Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive/Removed/Archive3

Arts

Li Bai

6 votes, Nominated January 28, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 11, 2007 Overdue
Support

Durova^Charge! 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 00:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
→Ed Gl 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T // 08:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crocodile Punter 13:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 11:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

As one of the two foremost poets of the language spoken by more people than any other on earth, Li Bai deserves a collaboration in his own right. Yet this nomination is also a polite gesture to the government of his homeland: in keeping with Wikimedia Foundation's practice of emphasizing the advantages of open Wikipedia access, support of this nomination demonstrates that people in the rest of the world are interested in Chinese culture and would be delighted if the people of mainland China were free to help us improve our understanding. Durova^Charge! 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art

27 votes, Nominated January 9, 2007; needs at least 28 votes by February 27, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Critical topic for an encyclopedia, yet it has no references and has stylistic issues. Has been rated "A-class" supposedly, but I don't see how it passes that. Failed a GA nom. Keitei (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An embarrassment. --Dweller 13:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tone veers into the unencyclopedic, the introduction is hopeless, the layout is confusing, weasel words everywhere, minimal references etc. Mark this one as urgent.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did the last big overhaul, so most of you insults are to me, (although if you think its bad now you should have seen it in summer). But I have no time to do anything. Dark Kubrick gave a lot of detailed suggestions for improvement when it failed GA in August and nobody has taken the time to implement them. If you think its unencyclopedic or embarrassing, please help to improve it, and defend any improvement from erosion for months to come. Oh and it does have references, its just that no one has updated them from the old style to the newer in-line footnotes. ... Bmorton3 20:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

Simón Bolívar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

13 votes, Nominated March 8, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by April 5, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Not a bad article, but lacking in citations. It seems a little short for a man of such historical prominence, too. es wiki has featured it. Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 14:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Howard-Browne

1 vote, Nominated January 16, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by January 23, 2007 Overdue
Support

Jesusisalive 19:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Jesusisalive 00:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

(Pastor Rodney!) Jesusisalive 00:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears

6 votes, Nominated January 21, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 4, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Briney! Britney! Britney! Let's endeavour to get this to Featured Article status! Prince Godfather 12:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate her music. Really, really hate it. This is more my sort of thing. Even so, I've gotta admit she has a massive following, and probable does deserve featured status; must be a very high-traffic article. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how much I can't stand her, this is a kind of article which should be an FA, due to her sheer popularity. And, anyways, I wouldn't mind seeing a celebrity get an FA. There seems to be a lack of celeb FAs here. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 21:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes

25 votes, Nominated December 20, 2006; needs at least 28 votes by February 7, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

One of the greatest thinkers in human history. His page deserves to at least be brought up to GA status. RJH (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, Queen of Scots

7 votes, Nominated February 8, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 22, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Already to a good standard and nicely-illustrated. Needs greater detail and better referencing to reach FA status, however. A worthy candidate! Paul James Cowie 07:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic, one of my friends said the other day that I bear physical relation to her. I don't know if I appreciate the sentiment or not, but I still think this should make it to FA status. Amphytrite 21:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Vysotsky

1 vote, Nominated February 23, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by March 2, 2007 Overdue

Support

~~Tomwe 13:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)~~ User has no edits other than votes. Er rab ee 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 04:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

One of history's best poets and critics, deserves much more than this shamefull page.

Anna Nicole Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

10 votes, Nominated February 8, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by March 1, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

I believe it is important to get this article to highest of standards even though it is Anna Nicole. Myrockstar 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's our most viewed article of the month, after only one day. -- Zanimum 17:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article a lot (my edits reflect it, and within three days the article became my second most-edited article). Extra help will be appreciated. Acalamari 18:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that while information is in flux it is a particularly bad time to make it a collaboration. But, then again, I don't think this is a particularly worthy subject in the first place. Maybe this should be postponed until all of the legal cases are over? gren グレン 11:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis XVI of France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

15 votes, Nominated February 14, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by March 14, 2007 Overdue
Support

YankeeDoodle14 03:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coemgenus 21:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[|K.Z|] ^T ^• ^V ^• ^C 04:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RexNL 22:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amphytrite 00:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Black Falcon 05:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kyoko 10:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per YankeeDoodle --Iwazaki 03:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 04:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 04:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller 13:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Annandale 18:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LordHarris 00:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

One of the most influential people in history. During his reign the French Revolution, arguably the most important event in modern history, exploded into being. Louis XVI deserves a lot more than the tiny write up he has here. YankeeDoodle14 03:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

10 votes, Nominated March 19, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by April 9, 2007 Overdue
Support

Birdman1 talk/contribs 01:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 22:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 01:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Metroid 08:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EMS | Talk 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 18:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dalf | Talk 02:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citicat 00:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timrollpickering 12:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Poorly organized, rated B-class by three projects (two of which classify it as a highly, highly important article), lack of references - yet a core subject in so many areas. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 01:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I hate to support yet anouther Biography article this one is important. Dalf | Talk 02:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Chaplin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2 votes, Nominated April 4, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by April 11, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Charlie Chaplin is one of the Core biographies here on the site, and is currently assessed "B Class". I think there is sufficient info on Chaplin, and that his article could definately become featured status, or at least A-Class, if we collaborated. theblueflamingo^Squawk 23:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suleiman the Magnificent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

9 votes, Nominated March 23, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by April 13, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

The greatest of the Ottoman Sultans. Led his soldiers to the gates of Vienna, made his navy the most powerful in the Mediterranean, defeated Charles V and made a pawn of Francis I of France. Great historical figure, not only in Turkish history, but Islamic, European and Middle Eastern history too. I've been working on it on and off over the past couple of months, i'd like people to bring more sources forward, to standardise the citations, to improve prose, to generally expand and improve the article for FA status. A.Garnet 20:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2 votes, Nominated April 9, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by April 16, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Just tried to read this article, a core biography, but gave up about a quarter of the way down. It contains plenty of information and citations, but it is very disorganized and could do with some trimming. Lesgles (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a Suspicion that this article does no justice to The Wonder of You because it's Way Down peoples' priorities. It's Now or Never! If you haven't got a Wooden Heart, vote to Patch It Up. --Dweller 16:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business and Economics

United States copyright law

13 votes, Nominated December 17, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by January 14, 2007 Overdue
Support

LH 23:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Rory096 23:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jay32183 23:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LordHarris 11:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coemg e nus 13:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YankeeDoodle14 05:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan Lake 18:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-23 09:11Z
Bigr Tex 17:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Resistor 04:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
// JoshKagan ^{Jrkagan | talk} 08:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Twerbrou 18:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ac s 4b 05:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is an important topic, yet the page is incomplete and overspecific in areas. There should be a listing of the categories of copyright, a listing of the rights of copyright, and then basic requirements of protection, and infringement. Then the remedies and other misc. sections. Right now is a random amalgamation of pieces with very little order to it. It also needs references to the Copyright Code (title 17). LH 23:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oil

14 votes, Nominated December 18, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by January 15, 2007 Overdue
Support

Blood red sandman 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—EdGl 03:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 06:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of us use this everyday too, you know? -- Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 06:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 08:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan Lake 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recury 20:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bigr Tex 17:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is ... needs improvement. Desperately. Yuser31415 06:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Benbread 13:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC) - Shocking![reply]
Keesiewonder 14:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeltz talk 17:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RJH (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Shockingly poor article for the stuff they call "black gold". I bumped into it quite by accident and there is no other word - I am shocked. Blood red sandman 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, maybe you're looking for the article Petroleum? --Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-18 01:34Z
Actually, the article on Petroleum is pretty decent. Maybe some of what you think should be in the Oil article is there. Coemgenus 14:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per comments above, you're right, petroleum would have been more the intended article. I am, however, going to leave this nom up as the article is still in poor condition. Blood red sandman 11:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still we need a good comperhensive article about oils in general. Jeltz talk 17:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex worker

13 votes, Nominated December 19, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by January 16, 2007 Overdue
Support

Disciple333 23:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blood red sandman 23:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 06:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 06:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yvwv 17:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan Lake 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be NPOV, very one sided, see talk page--Foundby 23:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mkuehn10 06:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Decker 02:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Defy 17:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Twerbrou 19:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timrollpickering 23:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Article is in very poor condition for what is a hugely important international profesion. I think the problem is that most editors are too embarrassed to edit an article like this, so it needs help. Disciple333 23:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. When it comes to articles like this, someone has to do the dirty work (pun unintentional but unavoidable, could think of no alternative phrase). Blood red sandman 23:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm ... The plight of some of them needs to be highlighted more too. -- Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 06:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Figure 8 racing

3 votes, Nominated January 22, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by January 29, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

A lot of "meat" can be added to this article, such as its history and significance in different parts of the world. —EdGl 00:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advance fee fraud

5 votes, Nominated January 16, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by January 30, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Interesting subject but has lots of original research and needs more references. Silver923 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dole Food Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3 votes, Nominated February 16, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by February 23, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Article is very short. Dole (formerly known as The Hawaiian Pineapple Company) played a crucial role in the American colonization of Hawaii. --PiMaster3 ^talk 22:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laissez-faire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

5 votes, Nominated March 7, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by March 21, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Article is a mess of unwikifi design, disputed information and lack of references and source. Even though it is a top important article about a videly known concept. Lord Metroid 16:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

Captain Jack (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1 vote, Nominated April 14, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by April 21, 2007 Overdue
Support

Alex 03:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This article is in need of cleanup, and could use some peer review while we're at it. Any help would be much appreciated. Alex 03:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity

3 votes, Nominated January 15, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by January 22, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

A very popular topic that really needs to be featured; at least, improved beyond its current biased state! Please! Yuser31415 02:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medzhybizh

1 vote, Nominated December 30, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by January 6, 2007 Overdue
Support

Natl1 19:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This article is about an important Russian Village with a great Jewish History and has been greatly expanded but needs more work. Natl1 19:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas worldwide

4 votes, Nominated December 28, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by January 11, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

This article is incomplete, needs more pictures, and needs source varification. Sefringle 04:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Series of Unfortunate Events

35 votes, Nominated November 14, 2006; needs at least 36 votes by January 16, 2007 Overdue

Support

Clamster5 17:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pacaman! 21:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
andrew|ellipsed...^Talk 22:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BlueLotas 06:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Danny 14:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pele Merengue 01:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hollerama 00:27, 20 November 2006 (PST)
Wiki-newbie 19:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 04:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BigrTex 18:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DanCrowter 8:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Felixman 19:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hooky6 00:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 13:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Dear Dairy 01:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)~~ Vote removed. Only edit from this user. Er rab ee 15:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dleav 06:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~12.208.213.220 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)James O'Hariss~~ Anon nomination removed <3 Clamster 14:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lightwhip 11:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria 04:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zreeon 03:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emmz89 01:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Releeshan 22:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—Cel es tianpower ^háblame 16:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jay32183 20:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Runefurb 19:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DavyJonesGSB 15:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
G Ganesh 14:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nintendofan 7 13:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thief Lord 16:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evil Eye 15:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Defy 17:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shimeru 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thedemonhog 02:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terence Ong 04:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
>|< shablog ^talk/_cont 20:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creepycrawlybugs 23:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ullman 14:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The article is about a book series that has 13 main books (the first three have been made into a movie) and a few spinoff books. This book series deserves a much better page with much less speculation and orginal research. Clamster5 17:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A series containing some of the best literature of the 20th and 21st century is often understated. This series demands a far more accurate collection of articles which is rid of all the errors and all the instances of original research which already plagues it. Please, we need this to be imporved.[User:Olympic god|Danny]] 14:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This series of novels already has a huge presence on Wikipedia. There are individual pages of characters and concepts all over this website. Nearly all of them, even the page for the series itself, however, are poorly organized and need to be rewritten. I believe it's a popular enough children's series that it warrants some attention. It deserves to be presented in a more professional manner. Pele Merengue 01:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. Theres so much speculation and original research. The series deserves much better pages than this. Clamster5 23:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The number of errors and pointless mistakes throughout all the articles are pathetic. Wikipedia really must do something. It's the website's obligation to correct this very needy area of the encyclopedia.Danny 20:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia really needs to improve the articles about this popular children's book series by removing all the random, disorganized speculation lists, and creating uniformity and better organization between the pages, not to mention on them. - Hooky6 00:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The errors in this page truly do need to be corrected. This series is one of the most popular and best written of our time, and it deserves better than this. Nintendofan 7 13:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weight loss

10 votes, Nominated December 30, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by January 20, 2007 Overdue
Support

frummer 23:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
// JoshKagan ^{Jrkagan | talk} 09:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Timrollpickering 23:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 22:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possessive 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Passdoubt | Talk 08:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ac s 4b 05:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LordHarris 00:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crocodile Punter 13:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Weight loss is a something many people are trying to find out more about. The term "Weight loss" is searched for millions of times per year in search engines. It would be great if WP's article could provide more info and reach the top of the list on the search engines. The only way to do that is to improve and expand it. frummer 23:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed 205.206.146.22's vote per [1]. - SpLo T | '07 _(*C*+u+g) 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FLCL

2 votes, Nominated January 22, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by January 29, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

I believe, even though that while this article has gone up for ACID before, it's still pretty much a mess. Almost sourceless, no international view, "trivia" section, some sections very tiny and need expanding, etc. TheLH 13:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church

27 votes, Nominated December 19, 2006; needs at least 28 votes by February 6, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Article needs to be cleaned up and expanded. Also, it is a very important topic and a perfect candidate for the Article Improvement Drive. —EdGl 03:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an atheist, and even I think this really deserves attention. Blood red sandman 23:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. H4cksaw (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely needs an urgent clean-up !!!!!! Twerbrou 18:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

19 votes, Nominated January 4, 2007; needs at least 20 votes by February 8, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

This page is the page that appears at the top of the list when anyone runs a search on Google about Jesus, and is currently only at "GA" class status. It is also probably one of the most important articles we have. Badbilltucker 16:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally not support an article already at GA - there are other articles that need the help more - but this one's important enough that it really should be an FA. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 12:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Should definitely be FA. Whilding87 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love

15 votes, Nominated January 15, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by February 12, 2007 Overdue
Support

>|< shablog ^talk/_cont 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 15:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<3 Clamster 17:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goldfritha 01:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dweller 16:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LordHarris 23:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amphytrite 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Silence 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chastity Marks
bibliomaniac 1 5 01:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 08:49Z
--Umalee 19:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

An important topic that I'm sure many confused people come to the Internet to learn about. Such a popular article should be better than a B-Class! >|< shablog ^talk/_cont 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could give this two votes. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you feel the <3? - SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 15:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Amphytrite 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do, but does the one for me? Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Needs much, much better referencing and academic tone. -Silence 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stagg Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1 vote, Nominated February 13, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by February 20, 2007 Overdue
Support

Mark ^(Talk) 16:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Don't let the website [2] fool you, Stagg are a very large music producer and supplier in Europe, and I feel they are under-represented by this short stub. Needs much expansion. Mark ^(Talk) 16:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Book

5 votes, Nominated February 8, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 22, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

This article is in a dire state and in need of a lot of improvement. Comics are a long standing tradition and the article is rated as being of Top importance, yet it is only a B Ranking! This article NEEDS improved, and it needs it soon. Ixistant 23:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why nominate this instead of the infinitely more important Comics? I'll agree that this is in bad shape, but it's also relatively trivial compared to top-importance articles like Comics. (It's like comparing the article on Sculpture to the article on Marble sculpture in importance.) I just don't see the necessity here. I'd vote for this if you'd nominated Comics or Book instead, as both are more crucial. -Silence 02:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comic book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2 votes, Nominated February 24, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by March 3, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

This article's already been nominated for the Creation and Improvement Drive once before, but it didn't gain enough votes to be the weekly article. Comic books are important, and it's in incredibly bad shape. Switchercat ^talk_cont 02:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic music

8 votes, Nominated February 8, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by March 1, 2007 Overdue
Support

Dekimasu が... 03:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
→Ed Gl 03:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BorgQueen 13:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YankeeDoodle14 03:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Volatile 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lately there haven't been many nominations geared more towards article creation than article improvement, but this is an exception. Psychedelic music is a disambiguation page, but recent discussion on its talk page showed a consensus to turn it into an article describing the links and common themes among different genres of psychedelico. Let's change gears every once in a while and play ARC instead of AID! Dekimasu が... 03:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now a short stub! It needs at least a paragraph apiece on each significant subgenre (psychedelic rock, psybient, etc.) based on the content of their main articles. Dekimasu が... 08:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Les Misérables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

6 votes, Nominated February 17, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by March 3, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

One of the most famous novels of the 19th century that has been adapted many times and is still read and performed today should have an article that is at FA status Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 02:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this Novel changed the way of my life and I am deeply indebted to it.Probably the best French novel I've even read..Deserve to be an FA.Iwazaki 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

6 votes, Nominated March 22, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by April 5, 2007 Overdue
Support

ragesoss 18:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 06:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 14:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeltz talk 22:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CloudNine 19:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I guess it's not surprising that popular culture is a much more shallow and uninteresting article than popular culture studies, but the fact that there is little to no sophisticated (or source-based) analysis on our popular culture article strikes me as ironic, given that popular culture articles (in general) are one of the great strengths of Wikipedia. ragesoss 18:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

Mummy

8 votes, Nominated January 1, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by January 22, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

A culturally significant, almost archetypal artifact with enduring allure. But the condition of the article requires a group effort. BorgQueen 17:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaanxi Earthquake

6 votes, Nominated December 26, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by January 9, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

For the deadliest earthquake in recorded history, this article is pitiful. - SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 10:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That it is a previous AID winner should not stop it from being worked on again. Blood red sandman 12:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definate Vote! Sad that this wasn't greatly improved the first time around. Benbread 13:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tunguska event

10 votes, Nominated January 18, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by February 8, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

A lot of very interesting information but needs a little more references. M&NCenarius 02:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Air Force

11 votes, Nominated January 19, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by February 9, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Ew...that's just...ew! - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 15:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. —EdGl 02:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmabteilung

7 votes, Nominated January 27, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 10, 2007 Overdue
Support

Paul James Cowie 12:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 10:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 01:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 01:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 11:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

More needed on the SA, the Nazi Brownshirts.... Considering the importance of the role of the SA in Hitler's rise to power, this article is quite underdeveloped... Paul James Cowie 12:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on this, maybe we could brush up Imperial stormtrooper. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek War of Independence

13 votes, Nominated January 19, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by February 16, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

This is the war that started the independence of modern Greece. It was an important war and I think with proper TLC and attention this article can make it all the war to FA. Kyriakos 04:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watergate scandal

27 votes, Nominated January 3, 2007; needs at least 28 votes by February 21, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

This was the only scandal to cause the resignation of a United States president, but few people under the age of fifty know much more about it than that. For two years requests have piled up at the talk page for the article to explain its subject with tolerable clarity. Today's reader still doesn't learn why five men burglarized the Democratic National Committee headquarters shortly before the end of primary season during an election year or that twenty-one federal officials received actual or suspended prison sentences as a result. Major players such as Richard Kleindienst - the only United States Attorney General ever to receive a criminal conviction for misconduct in office - aren't even mentioned. Although edit wars rage over at Kennedy assassination theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories, the most meticulously documented actual conspiracy in recent history languishes: this is probably a B class article but no Wikiproject has bothered to evaluate it. Let's fix this major gap in our encyclopedia. Durova^Charge! 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say B-class as well; I assess articles for a couple of projects. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 13:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Durova. I still ask the "Why?". It has all the info of who was involved with much gusto and mentions the tampering of the tapes, but there is no explanation as to why it happened in the first place?

Unfortunately the article lacks a good grasp of the names. CREEP only turns up in the infobox, and that was the central funding body for the illegal schemes. The burglary was the culmination of a coordinated dirty tricks campaign through the entire primary season where they smeared every major Democratic presidential candidate except George McGovern because McGovern polled the weakest against Nixon. Gaps of that magnitude are all over the place at this article and most people who didn't live through the era or study it on a university level don't know enough background to spot the omissions. It even misses easy stuff, such as how New York Times columnist William Safire (a former Nixon administration speechwriter) is the main source of -gate as the common suffix for subsequent scandals. Durova^Charge 05:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the aftermath of Gerald Ford's death, I think it would be entirely appropriate to turn this into a featured article.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 02:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The start of Saturday Night Live was in the time frame of Presidents Nixon and Ford and are scheduled to be released soon I read someplace season #1 DVD complete set. As television came into importance and entertainment programming satire of politics of the time period. It would seem good to collect information while those alive at the time are still around. I know that for some time info on the tapes and time period become available, President Ford's death brought some recent interest in the time period and comparisons in newspaper editorials of the Vietnam War and present Iraq war comparisons. It is of benefit to gain knowledge of the past to not let the mistakes of the past happen again. As for answers to why, that may be a hard to answer question...kidsheaven 22:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search finds one link of some of this: [[3]]kidsheaven 23:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Communist Manifesto

6 votes, Nominated February 7, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 21, 2007 Overdue
Support

Lord Metroid 14:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan Lake 23:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
→ Icez {talk | contrib} 17:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amphytrite 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YankeeDoodle14 03:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
LordHarris 22:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The article in question is a very controversial topic and people editing it is constantly not neutral and are pushing an agenda as seen by the edits unrelated to the subject of the article itself. Lord Metroid 14:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1979 Energy Crisis

8 votes, Nominated February 6, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by February 27, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

This is a pitiful state for one of the more significant events in Carter's Presidency. Also, many people lived through the event themselves, so contributing to the article should be easy. Zreeon 23:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bay of Pigs Invasion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

8 votes, Nominated February 15, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by March 8, 2007 Overdue
Support

-- Zleitzen (Talk) 17:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coemgenus 21:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LordHarris 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Black Falcon 05:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YankeeDoodle14 23:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
--Iwazaki 03:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bigr Tex 00:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Annandale 18:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Important episode in history - but is just a complete mess. I had a go at editing it - then resorted to attempting to keep it stable with little success. Now it's a just poor representative of wikipedia's output. -- Zleitzen (Talk) 17:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English Renaissance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

7 votes, Nominated April 7, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by April 21, 2007 Overdue
Support

CaribDigita 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bifgis 02:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 04:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kaiser matias 05:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ka34 13:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel5127 | Talk 05:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

(One topic that I'm certain many teenagers will get book reports on. This article should be looking well polished in any encyclopedia that you thumb through. I'm certain a few more eyes could work wonders in fixing this up.) CaribDigita 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

Foreign policy

18 votes, Nominated December 6, 2006; needs at least 20 votes by January 10, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

It seems like this might be of current international interest. It's also currently on Wikipedia:Most wanted stubs. Beland 03:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Beland. Great topic and very timely. Daysleeper47 14:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another of those articles that are too general to attract many editors. Very good choice. Recury 21:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This definitely needs more attention. Important topic. -- Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 06:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reservation in India

2 votes, Nominated January 7, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by January 14, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

A confusing article with NPOV issues about an important topic which can't be found in many English-language web resources. Passdoubt | Talk 08:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

7 votes, Nominated January 1, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by January 15, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

This article is about a very important topic: essentially, the International Court of Justice (the highest court of the United Nations) ruled that nuclear weapons are illegal under various counts of international law. Despite the ruling, however, states continue to deploy (and, in the case of the Trident missile) upgrade nuclear weapons. The article has received less than 100 edits since it was created in March 2004, and has never received any consistent attention. I am going to start working on it, and will provide some references on the articles talk page: there's loads of stuff out there. Jim (Talk) 17:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reaganomics

6 votes, Nominated February 5, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 19, 2007 Overdue
Support

Kristbg 21:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Richiar 02:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
→ Icez {talk | contrib} 17:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YankeeDoodle14 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
LordHarris 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan Lake 23:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This has the potential to be a great article. However, it lacks attention and looks really messy now. -- Kristbg 21:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly important topic, at least for the U.S. → Icez {talk | contrib} 17:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of Church and State

39 votes, Nominated December 12, 2006; needs at least 40 votes by February 20, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

This article was voted as the main article an AID in April 2005. However, since then, the article has deteriorated. Weasel words plague the place, and there is a POV dispute. Also, Separation is a very important part of society today, and shoud be a good article. Diez2 23:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeps an atheist like me safe from theocracy. This is VERY important to me and to the world. mirageinred 01:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above comment shows one reason the article needs rework. It becomes a stomping ground for atheists. The article in general is incoherent, lacks relevant citations, and becomes wound up in the pov of the authors, whether atheist or religious. It needs to be much shorter. CBadSurf 05:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the best I can to prune the pointless material and source/de-weasel what I can. It's way too much for me, though, but at least now it's just incoherent and random, rather than huge, incoherent and random. I'm quite sure that an improved article would last a lot longer than the last one. After all, the angry atheists, "Christian America" advocates, and other people that wrecked the article before in order to push their agendas have Separation of church and state in the United States to throw their crayons at. ;) Collard 07:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I STRONGLY believe any rewrite needs to balance FAIRLY both sides to this issue. Contrary to modern secular progressive dogma, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest the founding fathers did not practice the kind of separation of church and state as the popular media and modern debate would have most believe. I have documented my claims with linkage to the LOC web site which can be found here.

Curators for the LOC web exhibit have published the following material based on factual historical accounts:

“

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.

”

The factual truth behind the practices of the Founding Fathers should NOT be ignored in any presentation of this issue on Wikipedia. If these facts are buried or ignored by those who wish to give a modern day reinterpretation of the concept of Separation of Church, then any rewrite of this article will be based on a MODERN POV rather than a historically accurate recounting of the contemporary practices of the day during Jefferson and Madison’s administration.

Mactographer 07:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The founding fathers also allowed sexism and racism. Anyway, this article needs improvement badly. Xiner (talk, email) 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - All of that is rather irrelevent though. Since there is a separate article about Separation of church and state in the United States, this article needs to say a lot less about the US situation - founding fathers, the US constitution, etc - and concentrate much more on antidisestablishmentarianism in other countries, and as a general discussion subject. The US situation should be about a paragraph and it should start with a {{main|Separation of church and state in the United States}}. That's a much harder task - the breadth of the subject is huge and would (by necessity) cover a huge range of religions and government systems. My concern is that judging from the commentary above, this effort would get derailed into making another article that would be almost entirely about the US situation - and that would be worse than doing nothing IMHO. SteveBaker 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... the ACID is for improving the article in general. Right now the article is in sorry shape because of POV, weasel words, and a US focus. Diez2 13:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be up to standard, as it keeps us religious people safe from being told how to run our church. Joiz ^A. Shmo 22:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, if you read the above, you will see that this kind of attitude right above me is what is making this article such a POV problem. The ultra-religious as well as the ultra-anti-religious each are trying to advance their own agendas, which is creating this huge problem. Diez2 13:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, The facts are as one can read from the various publications the founding fathers wrote around the creation of the country that they did intentionally seperate the church and state for reasons among one being that some of them had themselves been persucated by the state because they didn't follow the particular teachings of the state's church. Hence they seperated it for being able to practice whatever religious belives a person themselves seemed fit. That happens to also include to practice no beliefe in anything. But as pointed out that is just a small note on the article and should be adressed in the Separation of church and state in the United States. While this article have much more information in general to tell.

The obvious fact still stands, this is a controversial topic for some odd reason I can not imagine. The article should be dealt with and then protected of some sort if the article derails once again. Lord Metroid 14:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jury trial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

5 votes, Nominated February 15, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by March 1, 2007 Overdue
Support

Mneumisi 21:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coemgenus 21:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LordHarris 22:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[|K.Z|] ^T ^• ^V ^• ^C 04:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 10:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A fundamental part of most legal traditions. This article has a lot of haphazard information that could be brought together into a real class act. Mneumisi 21:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the United States House of Representatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

6 votes, Nominated February 19, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by March 5, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Pales in comparison to counterpart article, History of the United States Senate Juppiter 06:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I think a lot of the information will be on Wikipedia already... just needs to be added to this article with sources and coherence. gren グレン 11:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it should be similar quality,Kidsheaven 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

14 votes, Nominated February 17, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by March 17, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

It's one of society's most important subjects,but, unbelievably, its in disastrous form. K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 09:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Justice must be done for this article. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Trade and Development Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

12 votes, Nominated March 13, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by April 10, 2007 Overdue
Support

Jordan042 01:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Metroid 20:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bigr Tex 03:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 14:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "c" in "ACID" says we are willing to start from scratch, so lets' do it! Johntex\^talk 02:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ixistant 16:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zreeon 22:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
_→AzaToth 14:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shindo9 Hikaru 23:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Rory096 20:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ACID needs more nominations like this. Dekimasu よ! 10:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: US federal agency; needs an article

(no information on the agency) Jordan042 01:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't exist yet. You might want to go to Wikipedia:Requested articles. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too familiar with ACID yet, but I would assume that the "creation" part of "Article Creation and Improvement Drive" would have something to do with the editor's bringing of his request here. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. All we think about is improvement. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what could possibly need improvement more than an uncreated article? Besides, this gives us the chance to do it properly, instead of the article getting filled with unsourced rubbish. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agencies needs articles... Goes for every country but specially the english speaking countries on the english wikipedia. Lord Metroid 20:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don;t think I've ever came across an ACID nomination like this before, but it does seem legitimate and I believe it would be an interesting project for Wikipedia. Ixistant 16:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a lot better starting off with good sources. However, it may be difficult to find sources on this subject.
I would love help improve this article. I'll check around and see if i can find some sources.Shindo9 Hikaru 23:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article no longer exists? Huh? Mr.Morose 02:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created a stub for this article and added it to the List of United States federal agencies. -- Beland 05:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science

Danvers State Hospital

2 votes, Nominated January 1, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by January 8, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Notable in local area, quite historical is an excellent example of Gothic Revival architecture, has a lot of room for improvement and has great potential. Scienceman123 talk 01:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precipitation (meteorology)

7 votes, Nominated January 17, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by January 31, 2007 Overdue
Support

Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 03:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 12:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Iotha 01:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The WP:METEO page sums it up best: "Ick!" - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volcano

25 votes, Nominated December 13, 2006; needs at least 28 votes by January 31, 2007 Overdue
Support

As nom ;) Yuser31415 23:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aerobird 15:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zytron 16:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BigrTex 16:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CG 19:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 17:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Territory 20:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jay32183 19:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paul James Cowie 21:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prince Godfather 21:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 06:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before more people die, please improve this. -- Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 06:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan Lake 18:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Annandale 21:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller 09:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timrollpickering 23:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 14:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zeratul ^{En Taro Adun!}_{So be it.} 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Yes please.[reply]
Terence Ong 04:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel5127 <Talk> 07:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Iotha 01:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 01:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Punkmorten 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Joyous! | Talk 03:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Badly organized and definitely needs a cleanup. In my opinion it does not follow along smoothly in a same tense, but switches between different topics out of order. And we have to remember that volcanoes are on other planets as well as ours. Yuser31415 23:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Set

6 votes, Nominated January 19, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 2, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

A vital article. Needs expansion of history sections, and it needs to not duplicate naive set theory. Should be a featured article, as it is such a core mathematical topic. CloudNine 17:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. - Iotha 01:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White blood cell

38 votes, Nominated December 7, 2006; needs at least 40 votes by February 15, 2007 Overdue
Support

EamonnPKeane 23:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Xiade n 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coemg e nus 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Territory 23:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Agree ... needs improving[reply]
Keesiewonder 17:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WS 19:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diez2 23:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do it wrong 00:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Radioheadhst^talk? 02:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LordHarris 14:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. Is it really this pathetic!? ♥ Fr ed il 00:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 02:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lystrablue 17:22, 19 December 2006
SpLo T _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 06:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! All of us need this to survive, you know! -- Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 06:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SERSeanCrane 18:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Colds7ream 22:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 15:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 03:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Natl1 16:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Twerbrou 18:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Rory096 07:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timrollpickering 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GassyGuy 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Derwig 08:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Quiddity 21:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Iotha 01:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nemilar 10:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller 15:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tribute to my immune system. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Winterus 20:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zeratul ^{En Taro Adun!}_{So be it.} 21:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chastity Marks
--Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pandacomics 11:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Julien 01:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Umalee 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Disastrously poor for such an important article in the Biology section. EamonnPKeane 23:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed 205.206.146.22's vote per [4]. - SpLo T | '07 _(*C*+u+g) 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I could give only one vote, this would be it. Twerbrou 18:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Komodo dragon

6 votes, Nominated February 1, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 15, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

I've been working on this article a lot, and I sense that it's almost there to GA status. Parts need to be cited, and some more interesting facts should be included, if possible. Also, some of the links need to be checked to see if they are viable. After all, it is a high importance article. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, just needs a little helping push to get it all the way. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the last picture doesn't have (and needs since I don't know what's going on) a caption. →Ed Gl 20:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DNA sequencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1 vote, Nominated February 11, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by February 18, 2007 Overdue
Support

Nathanww 20:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Yikes! I was looking at this and it seems to be in need of some serious cleanup and expansion, especcially with DNA Day coming up. Nathanww 20:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

9 votes, Nominated February 12, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by March 5, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

A vast subject that requires a group effort. A large part of the article remains a list of names. BorgQueen 13:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rainforest

13 votes, Nominated February 9, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by March 9, 2007 Overdue
Support

Juppiter 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 22:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RexNL 00:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T // 10:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 11:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Black Falcon 05:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 00:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 00:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Twerbrou 13:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bigr Tex 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Important subject, lackluster article Juppiter 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not wrong there. There is a relative lack of polished biology articles on wikipedia, so this would be a great step in the right direction. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic field

21 votes, Nominated January 31, 2007; needs at least 24 votes by March 14, 2007 Overdue
Support

Iotha 02:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Starwed 11:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
→Ed Gl 23:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 02:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 22:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Metroid 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Top importance topic[reply]
—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 08:53Z
BorgQueen 13:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 01:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Black Falcon 05:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Readro 10:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Twerbrou 13:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
XApple 00:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jack · talk · 15:55, Sunday, 25 February 2007
--The preceding comment was signed by Us e r:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 09:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Annandale 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeltz talk 16:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mhking 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rifleman 82 04:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a basic and central concept in physics, and requires improvement. The article needs cleanup, and I think it deserves some more attention from non-physicists. This is a topic that I imagine many physics students will look at, and I feel that the central concepts ought to be both better presented and more accessible/readable. -- Iotha 02:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of this article are borderline BS, especially the beginning of the explanation section. ("Einstein explained in 1905 that a magnetic field is the relativistic part of an electric field.") It needs a pretty thorough going over, not just for clarity but for correctness. (Much of the article is fine, but the parts that aren't stick out like a sore thumb to me.) --Starwed 11:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting per above. Also, could use references! →Ed Gl 23:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

7 votes, Nominated March 16, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by March 30, 2007 Overdue
Support

◄scharks► 06:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BorgQueen 07:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 23:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 03:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'd rather it be called Mould... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dalf | Talk 06:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Big topic but with little content, only a couple of references, and really untidy. ◄scharks► 06:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar eclipse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

13 votes, Nominated March 4, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by April 1, 2007 Overdue
Support

—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 06:41Z
Black Falcon 08:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bigr Tex 20:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mhking 02:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 03:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 23:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coemgenus 12:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BorgQueen 00:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
soum^talk 14:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Annandale 14:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Think outside the box 11:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dalf | Talk 06:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lunar eclipse is currently the #6th most-viewed article on Wikipedia. It's currently a B-class article and should be expanded a lot.
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Article Creation and Improvement Drive § Improve high-traffic articles
—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 06:41Z
I was surprised to see so little in terms of content and in-text sourcing. -- Black Falcon 08:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one has fallen to #8 and will likely continue to slide. It was highly rated over the last 4 days because there was one on Saturday (the first in three years). ~ BigrTex 20:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, I didn't realize that was the reason. Still a worthwhile article to work on, I think. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 12:23Z

Liquid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

12 votes, Nominated March 21, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by April 18, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Pretty important, but not at all well covered. ffm ✎talk 19:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is embarressing! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked over this article. This has to be one of the most fundamental topics in the universe that apparently has not gotten too much attention from Wikipedia!! It defies me why this has not already been brought to attention! --Gabycs 02:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a pretty picture and some suggestions for how to expand it. -- Beland 07:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

21 votes, Nominated March 8, 2007; needs at least 24 votes by April 19, 2007 Overdue
Support

bibliomaniac 1 5 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Metroid 12:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T // 14:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 23:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 08:37Z
Zath42 05:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
◄scharks► 06:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Annandale 14:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Johntex\^talk 02:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Think outside the box 11:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dalf | Talk 22:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Twerbrou 10:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wai Hong 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ragesoss 18:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cooljeanius 00:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hornandsoccer ^Talk 13:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
cohesion 03:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kaiser matias 09:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Citizendium already has this article featured. Why haven't we placed this top priority? bibliomaniac 1 5 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

15 votes, Nominated March 23, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by April 20, 2007 Overdue
Support

Dalf | Talk 07:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 16:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
---Rory096 19:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeltz talk 22:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ζ pL o T // 16:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flubeca 15:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kaiser matias 05:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Astrowob 14:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Razor ICE 12:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 15:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Currently 4 planets, the sun and the article Solar system are featured but Earth is only a Good Article. Obviously it is a more difficult topic to meet the completeness criteria for a FA, but if summary style is used properly and the article structure is given some thought, I think it should not be that difficult to bring to FA status. Dalf | Talk 07:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it; I had been thinking about nominating this myself. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Most referenced articles Earth is the 125th most refrenced article on wikipedia. Dalf | Talk 12:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this article is at FAC now if it passes it will become inelgible for this colaboration. I encorage everyone to go read the article and leave their thoughts on the nomination. Dalf | Talk 20:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it doesn't pass, it needs colaboration. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has to be featured some time soon. I fear it won't pass this time, though. --Razor ICE 02:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technology

Adventure

1 vote, Nominated December 28, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by January 4, 2007 Overdue
Support

Yuser31415 05:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It was the first adventure game, even if text-based. It started a new genre; I think it deserves improvement. Yuser31415 05:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Records

2 votes, Nominated December 29, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by January 5, 2007 Overdue
Support

PrinceMyshkin 0:38 29 December 2006 (UTC)
GassyGuy 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The most important record label ever, end of story. Among the artists they originally signed: Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, Etta James, Buddy Guy, Bo Diddley. From having only one picture to it's not mentioning involvement in payola scandals, this article is severly lacking. PrinceMyshkin 0:38 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A-26 Invader

1 vote, Nominated January 4, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by January 11, 2007 Overdue
Support

Aerobird 15:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

For an aircraft that served in three major wars, this article is shamefully short. Shameful! No discussion or explanation about it being redesignated - twice! - the second time politically - either. This was one of the more important aircraft of late WWII and one of the most important aircraft in Korea, and played a major role in Vietnam. Let's do this great aircaft justice. - Aerobird 15:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Move every A-26 Invader. For great justice. Punkmorten 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse (computing)

7 votes, Nominated January 1, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by January 15, 2007 Overdue
Support

Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
// >|< Shablog 00:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan Lake 08:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Resistor 23:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CG 20:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ac s 4b 05:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The computer pointing device by antonomasia. Needs quite a lot of cleanup. Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is an important article with good and abundant information. With cleanup, it has the potential of being featured. --// >|< Shablog 00:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevlar

10 votes, Nominated December 27, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by January 17, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Came to my attention when many people at my College wanted to do a coursework assignment on Kevlar but found the Wikipedia article to be very very limited, barely above stub! For something with quite a bit of hype and "wowness" factor, we really could use a more comprehensive article. Thanks for voting :) Benbread 13:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.NET Framework

1 vote, Nominated January 18, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by January 25, 2007 Overdue
Support

Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The article has improved somehow since it was peer reviewed on May 2006. Some more work has to be done, mainly sourcing and referencing. Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outer space

26 votes, Nominated December 23, 2006; needs at least 28 votes by February 10, 2007 Overdue
Support

Yuser31415 20:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Territory 09:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 10:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 04:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blood red sandman 12:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Starghost (talk | contribs) 22:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Mks 14:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mithridates 14:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evil Eye 15:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—sd31415 (sign here) 15:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Defy 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Koyanagi 03:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Rory096 08:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timrollpickering 23:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller 11:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 14:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
T0ms 17:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RJH (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aerobird 15:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilding87 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nemilar 11:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Miopportunity 16:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)~~ User has no edits other than this vote. Er rab ee 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chastity Marks
Diez2 12:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--EMS | Talk 17:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
→ Icez {talk | contrib} 20:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

One of the should-be-core topics of Wikipedia, it should definitely be featured, in my opinion. Yuser31415 20:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agreed; this should be a featured article. Whilding87 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article's lack of FA saddens me. Very much so. I'd say that it's a core article, and the FA'd be nice. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It surprises me that such a expanse subject has a small article. I agree with Jerichi. Chastity Marks 14:15, 29 January 2007
This article is so far from even being GA this it is pitiful. It is full of trivia and misconcenptions. IMO, if it is not improved soon then it should either be redirected, stubified, or deleted. --EMS | Talk 17:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.com

22 votes, Nominated December 30, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by February 10, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Widely known topic around the world, and is sort of important in regards to the Internet culture. One of the first things you learn when you first go on the internet is the .com thing. Maybe we could improve the article enough to get rid of the nasty cleanup tag, and improve it to make it good, or possibly featured. --andrew|ellipsed...^Speak 09:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is something we all know a lot about.--C J King 01:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I voted for it but… how much could we improve/expand it? All other generic top-level domains entries seem to be about the same size and quality. —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could source the unsourced statements, cleanup the article, and expand it a bit. It's really short (all the other domain articles could be improved and expanded too, this is just the most common domain, so it's the most "important"). -theblueflamingo^Speak 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMORPG

9 votes, Nominated February 4, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by February 25, 2007 Overdue
Support

Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beefnut 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T // 10:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Julien 01:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 01:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AScott00 03:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 08:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I believe that a major video game genre needs a better article than what it currently has and the article needs citation help badly. I believe that with a bit of work, the article will be up to GA quality! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's right, this article is close to going GA, and I'm convinced of its importance; I've randomly (offline) met people who have read it, and it's been cited as a source by the BBC three times. --Beefnut 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Three times? Golly gee. I can't think of anything more important than that! @_@ -Silence 02:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder, this is not WP:CORE COTW. Any article can come here and this one having been cited by BBC (showing that the article has some major importance) and being close to GA shows that it has great potential for the WP:AID. Did you know that revenues for these games are over 15 million dollars as of last year and by 2009 they are expected to reach over a billion dollars - don't tell me that this article has no importance as nobody has ever heard of MMORPGs. This article may not be core (or close enough for you) but it is important in modern society around the world. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 14:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

10 votes, Nominated February 11, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by March 4, 2007 Overdue
Support

--Wedderkop 12:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--RebSkii 18:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC) per nom.[reply]
--AVeRY! 00:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC) per comments[reply]
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Laurens Hoek 17:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Habap 20:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
J0lt C0la 18:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Hemogoblin 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Credema 05:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--itgsmeagol 8:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

(E-sports is getting larger and larger and is getting more and more acceptance as a sport. This article needs cleanup and expansion.) --Wedderkop 12:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I agree with Wedderkop, since DirecTV came onto the scene with their Championship Gaming Series its been blowing up here in the U.S.)--itgsmeagol 8:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sputnik 1

29 votes, Nominated January 10, 2007; needs at least 32 votes by March 7, 2007 Overdue
Support

Er rab ee 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aerobird 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duran 05:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RJH (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Territory 15:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller 17:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bigr Tex 06:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dreambringer 12:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coemgenus 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cmapm 21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KNewman 22:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
`'mikka 01:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crocodile Punter 13:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jammy Simpson | Talk | 17:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 14:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brand спойт 15:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiolap 20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul James Cowie 11:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nemilar 11:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Umalee 19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 02:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Black Falcon 06:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Colds7ream 14:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
mikeu 17:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tomwe 12:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)~~ User has no edits other than votes. Er rab ee 15:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
kidsheaven 00:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--The preceding comment was signed by Us e r:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 09:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iwazaki 06:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This year (on 4 October, to be precise) will mark the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite. The article is now somewhat incoherent and elaborates on further missions, the space race etc. It is also lacking in-line references. Let's get this article to FA-status! Er rab ee 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't even mention Sergey Korolyov. Sad. But there may be a problem in trying to get sound references for this page. — RJH (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the article is too bad due to absence of in-line references. There is also a bunch of POV issues there, for example: "Both nations attempted to out-do each other in space exploration, eventually culminating in the launch of the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon". Who decided that this was the "culmination"? The "Space Race" section at all should be replaced by only one sentence, stating, that Sputnik started the space race. Cmapm 21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see more reference to the cultural significance and ramifications of the launching of Sputnik from a global perspective. Paul James Cowie 11:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, no mention is made of this as the start of the space race, and thoughts of who was ahead in technology of the cold war. The USSR was seen as at it's peak and ahead in technology-a turning point for the coming decades all point back at this start. The detail of Sputnik was not known at the time and that was very important from then until the fall of the Soviet Union. sorry forgot to sign list...kidsheaven 00:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battery (electricity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

5 votes, Nominated March 15, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by March 29, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

This article on an important everyday item needs more work, especially where entire sections lack inline citations. The bibliography can also be expanded, and the article should in general be tidied up. It has the potential to become a good article or a featured article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of computer graphics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3 votes, Nominated April 13, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by April 20, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

We really ought to have an article on this. -Litefantastic 00:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A basic history exists at Computer_graphics#History, but that article needs work. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 04:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

Mecca

14 votes, Nominated December 14, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by January 11, 2007 Overdue
Support

Sefringle 03:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BigrTex 16:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matt57 21:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Boris Johnson VC 16:24, 16 December 2006 [UTC]
Jeltz talk 16:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--File Éireann 21:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blood red sandman 23:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zleitzen 04:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Radioheadhst^talk? 14:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BorgQueen 17:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Twerbrou 18:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timrollpickering 23:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GassyGuy 21:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ibruman 12:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The article should be about the city of Mecca, meaning how it functions, culture, tourism, economy, etc. Currently it only states its importance related to the hajj. Sefringle 03:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa, Florida

7 votes, Nominated December 30, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by January 13, 2007 Overdue
Support

Aerobird 15:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--C J King 16:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coemg e nus 16:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse 16:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 22:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JEF 02:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Ac s 4b 05:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

One of the most important cities of the south, and of significant historic importance. - Aerobird 15:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spratly Islands

6 votes, Nominated January 9, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by January 23, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

An important subject about an island group that is a bone of contention between a majority of the nations of South East Asia, however the article is rife with grammar problems and NPOV issues. Should be of FA quality but needs lots of help. - Aerobird 22:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. George's, Grenada

15 votes, Nominated December 27, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by January 24, 2007 Overdue
Support

Punkmorten 22:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blood red sandman 23:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slgr @n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 04:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 14:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 14:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coemg e nus 18:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zleitzen 15:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse 16:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jwillbur 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 02:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timrollpickering 12:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda 19:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CaribDigita 19:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 02:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This article of a capital city is a substub in a sorry state. Punkmorten 22:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peru

7 votes, Nominated January 15, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by January 29, 2007 Overdue
Support

Edinburgh

14 votes, Nominated January 5, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by February 2, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Needs clearing up and a lot more information can be added, G8 meetin, live8, university, financial center, castle...
The capital of my home country, the city I was born in, I can't possibly resist supporting this nom. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 12:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Edinburgh so should be able to help out with this. Also, if anyone wants any photos taken, my girlfriend is a pro photographer and should be able to go out for half a day and get the pics done: leave a message on my talk page with photo requests. --Jim (Talk) 18:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information about golf could also be added.
205.206.146.47 00:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Anonymous vote removed Er rab ee 01:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of this article not remaining a B-class, because it really looks much better than that ... -- Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 14:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yaoundé

5 votes, Nominated January 24, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 7, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

A national capital, a city of 1.4 million, a Wikipedia:Release Version article, and just a stub. Badbilltucker 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt this will be the winner, but I've got a lot of sources that could help on this and would be happy to contribute if this were a collaborative effort of some sort. -- BrianSmithson 04:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conakry

4 votes, Nominated January 24, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 7, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

The national capital of Guinea, a city of 2.0 million, a Wikipedia:Release Version article, and just a stub. Badbilltucker 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lusaka

5 votes, Nominated January 24, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 7, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

The national capital of Zambia, a city of 1.08 million, a Wikipedia:Release Version article, and a stub. Badbilltucker 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manama

7 votes, Nominated January 24, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 7, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

The national capital of Bahrain, also a Wikipedia:Release Version article, and also just a stub. Badbilltucker 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a stub, just some sections are stubs. It's rated Start-Class on the talk page. →Ed Gl 23:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athens

15 votes, Nominated January 12, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by February 9, 2007 Overdue
Support

Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El Greco 20:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wilchett 22:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 04:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 14:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LordHarris 23:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kyriakos 04:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 02:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chastity Marks
Dweller 11:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YankeeDoodle14 03:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Duran 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul James Cowie 22:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 01:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hugely important just as a capital city, there is also a rich history sorounding Athens. Selected for version 0.5 and the next release version, B-class is poor for such an important city. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's article about one of the world's most historical cities currently has no history section at all! An internal link is not enough. Wilchett 22:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

Occam's razor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

21 votes, Nominated February 22, 2007; needs at least 24 votes by April 5, 2007 Overdue
Support

Puddytang 21:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YankeeDoodle14 23:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Dweller 09:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Twerbrou 13:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bigr Tex 00:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
southgeist 04:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 13:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-28 06:08Z
bibliomaniac 1 5 01:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coemgenus 16:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 15:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeltz talk 00:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasabisam 16:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
semper fictilis 18:46, 17
Zath42 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mneumisi 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FireSpike 19:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sliver7 04:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Martian 08:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Victor12 03:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

(Occam's razor is often cited on Wikipedia as an argument against paranormal topics, but the article itself has problems. There is widespread confusion about what it actually means and this article doesn't help much. The problem is that many real authors are confused about the implications) Puddytang 21:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes no sense to me, and seeing how many articles link to it makes me think that this needs a huge overhaul. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 13:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ashley Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1 vote, Nominated March 27, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by April 3, 2007 Overdue
Support

Mminsker 03:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

(put your reason for nomination) Mminsker 03:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Brown, in addition to being a close friend and confidant of Flannery O'Connor, taught English for 50+ years, instructing the likes of students like Cy Twombley and Tom Wolfe (both at Washington and Lee). His published output is remarkable and his boyhood home, in Louisville, KY, is now known as the [Rocket House].

Invented Here

1 vote, Nominated January 9, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by January 16, 2007 Overdue
Support

Ringbark 20:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This philosophy of innovation (preferring outside work) is as important as the opposite Not Invented Here but seems misunderstood. Therefore, further clarification and expansion of the article is needed. Ringbark 20:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian people

11 votes, Nominated December 29, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by January 19, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Poorly referenced and contradictory in places. Would definitely benefit from a thoroughgoing NPOV revision / improvement. Relating to one of the more contentious 'flashpoints' in contemporary geopolitics, this is a worthy candidate for Improvement. Paul James Cowie 11:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generation X

5 votes, Nominated January 9, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by January 23, 2007 Overdue
Support

Nydas^(Talk) 15:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crocodile Punter 13:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zreeon 00:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Davodd 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This hugely important societal topic has a poor treatment on Wikipedia. Whilst starting off adequately, it quickly degenerates into orginal research and POV. Nydas^(Talk) 15:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebionites

1 vote, Nominated January 16, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by January 23, 2007 Overdue
Support

Ovadyah 17:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Article badly needs the perspective of some new editors that are familiar with the subject to get it ready for FA. Ovadyah 17:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life

26 votes, Nominated December 10, 2006; needs at least 28 votes by January 28, 2007 Overdue
Support

TBCΦtalk? 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan Lake 07:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coemg e nus 14:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Territory 14:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Agree, good candidate for improvement[reply]
LordHarris 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 17:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yuser31415 04:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jay32183 19:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RJH (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 06:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 06:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Budgiekiller 08:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Aguably the most important topic![reply]
Chastity Marks
KFP (talk | contribs) 16:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 03:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Danielfolsom 01:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Rory096 07:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timrollpickering 23:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeltz talk 21:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
`'mikka 01:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terence Ong 04:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Quiddity 21:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--|K.Z|Z.K| Do not vandalize... 07:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Iotha 01:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Mark ^{(Talk | Contribs | Email)} 20:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Silence 06:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A very important topic; article needs to be heavily expanded and citations should be added. TBCΦtalk? 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. If death is this week's, life should be next week's. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 17:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ditto Chastity Marks 08:18 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Now all we need is "Everything"... — RJH (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We could always nominate 42 (number). Badbilltucker 23:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed 205.206.146.22's vote per [5]. - SpLo T | '07 _(*C*+u+g) 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horse

8 votes, Nominated January 9, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by January 30, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Woefully undercited, rather bulky, and is one of the most recognized animals in the world. Though it's not much of an argument, it really does deserve to be at featured status. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's enough of an argument for me. I may not be able to do anything other than copyedit, as I know nothing about the field, but I'm willing to help where I can. Badbilltucker 01:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. I know a good amount about horses, so I'll see what I can do. Amphytrite 00:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Woefully undercited" is an understatement, and I am one of the editors! I have been keeping an eye on this article for quite some time and adding bits here and there--more often moving bits OUT and creating new articles! The lack of citation is a major problem for FA status, I agree...we may want to first try for GA status...I know for myself, much of the material I added is knowledge that I have in my head, I've only been around horses for over 40 years, after all...I can dig up books and web sites where it can be located, but so can anyone else...anyway, I strongly encourage anyone with texts or good links (University Extension sites are particularly good, they have scientific authenticity that "Susy's pony page" does not...) There are also problems with organization, some things are redundant, and the constant threat of POV pushing of people's individual "thing" is always lurking...the article is also subject to constant vandalism every time it gets unprotected...I think we seem to have won at least semi-permanent semi-protection, at least. Anyway, the article needs help, and it particularly needs citations. I'm voting for it, but just to see if we can draw in more good, experienced editors to the project, not because I think we are anywhere close to "good." Montanabw 04:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School

14 votes, Nominated January 4, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by February 1, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Such a basic core topic should not be this meager. Davodd 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is in need of many more sources. --Kukini 22:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell

9 votes, Nominated January 20, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by February 10, 2007 Overdue
Support

Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 15:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 23:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|K.Z|Z.K| Do not vandalize... 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Badbilltucker 16:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T // 11:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Silence 06:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 19:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 11:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A hugely important article in a really huge mess. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 15:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the concept of 'hell' has incredibly important cultural & religious significance. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 19:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (fictional guidebook)

2 votes, Nominated February 4, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by February 11, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

I nominated this article because I believe it is on an important topic (or at least to HG2G fans), and it needs serious improvement Ninety^wazup?^{Review me}_{My ToDo} 00:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really not a good thing if it would only interest H2G2 fans (I am one), see WP:CRUFT. However, I do believe that the article could be expanded. –Llama man 00:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is that a vote or a comment? If it's a vote, please update the counter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nineteenninetyfour (talk • contribs).
    - It's a comment. –Llama man 03:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - HG2G itself is a very important topic, the fictional guidbook that forms the title deserves proper recognition. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peace

14 votes, Nominated January 21, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by February 18, 2007 Overdue
Support

Goldfritha 19:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 14:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—EdGl 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
S .D. ¿п? § 02:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T // 11:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 02:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YankeeDoodle14 03:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
--Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 22:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 08:49Z
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 11:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Umalee 20:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

This article seems to be rather narrowly focused, especially for so broad a topic. Goldfritha 19:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already working on it a little. Really needs help. —EdGl 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give peace a chance (for the ACID nomination)! YankeeDoodle14 03:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Aerial warfare

9 votes, Nominated January 26, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by February 16, 2007 Overdue
Support

RJH (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 21:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defy 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CG 11:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 16:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
→Ed Gl 23:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 05:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chastity Marks
Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

During the past century, aerial warfare has played an increasingly important role in the resolution of conflicts. So the topic deserves a high quality article. This page has undergone a decent amount of development, but it is still only a B-class article and lacks references. RJH (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jet fighters are mentioned, but they deserve a section or two to themselves. →Ed Gl 23:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently in the USN and am quite astonished that there is no mention of the aircraft of the Marines and Navy. There is no mention of the first jet airplanes such as the A-1 Triad or the first jet flight. Also, I have worked on electronic attack aircraft and there are no mention of these as well. There is a plethora of types of aircraft and should be mentioned or linked to this artictle. Chastity Marks09:53,, 02 February 2007 (UTC)

Border

8 votes, Nominated January 28, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by February 18, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Miserable for such a common topic; looks extremely stubbish. Should have a major expansion! - SpLo T // 06:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty

23 votes, Nominated January 13, 2007; needs at least 24 votes by February 24, 2007 Overdue
Support

futurebird 20:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kukini 21:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LordHarris 00:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 04:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terence Ong 04:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crocodile Punter 13:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zreeon 00:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultramarine 20:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goldfritha 01:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Castellanet 06:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller 11:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
T.C. Craig
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 02:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Metroid 14:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 08:52Z
bibliomaniac 1 5 01:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
XavierV 15:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 21:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Black Falcon 06:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Australian Matt 06:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

(Important global topic. Article is long, but confusing and disorganized.) futurebird 20:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I also think that it has become too much of a POV battleground as it stands today in wikipedia. Perhaps there should be a new article on the diverging views of the causes of poverty? --Kukini 21:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cause and effect sections need to be reworked into narratives or removed, since the lists are just POV. Castellanet 06:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
futurebird really summed it up.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 02:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The cause section needs to bring up all different kinds of theories about poverty such as classic liberal and socialistic likewise. As it is now it is just an alarmist's agenda screaming out their POV. Lord Metroid 14:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to develop on the historical dimension of poverty, and also on the point of view of the poor themselves XavierV 15:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hallucination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

4 votes, Nominated February 10, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 24, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

It really needs it, this article is bad and it's an important subject. JoeSmack ^Talk 01:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Observer status (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3 votes, Nominated February 17, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by February 24, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

The article currently only discusses the practices of one organization with regard to entities with observer status. I think an interesting article could be developed on this topic, noting various groups that use "observer status" and the different rights/responsibilities that come along with it. Searching Google suggests to me that this is not a very well represented topic in the world of internet reference sites. Gentgeen 08:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castle

19 votes, Nominated January 23, 2007; needs at least 20 votes by February 27, 2007 Overdue
Support

Dweller 15:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 16:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
S .D. ¿п? § 02:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RJH (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David Edgar 11:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defy 18:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grimhelm 18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goldfritha 02:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YankeeDoodle14 03:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
LordHarris 13:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
::Supergolden:: 14:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 18:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crocodile Punter 13:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 22:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Black Falcon 05:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeendan 09:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JonCatalan 22:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Petercorless 01:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A must-have article for any encyclopedia, this is a mess. The relevant Wikiproject has only just been created and as yet has very few members. This should be a well-written, lavishly illustrated FA. Instead, it's a Eurocentric playground for people to edit war over photos of their local castle. Ugh. Dweller 15:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could the gallery be moved to the commons? — RJH (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dweller. This article follows a messy, illogical and Eurocentric style. I have left comments on the talk page, rating this article as "Start" class: Talk:Castle#Rating. --Grimhelm 18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dry season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

5 votes, Nominated February 12, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 26, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

I'm amazed that a topic of such importance about the Earth has been so neglected - this is still a stub! Definitely in need of expansion. H4cksaw (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auction Chant

1 vote, Nominated February 23, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by March 2, 2007 Overdue
Support

GSGold 02:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is actually a fairly interesting topic for an article, but it's in such terrible shape that there's no way anyone can learn anything. Needs Wikified, probably completely rewritten (seems copied off some page), and...well, a whole lot. GSGold 02:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drink

23 votes, Nominated January 22, 2007; needs at least 24 votes by March 5, 2007 Overdue
Support

Badbilltucker 17:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LamarChan 23:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Iotha 00:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 16:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
S .D. ¿п? § 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T // 11:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defy 18:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Silence 06:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 21:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amphytrite 01:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 04:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 11:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Umalee 20:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC) I've added a stub template. Hopefully this will attract people who might be able to change the "article" from a list to an actual article.[reply]
Jammy Simpson | Talk | 15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 01:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Switchercat ^talk_cont 01:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Black Falcon 06:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 23:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Twerbrou 13:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--The preceding comment was signed by Us e r:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 09:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeltz talk 16:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
岩崎会話 01:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This article is included in a release version of Wikipedia, and has even been cited as a source in a United States court case, and it is currently just a stub. Badbilltucker 17:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D:! Bad! Core article! Needs major cleaning! And its just one big list! Bad! Bad! Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 21:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. This is almost a sin. Amphytrite 01:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia | The Sum of all Human Knowledge

22 votes, Nominated February 5, 2007; needs at least 24 votes by March 19, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

The reason for this nomination is: Wikipedia is planning to make a paper release version very soon after the CD release.

"This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia."
"This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0."

This article was reviewed by The Guardian on October 24, 2005.
Comments: It was rated 5/10. However, as noted below, they reviewed an earlier and somewhat different version of the article, and the results of that review are controversial in the Wikipedia community
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

--Parker007 02:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disneyland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

6 votes, Nominated March 6, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by March 20, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Surely the happiest place on Earth deserves a happy ending... bibliomaniac 1 5 06:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never visited there, we drove around and thought is was so small compared to Disney World(it really is a Small World after All), but this is the place that started it all. Prior to Disneyland, there were no Theme Parks! Walt Disney wanted to improve the image of the common Amusement Park to something better, they did not have a good image or the quality that is more common today. Kidsheaven 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My family is a bunch Disney-o-philes. This article needs a yeoman's attempt to wikify and get it to FA rating!--Magi Media 06:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Amphytrite 02:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2 votes, Nominated March 25, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by April 1, 2007 Overdue
Support

Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 03:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Themcman1 16:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is an important A-class article (which recently obtained GA status) that needs help on it's final stretch to FA! As the article says "Worldwide revenues for MMORPGs exceeded half a billion dollars in 2005, and Western revenues exceeded $1bn in 2006." If that does not show the video game genre to be important, what does other than the fact that this article has been cited by the BBC three times?! Please help out, we're almost at FA! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

13 votes, Nominated March 14, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by April 11, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

A core topic, but the article failed to pass the GA criteria. BorgQueen 01:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Latin is colloquially extinct, and it's already at GA. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tyrannosaurus is completely extinct, and it's a featured article! Dekimasu よ! 10:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably the most important language in the world of the past century. Kaiser matias 20:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Students Islamic Organization of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1 vote, Nominated April 4, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by April 11, 2007 Overdue
Support

Nathanww 22:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

An article that currently is basically an advertisement but which could be salvaged Nathanww 22:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now a redlink. mirageinred 20:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dog meat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1 vote, Nominated April 7, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by April 14, 2007 Overdue
Support

BorgQueen 15:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

One of the most controversial edibles in modern times. Being about a controversial topic the article needs to be well cited, but it seems to have a lot of unreferenced claims and probable original research. Worth a group effort. BorgQueen 15:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoplifting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2 votes, Nominated April 11, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by April 18, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Fairly important article that needs a lot of work. It has been linked from Digg once, not in the best light. ("wikipedia teaches you how to shoplift!") cohesion 02:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3 votes, Nominated April 11, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by April 18, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

There's only two FA for ice hockey articles, out of thousands. The premier ice hockey league in the world should be at that level. Kaiser matias 06:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]