago and have been rewriting. I think it's pretty good now. Filiocht 10:59, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent. Jeronimo 14:43, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Quite informative. --CGorman 17:31, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great article about a fairly unusual man. Kiand 18:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Comprehensive, interesting, well put together article. zoney ♣ talk 18:25, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good. Knew nothing about the man before. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support Good work! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

United States

Very informative, lots of information and well researched. Incidently, those who say this is too "USian" will be shot on sight. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's too USian. :-P TrollQueen 08:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*bang!*

• Even I am tired of seeing me put this word on this page: References. Please. Filiocht 08:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, would you like me to stick in every reference that was placed in all the subarticles? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • You've been around here enough to know that adding them all would be far better than having none. Agree the footers are jarring. A much better result could be had from linking to main articles in summary style that conatain the same information. In general, object. - Taxman 02:23, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
      • Excuse me, but I haven't been around long enough to know what to do with "umbrella" articles. Your presumption gets my back up. Also, I was asking a serious question. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:45, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Certainly didn't mean to offend. References are extremely important for the reliability of wikipedia. If you really used no other references than the other articles on wikipedia that you hoped did use the references listed, that is a bit of a concern. But yes, listing all of those would be a start, some direct references being used would be better, citing points in the article to specific references would be the best. - Taxman 11:53, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
          • I understand. Will look into putting in the relevant references... I'm kinda busy with research on some Aussie articles at the moment however! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:19, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) There are no photographs here. Surely there are many great images (several probably already on Wikipedia) that can be used. Just some suggestions: George Washington (history), 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (politics), the Statue of Liberty (demographics), the Grand Canyon (geography), Elvis Presley (culture), McDonald's (economy), ... 2) As a main article about the US, it should not present too detailed information, but this article actually writes too little on some topics, especially the history section. Three or four paragraphs are acceptable (politics is fine like it is), and shouldn't be difficult to fill. Geography (not even a mention of the main cities (L.A. isn't even mentioned in the article) and economy (give some numbers here) could also use more content. The demographics section fails to mention what influence/problems the great number of ethnic groups had/caused (or still have/cause). The culture section is OK, but why not mention a few artists as an example? 3) A map displaying the fifty states would also be useful in the political divisions section. The CIA map isn't informative either, too little detail. 4) The demographics section shouldn't use boldface for listing ethnic groups, and the writing is not that great. (The sentence "few immigrants came directly from France." is strange. Is this meant to refer to the Huguenots who usually first fled to another country? Or is it for some reason importantto mention France explicitly here?) 5) I'm not that keen on including footer templates in the middle of articles, and I would actually like to see them replaced by a proper table or list (if necessary). 6) There should certainly be references here. And yes, if you used all references for the subarticles for this article, then you should put them here. Jeronimo 09:40, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Jeronimo's reasons. The footers are especially jarring because if you're used to such things as footers, you think the article is over. On the other hand, all four footers at the bottom of this page would be ugly. Mpolo 10:00, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Breastfeeding

Self-nomination. Perhaps the science picture needs a higher resolution still but I think the content is quite detailed now. violet/riga (t) 22:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Needs to be internationalised a bit - at present all the references and country specific info is US. Otherwise a good article. Would support if my concern is dealt with. Jongarrettuk 23:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Added some UK references from a survey reported by the department of health. Goes someway to dealing with your concern, I hope. violet/riga (t) 09:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with ALoan's first point. Perhaps you should request some assistance Asian/African/South American wikipedians to fill in the gap. Good luck. Jongarrettuk 18:25, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • None of them popped up when I placed it on peer review - any good ideas of how to attract them to it? violet/riga (t) 09:33, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • You could find wikipedians in other countries on [1], explain what your doing on their talk pages and see whether some are willing to help. Don't know if it would work though Jongarrettuk 19:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object - this is generally an excellent article, and I want to support it, but some notable absences: (1) it is is too US- (and now UK-) centric - there must be something to say about breastfeeding in other cultures (in, say, Asia, Africa, South America); (2) nothing about breastfeeding in history - there must be something to say about historical approaches and attitudes to breastfeeding; (3) properties of breast milk could compare breast milk to formula milk and cow, goat, etc, milk, or be separated out to breast milk, which looks almost identical; (4) a short line about parallel (tandem) feeding of twins but nothing about higher-order multiples, nor about parallel feeding positions; (5) nothing about mixed feeding (supplementing breastfeeding with formula bottle feeding); (6) nothing about the approximate number of times a day that an infant feeds or approximate amounts taken at each feed (as a function of age) - I know this varies, but there must be averages; (7) nothing about nursing bras; (8) apart from avoiding certain foods (caffeine, alcohol) nothing about a nursing mother's increased dietary requirements; (9) no references. I'm sorry to be so critical. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:59, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't be sorry at all - you've highlighted some important things here which I will work on. There are some that I will find difficult (historical and other cultures, in particular) but I'll work on it as much as I can. Thanks. violet/riga (t) 10:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Excellent additions - I've deleted some objections, but a few comments: (1) the table is great (I don't want to believe some of the percentages) but there is still little on cultural approaches to breastfeeding outside the US and UK (even Western Europe - say, France or Germany - would be a start); (3) my point on other sorts of milk now belongs in breast milk, I think; (4) still nothing on tandem feeding positions (e.g.[2] or [3]); (9) I guess some of the external links could be turned into references. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:35, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Again, thankyou. I've still got some more things to put into it and will be expanding upon it soon. For the references section I'll properly cite the midwifery journals and texts I've used. violet/riga (t) 09:51, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Definitely getting there! -- ALoan (Talk) 18:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Portugal

Self-nomination. --Pedro 09:50, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. The "Politics of Portugal" section tells me about the government, but not about the politics—needs more about political parties and Portuguese attitudes towards the EU. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 17:22, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Included info (has asked) about politics and Portuguese attitudes towards integration in Europe. -Pedro 02:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The History section is too long. It should be much shorter. Revth 05:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I've shorten the History section one more time. I dont know if it is enough. I want it to keep coherence. -Pedro 22:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This is good. Nice pictures, most issues have good information, proper mentioning of references. However, there are still a few problems, I hope you can solve them. 1) The history and culture sections are way too long. Summarize the important issues, move the details to History of Portugal and Culture of Portugal (if not already there). 2) The map images are poor. The district&regions map is totally useless, it would be better to put the little information in there (location of the outlying islands) in the map in the infobox. Instead, there should be a map showing the districts and regions (and their borders). The other map image has problems with some of the city names displaying incorrectly. 3) Several sections need more information, give a slightly broader and more complete overview of their topic. There are several issues I miss there, including (but not limited to): the districts section should tell a little about the political issues: what distinguishes an Autonomous Region from a district? The economy section (straight copy from the CIA book, I guess) misses the fact that many Portuguese worked abroad as guest workers (some still do) and the fact that there were serious concerns (whether by other EU nations prior to Portugal's joining the Union. The geography section doesn't tell me that Portugal is sometimes struck by earthquakes (there was a major one in Lisboa in 1755 or so), and why that is. The International disputes section should be integrated with an other section, it has not enough body for a separate section. 4) The picture of the fado singer is probably copyrighted. If you think it is fair use, this should be mentioned. Suggestion: a sound sample of a fado song would be nice (not part of the objection). Jeronimo 07:48, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jeronimo's issues:

• 1) I've made both shorter, maybe they need to be to be more summarize, but it is hard, if you want to keep vital info.
• 2) OK. But districts are now being dismantled. Elections to the new Communities are now undergoing.
• 3) A region is made of islands, Districts are in the mainland. Regions have more autonomy, a local parliament and local justice. I'll put that in the article. There's not much more.
• 4) Eartquackes are not a serious issue in Portugal. The one from 1755 was an exception, but they occur. I'll try to put that. As for the economy section, it isnt from CIA, it has parts from the CIA. Well, the flux of inmigration in Portugal is now positive. Emigration today is not an important issue, has it was in the past. Some occur, that is a normal human activity, there are also many british, French and German immigrants in Portugal. But emigration has you understand still occur in the Azores and very rural Portugal. When Portugal joined the European community, there was no EU. It was not the same has today's joining of Eastern European nations.
• I'll see If I found some fado samples, and correct the rest. Pictures etc. The problem is the use of a pic with Districts... It doesnt makes sence today. -Pedro 22:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

** My replies (quoting my original numbering): 1) Cut out the details to make it shorter. Just an example: the myth about King Sebastian is nice, but doesn't belong here. Same goes for many other events and details. 2) The situation may change shortly, but that still makes the map useless. Get rid of it if you don't think it's usefull. The other map still needs improvement. 3) I just put in a few suggestions I could think of (I don't know that much about Portugal), they are not meant to be comprehensive. My main point was they needed more info. They're better already. I'd like to see a little more, but I will not object to this particular issue. 4) Issue remains. Jeronimo 15:47, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• King Sebastian period is a very important period. Cause Portugal became controled by Spain. Something that the nation was avoiding for almost 500 yrs - the other Iberian kingdons were 1 by one, becoming under the Castillian control. Although the first Spanish King was a nice king and kept Port. autonomy, it is still an important figure and period. I'll see if I can reduce more, has for the 2nd map, I dont know why it is displaying wrongly, I'll make a JPEG out of that. -Pedro 23:29, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll leave it you which details to leave out, but the history and culture sections should really be brought to at most the length of the politics section. Jeronimo 17:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hawaii

Excellent article. Partial self-nom. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 05:39, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Inconsistent spelling of Hawaii throughout the article. →Raul654 05:56, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • It's supposed to be that way. "Hawai'i" is used by the state government and by most natives, while "Hawaii" is used by the federal government. So we chose the spelling based on the context of each sentence. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 17:18, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • A featured article must follow the manual of style, which says an article should be self consistent. The best precedent in this case would be to do what happened over at Kyiv/Kiev - use the most common name (Hawaii) consistently throughout the article, except where the naming issue itself is discussed (in this case, in the Origins section). →Raul654 00:25, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • Isn't funny how all the rules say "for guidance only" until some wag wants to make it "his rule" If this is going to bring out more cockroaches, I personally would rather NOT see the article as "featured" - Marshman 01:15, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Uh, following the standards is a Good Thing. If you don't want to comply with the naming standards, you don't have to, but it only serves to hurt nominations. →Raul654 01:19, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It sets an example of frankness and clarity. Wetman 06:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Sections are well written and cover a lot of fascinating material. --Gerald Farinas 17:23, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It's a very complete article. Revth 05:19, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Inconsistent spelling of Hawaii throughout the article. Gzornenplatz 05:26, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The order of the sections is a bit strange (but I could live with that). I would expect symbols in a less prominent spot. 2) There are too many lists. The list of cities could be integrated (in prose) in the geography section, while the list of people needs to be dropped. The really important ones are already mentioned elsewhere, and this partial list will always be subjective and incomplete. Same goes for the short lists of educational institutions. 3) While perhaps not necessary for all US States, there should definitely be a Culture section for Hawaii. 4) This is an English language encyclopedia, so the English names should be used primarily. So it is Hawaiian Goose (nēnē), not the other way round (unless, of course, there is no English name). 5) No references are mentioned (only external links), and I would also like to see books/articles under suggested/further reading. Jeronimo 08:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Would advocate making Hawai‘i into Hawaii in the "Language" section (where it says "State of Hawai‘i" and uses the Federal spelling in every other use) and in the "Miscellaneous" section, where it (to me) more distracting than informative. -- Mpolo 09:57, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Looks cool to me. Very informative. I ran across this page several months ago and also thought something needed to be done with the spelling, but it makes sense to me now after reading the comment left by Neutrality --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sesame Street

• My pet, I think it's pretty good. -- user:zanimum 02:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. Mostly good article. Two points. One: Get rid of the word 'edutainment' in the opening paragraph - it's ugly, links into a stub and screams 'this article is for Americans only', which it shouldn't be even though it's about a US programme. (It's also duplicating what's in 'History of the show', it doesn't seem so bad there.) Two: The dead-end linked characters (particularly the secondary ones) could do with some pruning (or writing up if they actually are interesting). If those two (small) things are changed, Ill alter my vote to 'support'. Jongarrettuk 18:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • How does the quality of a linked to article effect the quality of a candidate? I'll get on to the characters, but as a comparison, Belgium has redlinks to its people within the main article, yet it's featured. -- user:zanimum
    • It just looks like too long a list. I admit it's a bit niggly. To be honest, I'd probably change to support if only my first concern was addressed. Jongarrettuk 00:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Fully support, if you shift the "History of the Show" to towards the top of the article. Great article! Incidently, I like the "edutainment" word in the lead section. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support now, my objections having been met. Filiocht 12:33, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) Object for now. The lead section is a bit short and there are no references. Also too many lists, I think the minor puppers and humans migh be left out at no great loss. FYI, the US version was on both British and Irish TV for years. Filiocht 08:18, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Request to post this on Wikipedia:Peer review first. Some issues: 1) No references. 2) Images should have captions (and sources for some images are a bit vague). If possible, the screen captures should be replaced with better images. 3) The list of characters should be dropped to List of Sesame Street characters, and replaced by a brief discussion of all the characters now listed under "Primary Puppet Characters". 4) See also lists and random facts seem to be inserted at various places in the articles. These need to be grouped together, unless such a see also belongs to a certain section (such as the list of characters). 4) The broadcast history and Regional variations of the show sections both tell the same story, but of different countries. 5) There needs to be a history section. Jim Henson is mentioned only twice, briefly. 6) A section such as "controversy" seems a bit out of place. It seems to imply there have been several controversies, but only one is discussed. If there have been more: discuss them, if not: include it in the history section if deemed relevant enough. 7) Is there info on viewing numbers? Are they growing/stable/declining after 35 years? And internationally? Jeronimo 09:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object at the moment. The section with links to character lists is messy and there's a lot more to be said about merchandising. I'm happy to support this otherwise. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 08:31, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Would be good to make the photo captions full sentences (cf. House style), however. Mpolo 09:25, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

• NOTES: References have been added. Nielsen Ratings have been added. Characters have been abbreviated and clustered. Broadcast history adjusted. Non-screen capture images added. History moved. However, edutainment is the hot term for this sort of thing, and has been since the mid-1990s, at least. Ugly word of not, it's educational entertainment. -- user:zanimum
  • Love your work :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 08:22, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Still object to 'edutainment' as it's too American and so screams 'this article is for Americans only', whereas featured articles should be for a world audience Jongarrettuk 16:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Are you say the term is not used in countries other than America, or are you saying the edutainment page only has American examples? Within America, Thomson Learning and Prentice Hall textbooks, and Princeton U all use the term. Hong Kong Baptist University (Department of Computer Science) site, within the Hong Kong Education City site uses the term. [resources.ed.gov.hk/com-lit/it01/glossary_link.htm] The British edition of Macworld [www.macworldextra.co.uk/showme_ browse_results.lasso?caturn=20117] and the British Hutchinson Encyclopedia [4] (used at an ISP site named Tiscali [www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/ dictionaries/computers/data/m0045464.html]). Actually, the first result for edutainment in an international Google search comes up with the relatively irrelevant Surf Stallion Image Gallery, from Australia.

Within the realm of television, a search for "edutainment+TV": #2 is from Singapore, #7 from Israel, #10 from Finland. #9, although the site is hosted in the US, is a UNICEF conference in South Africa. -- user:zanimum

Aer Lingus

I think both this and Ryanair (below) are very good articles - I learned a lot! JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 18:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Mpolo 19:20, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Support, although its missing info on todays revelations (Casual uniforms and non-Irish callcentres to save money) (it now mention the low-frills intercontinental flights, which this is a part of) Kiand 20:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. I don't like the long list of destinations. Is it needed, or could it just be reduced to the countries served? Also, I would like to see more about financing. Hasn't Aer Lingus (controversially) received large government grants in the past, without which it may have gone under? (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong). Also, how large is it (eg in comparison to its competitors)? We have fleet numbers, but what about employee numbers or turnover? Jongarrettuk 20:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Comment. Two articles on airlines nominated by JOHN NEAR-MISS — is this a coincidence? ;-) -- Solipsist 21:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • No, I was reading up on airlines and these two struck me as being good so I nominated them both. PS whats with John Near-Miss? JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 17:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Colision, as in a crash, I guess... Kiand 20:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Dsmdgold 02:06, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Needs a References section and the lead could be expanded. Otherwise a good article and I'll support when my objections are met. Filiocht 11:16, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Plenty of images, quite informative of history and current situation. --CGorman 17:35, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Smile (album)

This recently ran a course on Peer Review and came out mostly intact, with a few good copyedits and word changes. It still needs a picture; the cover of the new album is now on commercial sites but I don't know the rules for usage. Other than that I think it's ready. A partial self-nom, I suppose. The album and film are coming, out early next week; dare I suggest this would be a good Main Page feature for that timeframe? Jgm 17:45, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. A real story. Denni☯ 23:50, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)
• This now has a couple of pictures, and has been updated to reflect the release of the new version. Jgm 16:09, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

William III of England

-- Emsworth 19:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object, I'm afraid. While well-written as usual, I find there's not that much information about William's political career in the Netherlands. Also, parts related to the Netherlands are sometimes slightly inaccurate. For example, De Witt was not assassinated in a revolution, although he and his brother were killed by a mob. Most of the info is in the Dutch article on William, but I understand this may be difficult for you to read. Let me know if you need some help. Jeronimo 21:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I have added that which I could find in the Dutch article relating to William's rule in the Netherlands (especially the intricacies relating to the post of Stadtholder). (Incidentally, the Dutch article is itself somewhat inaccurate—it states that William III became Stadtholder of Gelderland in 1672, when this occurrence did not come to pass until 1675.) Everything else in the Dutch article seems to concern the wars with Louis XIV; this information is already explored in the above nominated piece. -- Emsworth 16:34, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll take a look at it later this week. Jeronimo 10:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • This looks good now, support. Perhaps you could add a reference to the annual Orange March in Northern Ireland (remembering Williams victory in the Battle of the Boyne. Jeronimo 12:55, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression that the march commemorated the Battle of Aughrim, which took place exactly one year after the Battle of the Boyne. -- Emsworth 13:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • You're probably right. Still, they Orange March is named for William, so it seemed interesting to add. Jeronimo 14:05, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Okay, done. --Emsworth
• Support, but agree with Jeronimo - it would benefit from the Netherlands information being added. Unfortunately, I don't speak Dutch either so can't check it. Zerbey 16:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support - up to the usual Emsworth standard. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal

This is a self-nom that I spent considerable time editing, reformating and linking. I did not originally create the article, but rather totally reconfigured it from its original layout. The article contains a ton of information about the canal history and I would like to submit is as a featured-article. Tell me what you think. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 17:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. My main objection is that this is mostly a rewrite of the article's only reference [5]. I'm not sure what to do with this, since the source is a US Military page, but it's a bit suspicious at least. Other than that: 1) I'd like to see a map of the canal. It's hard to get a good picture of its location and course without one. 2) It's recommended by the Manual of Style to add metric equivalents in parentheses when use imperial units (so: 1 mile (1.6 km)), and to link the first occurrence of a unit (so 10 miles). 3) The lead section should give a little more information, I think. Also, it mentions the project office and museum, which are not discussed in the remainder of the article. 4) The reference and external links sections are messy. The same link is listed twice (unnecessary), once with detailed information (but not according to MoS), once without. If possible, I'd like to see more references or recommended reading, preferably a book or article. Jeronimo 07:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign)
  • Thanks for the suggestions whoever you are. Please post your signature information in the future when leaving comments. I took your advise and added a map of the canal, which you were interested in. I also fixed up the reference section by ading several books and several other webpage references. Hopefully that takes care of your concerns. Any other ideas? --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, all my specific issues were resolved, but the main objection remains. I'm not sure what to do with this - anybody else knows what policy is (or should be) in such cases? Jeronimo 12:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Nicely constructed article on a topic I knew nothing about and I learned something. Not sure I understand the objection. It's a rewrite so no copyvio and the reference that is used is a good one. I always like to see print references myself, but this is not policy. At least this article gives a reference. Filiocht 11:38, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It may not be a copyright violation, but I think it is still plagiarism. But if that is fine on Wikipedia, well, who am I to object. Jeronimo 12:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • To Jeronimo: It is not a copyright violation, nor is it plagerism. The article orignially posted on the Army Corps of Engineers website, where I got most of the information, is a public domain website. That is why it is not copyrighted nor is it plagarism. See article of Public domain for more information on this topic. Can you please specify what other objections you have? The reason I listed this for discussion is because regardless of where it orignially came from, it is very informative, and I did spend a lot of time tweaking it and finding other references.--ScottyBoy900Q∞ 13:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I personally still think it's plagiarism, but if that's fine with Wikipedia, then my objection is void and my vote neutral. Jeronimo 10:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Can you give any backup for why you think it is plagarism? Look at the definition of public domain. It literally can't be plagarism. Check out the countless hundreds of articles that incorporate public domain information. Are they all plagarized as well? I would just like to see this article featured, I'm not trying to say you're wrong or anything. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 12:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • My understanding is that all articles are rewrites of sources, given the Wikipedia:No original research policy? Filiocht 13:12, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Also in reply to ScottyBoy's note on my talk page:) In my dictionary, plagiarism is presenting information as if it were your own (Wikipedia's own) without attributing it properly as being taken from somewhere else. This can be true even if the original is in the public domain (if it weren't, it would also be a copyright violation). In my eyes, this article is plagiarism, since I think it is not very clear, at first sight, that this article is an adopted version of a website article. I don't think the small note at the bottom suffices for this. This is a matter of definition and interpretation, so your views may differ on this.

More important than my personal definition of "plagiarism" are the reasons why I don't like a "plagiarised"article. The risk of introducing biased views and unchecked facts is too high. Also, I myself try my best to avoid such practices (not that I don't use PD sources, but I usually try to take several, check the facts, and then write my own story). Please note that I do not "require" an article to be original research (that's something completely different), I wish it to be original writing (showing that the authors had sufficient understanding of the topic to write their own prose and give the article their own structure) or at least be based on more than one reference.

Since these views are apparently not shared by Wikipedia, there's no way for me to object. That's why I already changed my vote to neutral, which I'm repeating now. I would have voted pro if this article were original. Jeronimo 07:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Would I be right in saying that something being public domain is a defence to main-stream copyright infringement, but plagiarism is more about moral rights (i.e. the right of an author to be identified when his works are reproduced, and not have his reputation disparaged by derivative works which are attributed to him)? As I understand it, the US doesn't have a concept of moral rights, although the UK does now, since it was required by an EU directive. Is there an intellectual property lawyer in the house? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, I would agree with your description of public domain being used as a defense to mainstream copyright. And in response to Jeronimo, I've got no problem giving the original author more credit. I'm not quite sure how to go about that though. I wasnt going to worry about because it is public domain and that is why that sort of policy is in place. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:37, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Plagiarism refers to the use of another's ideas, information, language, or writing, when done without proper acknowledgment of the original source." (from the Wikipedia plagiarism article). According to me it's the last bit that counts. I compared the two articles and they seem to be almost identical (beyond reformatting and links, it's mostly some titles changed). I've thus improved the attribution. Mozzerati 19:41, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)

• Okay, now that Jeronimo has decided he is neutral and not objecting, does anyone else have anymore comments before this candidate moves off the list?--ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object: I don't think there is enough difference from the US Military page. As far as I can tell, from my scan through both side by side, there is almost no new text. This is a good article. It is worth having. Since the same material is available elsewhere, it fails the following Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet. If the army web site ceased to be available, then having stored it would be a valuable deed, of course and my objection would disappear. Mozzerati
  • Once again, please leave your signature information when posting feedback on here. I'd like to be able to discuss the article with you personally, but now have no idea who you are. The way I look at it is like so...If someone uses Wikipedia and comes across an atricle, that may be the first time they saw that particular article. Just because the information originated on another public domain source does not take away from the fact that it is informative, well written, and in fact, meets every single requirement of being a featured article. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:58, 02 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • ooops It was me.. I did it at the same time as saying it isn't Plagiarism so only signed once. Please answer in any case, the question is legit wherever it is asked. Mozzerati 13:49, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)
    • What exactly was your question? I didn't really see one asked before that's why i didn't answer it. Were you asking if I thought it was palgiarism? If that was the question, I don't think I am able to answer that one. We would need to get a community concensus on that. I guess the question would be, are duplicated public domain items plagarized? I'd have to say no. Wikipedia clearly states that many things online here are synthesized elements of other sources.--ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:30, 03 Oct 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)
• Computer security
• Donegal fiddle tradition
• Gram Parsons
• Indus Valley Civilization (fair use picture)
• Negligence
• Not the Nine O'Clock News
• 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.)
  • Neither of which adds anything to the article. In fact, it detracts. GWO 19:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• 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))

• Peloponnesian War - use image: Corinth_Temple_of_Apollon.jpg for now, until a better one is found. - Taxman 15:32, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)