Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2006

F-16 Fighting Falcon

I have suggested this article as it is about an impressive and important vehicle and is a very well written article. User: Tom walker, 26/01/06 19:01 GMT

• Object - A nice article, but see Convair B-36 for an example of a featured article on an aircraft. This one needs some references, and some sort of infobox to collect all the information in the section "Specifications" would also be a good idea (although I see Convair B-36 does not have one). Some section are rather list-y (again, compare the amount of prose in Convair B-36). -- ALoan (Talk) 20:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object, agree that the article needs more prose, and also needs to cite references and have inline citations. AndyZ 20:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• ObjectComment There are no inline citations or references, most of the arment details could be placed into an info box for easier reading. In all honest this should have gone through a peer review before coming here, but thats my opinion. TomStar81 01:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)23:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object - The text needs editing. The sections should be broken up more. Development history is a bit informal, not enough dates. Nominate it for a peer review, I suggest. Guapovia 09:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I submitted F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and have subsequently edited it many times to deal with every minor error, and yet I get no votes for the article(although one conditional support). Frankly I would support this article, had I not already witnessed the bias against Aircraft articles. And the B-36 is nowhere near as good as either the F-16 or the F-35 article IMHO. --The1exile 21:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I am as anti-aircraft as a rabbi is anti-Semitic.

) I live for aviation. Aircraft are my life. There's a Wikiproject for Aircraft - I'm a member of it. Join up, we'll give you a hand, or if it's a great article, we'll support it to the ends of the earth. How's that? Guapovia 15:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I would like to point out that bias here is not limited to the fighter plane articles. I would support this article, the information is good and the pictures are awesome; however, I can not overlook the two points I raised. Out of respect for the fact that this was not peer reviewed I decided to give the nominator the benifit of a doubt and changed my object to a comment. TomStar81 23:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This article seems perfectly fine to me. However, it's not outstanding - yet. I'd support the earlier comment that the article would benefit greatly from citing its sources. In addition, a 'service history' section describing how the F-16 has performed in combat would be a nice addition. Photos of some of the different variants (especially the advanced versions currently under construction) would also be nice - the pictures of the Thunderbirds are, IMO, a waste of space as these are not operational aircraft. --Nick Dowling 10:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Olga Rudge

Yet another cool page authored by Giano. This biography of a talented and successful concert violinist, the life companion for almost fifty years of the poet Ezra Pound, is comprehensive, well-referenced and well-written, and maintains a delicate balance between Rudge's own achievements and her (more famous) relationship with Pound. Disclosure: I've done a superficial copyedit. Bishonen | talk 19:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

• Oppose. It is recommended that articles go for peer review before being nominated for featured article, and this one hasn't. It's written in an inappropriate tone, of which the lead is the best example. "A gifted and successful musician, her considerable talents and fame have been eclipsed by those of her lover in whose shade she appeared content to remain." It is not up to us to label her "a gifted and successful musician", and much less to judge that her lover eclipsed her. This is original research. Also, this article is really about Ezra Pound, not about Rudge. I would favor merging into Ezra Pound. JoaoRicardo^talk 20:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, I don't agree (obviously). It's not a contentious claim that Pound is better known than Rudge, or even that she's best known as his mistress. These facts are in the common domain, they're treated as self-evidently true in all biographical commentary on Rudge. Also, the Lead may not be the best section to exemplify supposed Original Research from; the Lead is a summary of the article as a whole, it repeats and condenses points that are made at more length further down, and sourced inline further down (hopefully, and if they're points that require inline sourcing). There's room for disagreement here, no doubt, but for myself I don't see any advantage in uglifying the lead by inlining the sources for the same facts there as well, in what would inevitably be a crowded way. But perhaps you also have examples from the rest of the article of statements that you consider OR ? That could be very helpful, so it would be great if you could mention anything like that. I don't quite know what to make of the suggestion of merging with Ezra Pound; looking at that article, a very well-written and well-balanced one (largely the work of Filiocht), it just seems to me obvious that a merge would utterly unbalance it, making it be half about Pound, half about Rudge. Or do you mean the Rudge bio needs to be jettisoned — not be in Wikipedia at all — and anything about Pound in Olga Rudge merged into Ezra Pound? I have to say I don't see the advantage. Could you please explain a bit more? Bishonen | talk 13:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC).
    • Bishonen, I am sorry if I didn't make myself clear. When I wrote above "This is original research", I was refering to that specific sentence, and not to the whole article. I agree that it is a fact that Pound is better known than Rudge (I hadn't heard of her myself), but I don't think this allows us to say that Pound "eclipsed" her. To me, this sounds like there was some competition, or as if she was frustrated about the situation. That's why it sounds more like an opinion than a fact. And about her talent, please see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. As for merging, what I would prefer is that this article be about Olga Rudge. If there is no information in Olga Rudge's life that is both notable and unrelated to Pound, then I don't see any reason to give her an article. JoaoRicardo^talk 16:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Regarding your point of the "eclipse" the article states in the lead that she did not appear frustrated by the situation: "in whose shade she appeared content to remain". Her "talent" is fully referenced. I think also that term is also justified by her continuing to fill leading European concert halls in Europe for years. That alone makes her worthy of an article. Like many "good women behind the man" her life is inextricably linked with that of her partner, but there is also a lot of information there about her - her revival of Vivaldi for instance, her concerts, her behaviour towards her child, her life after Pound's death. I have been very careful to only state referenced facts - but I hope this article gives people an interest or an idea about a very enigmatic, little known but interesting woman who inspired what many feel was a great poet - and also achieved a few worthy things of her own in the musical world. Giano | talk 21:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I believe the fact still remains that talent and eclipse are matters of opinion, not fact. If there is anything notable to say about her that does not concern Pound, please say it in the article, not here. As it stands, I don't see any reason to have an article on her. JoaoRicardo^talk 16:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Are you seriously suggesting that a successful female concern violinist who performed to paying audiences from 1916 to the Second World War, including leading a revival of the works of Vivaldi, is notable only as the mistress of her more-famous man friend, and that all of this article should be incorporated into Ezra Pound? And you are the one saying it is original research to say that he eclipsed her (despite admittedly, like many of us, never having heard of her but being aware of him)! Her relationship with Pound lasted for around half of her life, from 1920 or 1923 to 1972, so it is hardly surprising that he is a large part of her life, particularly her more active younger years. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Thanks ALoan could not have put it better myself. Can I just say I am delighted Bishonen nominated Olga. I had never heard of Olga Rudge either until a chance remark I heard in Venice over Christmas. I bought a couple of books and wrote the page up over the Christmas holidays. FA or not, this was a break from my usual stuff and a bit of fun. I am thrilled she is at last getting some deserved publicity (and yes that is my POV). Seriously she is worthy of an article,and I am very surprised that people feel (whatever the page's faults) the article does not convey that. Giano | talk 19:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm noticing a bit of agressiveness here. ALoan, what I am saying is that this article, as it currently stands (or rather as it stood when I last read it a few days ago) has more to say about Ezra Pound than about Olga Rudge. The article on Wikipedia which covers information on this poet is located at Ezra Pound. Is Rudge article-worthy? I have no idea, since I know nothing about her except what's stated in the article. But if she is article-worthy, the article, in my view, fails to establish that. Forgive me if I seem rude, but I think this discussion is goind round and round with everyone (including me, by force of the circunstances) just repeating their arguments. Maybe we should agree to disagree? JoaoRicardo^talk 14:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
            • I just do not understand your argument. The article is exactly as it was when nominated, and gives a great deal of information about her. She is extremely worthy of an article. Could you just read it again, perhaps it did not download properly on your screen last time. Giano | talk 14:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, too: I haven't gone through all of the article, but it's a bit ... wrong ... to go claiming "original research" on a set of adjectives in the lead. The lead is an introduction and overview. Inasmuch as the article provides the evidence (she appeared in the concert hall, was praised by other serious musicians), it's not exactly original research to summarize by saying that she was a talented musician up in the lead. I understand disquiet over attendant fame, but I don't think this is attendant fame. She was a centerpoint in the salon culture of expatriots, and, although she hasn't been remembered very well, she's no less famous than Sylvia Beech, for example, and we'd never want Vivian Eliot merged in with T. S. Eliot. Geogre 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Apparently, we don't want Vivian Eliot here at all. ;) Please see my reply to Bishonen above. JoaoRicardo^talk 16:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I like it, but as a relatively new page, only a couple of weeks in its expanded form, I have to say I think it would benefit from a period on WP:PR. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Retina

This article is informative and helpful and appears stable; it is also well organized, readable, and well cited. Therefore I nominate it as a candidate featured article. zowie 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Needs inline citations for starters. Gflores ^Talk 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. There are no inline citations and too many lists that should be converted to prose. Research has to be expanded. Plus, this article should've gone through Peer Review first. AndyZ 23:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Stellar article with solid information. It needs references, but it doesn't need one style over another (dang it, folks, get over your hobgoblins). Parenthetical references would be fine. Object until the bibliography is cited in some form or another. Geogre 16:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Will be happy to support - when it has a reference section. Good interesting article Giano | talk 16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Needs to have lists converted to prse, and needs to have a seperate refernces section. Also, some sections seem too short and should be merged together or expanded, as the lead section should be. RyanGerbil10 16:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comments - I assume the "Bibliography" and some or all of the "External links" are References? If so, please create a References section. The prose is choppy in parts (the short paragraphs in the "Diagnosis and treatment" section could be usefully consolidated and/or expanded), and the lists in the sections "Retinal anatomy" and "Diseases and disorders" could also be expanded a little. Otherwise, a nice, concise article. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment per Giano. Will support with references section. Good article. Metta Bubble 02:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• supportwell written, imformativeAnlace 04:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Not self-nom. I think the article is comprehensive and well-referenced, and it provides a lot of good information. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It does seem comprehensive, and well-referenced, but that last point is there... it provides a LOT of good information. I think it might be a good idea to trim the article down using summary style, and move the deleted information to sub-articles linked from the main one. On the other hand, I don't really have suggestions for exactly WHAT to remove, so this isn't a vote, but just a thought/general suggestion. Fieari 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. At first glance, it looks to be a decent and informative article. However, there's a few glaring style and technical issues that need to be dealt with, as they'll prevent this article from reaching featured status regardless of how solid the content itself is.
  • References: You ought to write an article using in-text references. Although there is no set standard as to how it should be done, the most popularly used ones are Harvard style, footnotes, and embedded HTML links. The use of {{inote}} is also surfacing and can be acceptable. Personally, I'm a fan of using {{ref}} tags for footnotes. Whatever the case - they have to be there.
  • Copyright Status: Image:FDR Wheel Chair.jpg does not have a copyright tag on it. Often, users upload their own photos and release them under, for example, a {{GFDL-self}} tag. However, we can't assume that's what Boshtang wanted when he uploaded the photo. Find a copyright tag, or remove the photo. Image:FDR0415.JPG could use a update to its copyright status as well; it's using a now deprecated Fair Use tag.
  • Length: The suggested article length is 32 KB, and this article is 85 KB long. While that's no reason to oppose a candidacy, there's some sections in here that could undoubtedly use summary style better. The New Deal has it's own article - insert a main article tag under the subheading. Pearl Harbor has an excellent article - do the same thing. With someone as important as FDR, I know it's virtually impossible to trim things down like this, and I certaintly wouldn't want to remove entire sections and place them elsewhere. It might do better to trim off a little bit of the fat, however. -Rebelguys2 03:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Article is definetly too big. Pushing it below 50 Kb does not seem like an unreasonable objection as per the idea of summary style. The amount of references cited is also completely overwhelming. I count 57 in total and not a single footnote (I usually complain about too many of them). It's also unclear exactly what "Secondary sources" actually means. Have these sources been used to reference the article or just to reference the "Primary sources"? If all have actually been used directly for writing the article, there's definetly too much double-referencing. If not, remove the ones that aren't needed to support facts in the article. Making a short "Further reading" might be advisable to keep a list of the more relevant sources.
• When/if providing the article with notes or inline citations, please keep in mind that the idea is not to reference every single fact statement in the article, but rather only that which is obscure or controversial. So what Roosevelt did and didn't know in advance about the attack on Pearl Harbor is controversial and should most likely be footnoted, pointing out that he was born in Hyde Park or that he had polio should not. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good to me. WikiFanatic 00:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not sourced. Sure, there is a list of books and papers at the end of the article, but how are we to know what statements in the article they apply to, if any? Everything needs to be properly sourced --footnoted. Also, informatin is being censored. For example, I noted in the article that FDR ordered private gold of Americans to be turned in for paper money (under threat of imprisonment) and a couple people are deleting it. People are deleting whatever tarnishes the Roosevelt myth. Sourcing, and RESPECT for sourced information would help. RJII 16:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hand-colouring

Self-nomination. This article sprang from the Felice Beato article and it connects the work of quite a number of (mostly) 19th century photographers. It's a subject that seems self-evident at first but that is actually fairly surprising, with interesting historical and technical aspects. It's a subject that is also easily confused with several other photographic practices/techniques and I think the article helps to distinguish between them. Redwaffle started the article but most of the work is my own. Pinkville 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object, good article but still too short, IMO. Better suited for the "good" articles list perhaps? Phoenix2 19:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestions as to where/how it could be expanded? I thought it said pretty much what could be said on the subject. Pinkville 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

For starters, there's nothing about hand-coloring in black-and-white motion pictures (like the gold coins in Greed or the pink smoke in High and Low, among many others). Andrew Levine 21:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As the first paragraph suggests, the article is primarily about hand-colouring in photography. Pinkville 21:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Lead needs to be expanded. AndyZ 23:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. As stated above, the article leaves out all mention of the practice of hand-colo(u)ring frames for movies, and so fails criteria 2b. Andrew Levine 03:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Just because the first paragraph in the article says it only relates to photography does not mean that it is okay. If this is an article concerning the entire process, then it should include all of the information available. As it stands now, the article is not comprehensive unless it includes all applications of the process. RyanGerbil10 16:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Lead is too short. ^KILO-_LIMA 18:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, let's see if I (and/or anyone else) can add text regarding hand-colouring in other art forms besides photography. That should lengthen the lead paragraph at the same time. Pinkville 19:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act, Title II

Self-nomination. I've already nominated this once at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USA PATRIOT Act, Title II/archive1, but there were concerns about the fact that it expanded too far, but still had stub templates on it (sorry, my bad! I thought I'd have it done by the end of the FAC... sorry all). As it turns out, Title II is an immensley controversial part of the USA PATRIOT Act. I have just finished documenting significant commentary on the Title.

I'd like to make this a featured article. It's certainly comprehensive enough! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OK folks, I'm out of ideas on how to reduce the article further. I've cut it almost in half from 150KB to 80KB... it's the Patriot Debates stuff that is affecting it. Anyone else know how to sort this out? I have to say, I've never been in a situation where I put an article up to FAC that was this big! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article. Alphax ^τεχ 13:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support! (after edit-conflict)- great article, never thought that such a subject could have such a lot of information! effeietsanders 13:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctantly Object - This page is 150 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size. I'm sorry, it needs to be split into more than one page (perhaps "Controversies surrounding the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II", "Detailed contents of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II", etc.) and then rewritten to no more than 50kb per summary style. - Cuivienen 14:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctantly Object I have to agree with Cuivienen; this is like reading a text book, not an article. Rlevse 15:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cuivienen did not argue that it was like reading a text book, he was objecting to the length of the article. Your "reads like a textbook" argument could apply to quite a few FA articles, incidently. By all means, however, if you feel you can modify the wording a bit be my guest. Just remember that you need to keep it neutral. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object Simply way too long. And nothing about the subject precludes having a standard size overview article and leaving more detail elsewhere. This is one title of one country's single act. Ok it's important, but a 30kb overview would do it much more justice. - Taxman ^Talk 19:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Have created Detailed breakdown of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, however the article is still 115KB! Will try to split the USA PATRIOT Debates article... - Ta bu shi da yu 00:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written. TomStar81 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object—I know you've seen Wikipedia:Summary style before, but it's important. At the very least create Commentary on the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II and move the commentary section there. Summarize it in this article with no more than a paragraph or two per section, hitting the high points. The rest of it looks pretty concise. The level two section "Sections" is 39kb, plus the summary section, plus the lead, plus say 10kb for the commentary, and you're looking at 60kb, max. Extra points for getting it down to 50; I think it's possible. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, fair enough. I've started splitting it... the Patriot Debates section needs summarising, which I'm doing right now. This could take a bit... but rest assured I'm getting it done! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I have always bristled at people who object to articles on length, the length limit on Wikipedia is outdated and needs to be brought into line with the current technological possibilities of today's web browsers. RyanGerbil10 16:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I will never object to an FAC due to the number of kilobytes of an article. However, I will object to articles that are too long. There's a difference. My objection has nothing to do with the technical limitations of web browsers. It has everything to do with accessibility. If I wanted to read a textbook on a topic, I would go to the library and get a textbook. If I want an encyclopedia article, I'll come to wikipedia. Information is worthless if it isn't accessible, and encyclopedias make it easy to access the most important information. Throwing a 150kb article at someone who wants an overview is horrible—some kid writing a 1 page essay on this section of the Patriot Act doesn't want a 40 page document to parse through. It'd take over an hour to read this. Write an overview, put the details on another page, and everyone's happy. --Spangineer (háblame) 17:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Out of interest, did you actually read the article? It was divided up like this: 1. lead section, very short but quite comprehensive, 2. Summary. Very readable, condensed form of the title. 3. Commentary. Necessary for NPOV, the Patriot Debates was too long, granted. 4. Detailed breakdown of each section. A reader need only read the lead and the first section to grasp the Act. For more detailed understanding, they can read on. To understand a particular section, they go to the section! Anyway, I've split the article: the detailed section is now in it's own article, with a {{main}} pointing to it. I've also attempted to split the Patriot Debates part into its own article, but am finding that tough going: the last few debates were quite detailed and lengthy (especially that of section 218), its hard to summarise any further! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't read it thoroughly, but looked over the structure and I had noted the things you point out. I agree that the commentary section is necessary, but I'm trying to think of ways to make it shorter. I'll read through it when I get a chance, but have you thought of organizing it by section, instead of by commentator? It might make it possible to condense further. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps this nomination should be withdrawn until the new (and apparently, massive) revision is finished. I note the removal of what was originally main content of the article (a section by section discussion of the Title), and a "This article is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while " tag (placed inside the article) that I first noticed yesterday. Also, the extension of this Title expires in the next week; depending on the new situation after that, changes, possibly significant, will be required (particularly as the new version of the article is focussed more on the controversiality and general reaction). --Tsavage 20:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've split it as much as I can. If someone wants to step forward and assist, please be my guest! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The "American Bar Association" section is still far too long. Coverage of each section should be 2-3 sentences each with maybe two 5-sentence paragraphs for Section 218. Everything else should be moved into the child article. It's still not a summary though the most pedantic details are gone. That said, good job on cutting it down by 70kb. - Cuivienen 22:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Cheers, I'll keep on trying... incidently, the article is 80KB, not 70... :( - Ta bu shi da yu 02:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Minor object. Too picture light - please add some more. The following is not an object, but a comment: this is a current event - and I've seen articles been voted down because of that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For sure... I'd like to action, only what are appropriate images? Current event... OK. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• strongly oppose important topic, but fails in NPOV with emphasis on groups opposing patriot act. also sentence structures awkward and way too much incorrect grammar.Anlace 05:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? It's about half and half opponents and proponents! Please point to incorrect grammar: I will correct it. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

French fries

A well-written article on a hunger-inducing topic. (Ibaranoff24 04:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

• Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 04:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC))
• Object. Interesting, but I don't think it quite meets FA requirements yet. -- darkliight^talk 05:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Very short lead section
• Citations should be added and the dictionary citations should be changed
• Poor grammer throughout (eg. "Some feel that the word "french" in "french fries" is refers to...")
• Lots of repetition in the Name and History sections.
• With a good introduction, History should probably be the first section.

• Object. Articles has no references or footnotes. Also, some sections are very small, and there is little order or reasoning to the inclusion or sequencing of sections. Needs to be reffered to Peer Review first. RyanGerbil10 05:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Send for peer review. - Mailer Diablo 18:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object - There are no references of any kind, lead is far too short. ^KILO-_LIMA 18:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• object stronglypoor article. overuse of quote marks. no references. trivial topic.Anlace 04:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of these objections. However, I don't think the topic is trivial. Fried potatoes are part of just about every cuisine, worldwide. If the article were of a higher quality, it would be worthy of 'featured article' status. Zeno Izen 17:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Rhodesia

1. Support Quite a bit of work has been done recently to this article, much by BScar23625 (talk · contribs). Contemporary relevancy to Zimbabwe. Wizzy…☎ 08:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The Some Publications section needs to be renamed and probably split out as per the naming standards at Wikipedia:Citing sources to make it clear which of the listed publications, if any, are used as references. Because of this issue, the article's references are questionable at best. In addition, the artice has no form of inline citations. The article also needs to do a better job defining its terms. An example of this is the term (abbreviation?) OAU which is used serveral times but not defined. --Allen3 ^talk 22:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Needs a references section and footnotes. RyanGerbil10 00:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Following everyone else above about references and inline citations. The lead also needs to made larger. AndyZ 00:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments regarding references noted. Please bear in mind that much of this is too old to be contemporary to today's Internet, and too new to be studied as a 'dead language' by scholars. Books have been written, but they make poor reference targets, as they are verifiable by only a few. I think the lead section succinctly summarises the subject. Wizzy…☎ 18:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object.. Doesn't have enough 'meat' to it. - G^t 11:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object, refs should be tied directly to the article using ref/note system. If the pubs listed are old, find newer ones.Rlevse 18:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a quick note, the ref/note system doesn't have to be implemented; see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#New_inline_citation_style_available, which also shows how ref tags can work. There are also other ways of using inline citations. AndyZ 21:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

True, let me rephrase that to inline citations and footnotes.Rlevse 14:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Cult film

A very well-written and researched article on an interesting topic. (Ibaranoff24 22:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC))

• Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 22:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC))
• Object for the follwing reasons: 1) Has no references or inline citations as required by criteria 2c of the Featured article criteria. 2) The lead at one sentence long does not summerize the topic or prepare the reader for more detail later in the article (criteria 3a). 3) Image:Rocky Horror Picture Show Cover.jpg contains no copyright information or fair use justification. A more detailed review of the article is pending these issues and the issues listed on the article's talk page related to removal from the good articles list having been addressed. --Allen3 ^talk 22:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  I added the "DVD cover" tage for the image in question. (Ibaranoff24 02:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC))

• Object - Lead is far too short. Additionally, much of the article consists of those lists... there are more names of famous actors and directors it seems than actual discussion of the concept and phenominon, which makes me believe that this article is not comprehensive. Fieari 23:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Agree with Fieari, the lead is short and the article has too many lists. Also, there is no references section. RyanGerbil10 06:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object for the very reasons that I had delisted it from the GA list before: lead is to short, no references of inline citations, and weak writing. The article again jumps around from topic to topic without explaining or going thoroughly. Plus, it didn't go through Peer Review yet. AndyZ 13:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Is peer review essential before an article can be featured? Aspern 16:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Not 100% essential in all cases, but when there are obvious problems with an article and no peer review was held, referral to peer review is common practise. Going through peer review first with any article trying to become featured is a very good idea... very very few articles have gotten through the process without one. Fieari 19:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere near 100% essential. Some authors like to have an article looked over by other interested editors before they nominate; others don't bother. At the highest, it is considered to be a good practice. The fact of the matter is that an article is subjected to a much greater degree of peer review on WP:FAC than on WP:PR. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object per above. Short lead and non-brilliant prose. (This unsigned comment was by Staxringold 20:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC))

Konnan

Though I have some doubts about the eligibility of this article, I have decided to nominate it in the hopes of gaining, at the least, some constructive criticism. The article in question is about an American professional wrestler of Cuban extraction who has achieved moderate fame in the USA and is somewhat more popular in Mexico. The prose seems solid and, I believe, is generally free of spelling and grammatical errors. His career is covered in detail, although, as with many contempotary biographical articles, the latter part of his life is discussed in more depth. The article has a neutral tone and cites numerous references containing a considerable amount of support information. The article is stable in that it is not frequently edited; articles about better known wrestlers such as Hulk Hogan are more frequently updated, but this makes it harder to control the quality and veracity of the article content. I would like to see this article featured as it would acknowledge the hard work of the WikiProject Professional wrestling, who have imposed uniform standards on virtually all prominent wrestling articles and have developed an extensive hierarchical category system, and would help to mitigate the contemptuous attitudes towards wrestling frequently expressed by the mainstream. Konnan has had an interesting life and a rich career that I think would make for an engaging featured article. McPhail 15:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment/Object - Any article that is eligable to exist on wikipedia is also eligible to be featured, as long as it fufils the requirements listed in the links above. That said, this one fails, at the very least, the lead intro requirement. Guidelines on wikipedia suggest that the longer the article, the longer the intro should be. I haven't really looked at the rest of the article except to compare lengths, but if more in depth review is needed, I'll come back later. Fieari 23:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Requires footnotes. Also, has too many single-sentence paragraphs and subsections, the ToC is too lengthy for an article of this length, although the length and content are not an issue. This article has the level of content and depth of a Featured Article, but needs the proper finishing touches. If these changes are made, I will change my vote, but as things stand now, this still needs some cosmetic work. RyanGerbil10 06:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Again, there are no inline citations, and the number of sections is way to great. Plus, if you're looking for constructive criticism, consider putting it up for Peer Review first before coming here. AndyZ 13:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

This article has previously been nominated for feature article, but failed.

I am re-submitting this article because every problem that it did have when it was nominate for feature article last time around has been addressed. I think the current state of the article is the best it has ever been. I used The Beatles as a blueprint for re-writing this article. Alot of sections have been summarised and explained in more detail in sub-articles. The article is now only 9 KB's over the recommended article size. Basically, everything that people said was wrong with the article has been addressed, so in theory, there should be nothing wrong with this article now. Street walker 10:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: As with some many other articles, years and months are totally overlinked. Usually, years and months should only be linked when they are part of a full date (e.g. January 28 2006). See date formatting. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Writing is still poor and of the fan magazine variet, and the article is hard to read. There is not a single inline reference. Album titles and song titles are often improperly formatted. An entire section and subpage of the article (Artistry of Michael Jackson) contains a strong bias with no proper references; it is entirely dedicated to gushing about how great the author thinks Michael Jackson is. I strongly suggest that the nominator stop renominating this article, and send it to peer review as was originally requested. --FuriousFreddy 15:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I did, and after nearly two weeks there was no replies.Street walker 22:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment→ yes, peer review has become quite delinquent. I'm gonna raise this issue. Oran

e (t) (c) (e) 23:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Needs footnotes, some of the sentences need refernces like This short film was the most expensive film ever produced at the time, with an estimated total production cost of US$17 million. Source?, as there was probaly many movies that total production cost is more than seventeen million back than, and the Artistry of Michael Jackson section should just be removed. I agree with FuriousFreedy also to sent it to peer review. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per above (refs v. nb for FACs), there is a neutrality dispute under "Artistry", it is too long (41 kb), etc. Mikkerpikker ... 21:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Regarding Artistry of Michael Jackson, as I said, I used The Beatles (which is a feature article and was featured on the main page) as blue print. The Aristry setion and sub-article is the equivalent of The Beatles#Studio style evolution and The Beatles#Influences and music. The artistry section and sub-section covers everything that wasn't said in History, or said in brief terms (e.g. his moonwalk and acclaimed dancing, his vocal technicalities, his songwriting and composing style etc.). Let me ask, if that section was cut, or maybe re-written, how would the article stand then?Street walker 22:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• oppose poorly written like a fan would write; topic is trivialAnlace 04:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. Please read Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Supporting_and_objecting and re-word your objection, or it will be overlooked. "Topic is trivial?", "poorly written?" Are these supposed to be specific and addressable points? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 05:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. It would be greatly appreciated that instead of people claiming a "fan" wrote it, they edit it themselves and re-word some parts that might seem fan bias. Also, just because someone is an admirer of a certain person, doesn't mean they can't edit that person's biography. See The Beatles, obviously written be a fan with a strong pro-Beatles POV, but no-one seems to complain about that article. Street walker 07:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You shouldn't use the Beatles article as a blue print for this article. Michael Jackson is a person, not a band; using an individuals article like Elvis Presley or Paul McCartney would be a better choice.--King G 08:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. It shouldn't make a difference. I used The Beatles as a blue print because it's a feature article. Just because they are a band doesn't mean they should be praised as Gods. Street walker 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is listed as being developed, if it is still being developed it shouldn't be given FA article status. In addision there are NPOV issues with the page. Until those are dealt with i don't think this is even a candidate for FA statusThethinredline 13:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This article is even longer than it was previously, whereas it was a nice 40 something KB at one point it is now a gargantuan 60 something KB and half the pages it links to are radically undersourced and full of incorrect and unverifiable information. It is wholly underdeveloped and completely inappropriate to add this article.--Manboobies 00:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson is a very controversial person, therefore you should expect his article to be consistently vandalised. But, within seconds, the page is returned to last known good edit, and when it is, it's a great article. The introduction is well written and brief, leaving the reader wanting to read more. The structure of the article is very good, with each major topic being broken up into appropriate sections. The pictures correspond to the information, the information is sourced and straight to the point. Everything that needs to be said is said, the good, the bad and the ugly. All in all, Michael Jackson is a great article. Street walker 13:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

• Support Yes, Ive always wanted to nominate this article. if it gets peer reviewed, it is good to go! --Karrmann

Comment. I have requested the article for peer review, so far no responses. Street walker 08:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The more article polished, the better it becomes. Given the fact that Mr.Jackson's image in probably the most distorted in the media comparing to real facts of his biography, the article deserves nomination more than probably any other of the kind. 213.158.9.31 23:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. There is only one image in the article that cited its source, doesn't lack a fair use rationale and has an appropiate copyright tag. Also; halfway the article, there are no inline reference to be seen anymore.SoothingR 16:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I must commend you; it isn't as POVd as I thought it would be. With that said, I think that it could be more concise; it's twice the preferred size. Also, apart from the reasons that I share with the above editor, there is also the issue of an overbearing TOC. There are too many headings, even some with one sentences in them "Post-trial lawsuits" and "Child abduction". If you aren't going to talk about the issue indepth, independently of the rest of the article, just mention it somewhere without creating a heading. Also a minor issue (not a valid reason to object, just a metter of convention): phrases like "#1" or "#21" are rather frowned upon, and should be written as "number one" etc. Good work however, an article like this is hard to write. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 16:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Granted, a lot of work by a lot of people has gone into the article (not to mention taking things out of the article), but it is overlong, unfocused, and too heavy with minutiae. It needs a stronger, tighter structure and a better (concise) sense of what has made Jackson of both positive and negative interest as a performer and public figure. Robertissimo 05:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Needs better focus. The ToC is unruly due to too many single-sentence paragraphs, and several pictures have either unacceptable copyright tags or no copyright tags at all. Should be put through a thorough Peer Review first. RyanGerbil10 06:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Basically what Ryan said, this needs a Peer Review first. Also, from a more personal standpoint, I always think the first image you see on bio pages should be clear (as they serve to show what the person looks like) rather than an action shot (as MJ currently has). Staxringold 20:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It just seemed better to use an action shot of Jackson because that's how is best known, as an energetic stage performer. Street walker 20:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Understood. I for one have no problem with it. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. That's fine. As I said, that was just a personal feeling. My main reason for opposing is all the stuff above, focusing on minutia and a desperate need for focus and copyediting. Staxringold 20:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, send to peer review for several reasons. (1) The POV debates currently occuring because of Street walker's edits and his ownership issues with the article (2) References and citations are poorly formated. (3) Article as it stands is not of FA quality. Sections of the text are awkward, formatting is not all consistent with Manual of Style suggestions, subject at hand is not covered in enough scope (there is too much detail on some items, and not enough on others) (4) This article is highly unstable. A few months ago, I used to have to rewrite it from top to bottom once every two weeks just to keep it readable. It still needs that biweekly rewrite, but I don't have time to do it anymore. --FuriousFreddy 02:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Would you please? The article needs a rewrite. Anyone who can help, please do so. Street walker 06:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose In its current state, this article should in no way be considered for a featured article. At the moment its not even a proper biographical article, its just a glorified discography. Needs a lot of work.--King G 05:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I do not for the life of me understand that comment you just made. A "glorified discography"??? Michael Jackson is a recording artist, ofcourse his albums and chart success should be mentioned. You and a few other users are trying to turn this article into a Michael Jackson bashing field, by getting rid of all album info and adding too much info (most of which is unverified) about his controversial personal life. It's a biography, his personal life and' musical career need to be included. Street walker 08:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Comment. I've taken all your comments on board and changed the article dramatically. It is no longer the same article, therefore it is best (for now) to take it off FA nomination. The article is shorter, and there are less headings, but because of this it is a bit jumbled at the moment and needs alot of work before it flows well. Just so you know, what has been done to the article:

• The top picture has been changed to a better picture, not only because of Staxringold's comment but because of copyright problems. The new picture is sourced and good to use.
• The whole personal life and controversies sections have been merged with the album section so that the article is stuctured more like a bio.
• Alot of information that is explained in detail in sub-articles has been cut/shortened.
• I am currently working to fix copyright problems with all the images by citing their source or replacing them with images that can be traced to a source and are free to use.

I hope you like this new version of the article better. Street walker 08:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment.Um, actually, I don't. You removed everything about the trial. I also dont particularly like the photo (the photo, however, is not a valid reason to oppose.) Oran e (t) (c) (e) 08:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment The trial definetly needs to be included, but as a split-off summary with For more information see MAIN ARTICLE ON THE TRIAL. at the top. I like the picture, but as we're all saying that doesn't swing votes. Staxringold 13:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Umm... the trial does and has always had its own article. The main article is linked to 2005 trial of Michael Jackson. That hasn't changed, and will always stay because it's an important part of Michael Jackson's life. Street walker 21:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The link in the lead to the "Alleged Child Abuse" subsection doesn't work. Links are not enough, you need to provide a summary of the material on the main page (using a different example, Timeline skew theories for The West Wing from The West Wing (television), but the stuff is still mentioned in the main article).

• Comment. Have a look at the article now. It's structured like a biography, with his musical career and personal life written up chronologically, instead of in two parts. There are now sub-articles for topics with alot of information about them. The article has really improved. Because of this, I feel the FA nom for this article should be refreshed or something because it's a totally new and improved article. Street walker 12:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Caffeine

• Oppose. Article requires proper use of inline citations and a longer lead. LD50s must be cited in terms of mg/kg/day, and mentioning the animal on which the cited value was found (usually some rodent) wouldn't hurt either. Human LD50s are most of the time conservative estimates since we cannot test lethal doses of stuff on humans. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object; underdeveloped sections (history and dangers especially), short lead, and only a few badly formatted inline citations. --Spangineer (háblame) 16:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - good information, well-written. (Ibaranoff24 22:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC))
• Object in addition to what Rune Welsh stated, article should have gone through a peer review. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Is close, but requires a more logical section ordering as well as some cosmetic work. Peer Review recommended. RyanGerbil10 07:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Family Guy

Self nomination. Here's the peer review, much of its suggestions have been taken into account. A concise, detailed, and sourced article that is relevant and is up to par with featured article criteria. -- Wikipedical 22:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: I advise you all to revisit the Family Guy page again as there as been much revision. I believe that the "fancruft" in the former 'popular culture references' section that you're refering to has been done away with, and again I believe this is Featured Article material. -- Wikipedical 02:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object Although I'm a fan of the show and sometimes contribute to the article, it's not up to FAC standards. It's far too long, contains an enormous amount of fancruft, does not cite several claims that should be cited, contains a lot of original research, and several of the external links do not follow the external link policy. Jtrost 02:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose', unbelievable levels of fancruft and original research. Andrew Levine 04:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong objection Per Jtrost and Andrew Levine. —CJ Marsicano 05:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object - I love Family Guy, but this isn't close to a Featured Aticle about it. FCYTravis 19:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support - good, well-researched article. (Ibaranoff24 21:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC))

• Strong objection. Way too many lists and useless facts. At least fifty percent of the content of this article could be excised with no loss of valuable, pertinent information. Also, for an article of this size, and level of notoriety, two references is simply not enough. Sections are arranged with no logical or coherent order, many of which should be complete daughter articles, if not simply disregarded. RyanGerbil10 07:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - This article doesn't do much justice to the show, too much of it is sourced from third parties and it isn't exactly the best written article on Wikipedia. Looks like most of it's contributions don't even doublecheck their information; there was a glaring episode name typo up there for a month before I finally decided to give in and edit it myself. Not impressed. CitrusC 17:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As per above. Also, the images seem strangely chosen, sized, and placed. Staxringold 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. You guys never support anything cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.166.167 (talk • contribs) January 24, 2006
• Object. Needs inline citations. Gflores ^Talk 07:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Because you all smell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.52.142.63 (talk • contribs) January 31, 2006

Jerimoth Hill

Found this on Wikipedia:Unusual_articles. This is a fascinating little slice of Americana. It's information like this that makes Wikipedia so much better than a paper encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldghoti (talk • contribs) 16:34, January 20, 2006 (UTC)

• Object. 1) Assertions like "Richardson became known sometimes to insult, threaten or even use violence against visitors who tried to use his road" need specific Wikipedia:inline citations. 2) Richardson's "goodwill was ultimately abused" -- how was it abused? — Matt Crypto 18:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This fascinating little slice of Americana has not been subjected to peer review, a recommendation for every FA candidate. It also has no inline citation, relies on a single source and is too short. What about geological information on this hill? This article only covers the hiking side of this. JoaoRicardo^talk 20:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Just because it is fascinating or interesting doesn't mean it should become a FA. Meets nearly none of the FA criteria. AndyZ 20:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too short, and too few references. What we've basically got here is one section of what a Featured Article on this subject might look like. We need more information: a full history of the location, geological details of the hill, etc. See Mount Pinatubo and Mount St. Helens for examples of what Featured Articles on mountains look like; perhaps you can extrapolate from there. — BrianSmithson 14:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hoi polloi

Partial self-nomination - concise, yet complete, coverage of the topic. Well written, well referenced, with free image accompanying. Johntex\^talk 01:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Feels very short. There should also be a mention of the common misuse of the phrase to mean its antonym, i.e. to refer to the social elite. Andrew Levine 01:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, thanks for checking out the article and for the edits you made to it. You are absolutely correct about the need to include the common misuse of the phrase. I will add that info tomorrow. As to the length, I feared this objection might come up. However, I hope that size will not be a final disqualifier if the article is found to be complete. (As a counter-example, I have seen so many articles get criticized for being longer than they need to be). Thanks again for your constructive comments. Johntex\^talk 01:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Brevity is a virtue. I especially liked the original quotations from Byron. alteripse 02:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object; I'm not opposed to a short article getting featured, but this one needs some improvements. First major problem is using a listserv post for a reference. I can't think of any reason to do that, but if there is a reason for that, let me know. Also, the quote by Lord Bryon is a little weird there at the end, referring to the image and the words in greek. Either replicate the greek letters or "translate" them into English. The usage in literature should be expanded—it shouldn't just encompass the first uses, but also more recent uses. What were the dates for all of those quotes? Avoid links in headings. Do you have examples of the phrase being used incorrectly since the 1950s? Sorry for the fragmented suggestions, ask me for clarifications if needed. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Has not been subjected to peer review, is too short, and I would actually stick a move to Wiktionary tag in it. JoaoRicardo^talk 20:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Does wiktionary take entries describing a word's use in literature? That would surprise me, but I don't know much about that project. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no idea, but if it doesn't, that would surprise me. Uses in literature are a feature of lots of good dictionaries. Anyway, uses in literature is indeed included in dictionary entries, which doesn't help this article in trying not to be one. JoaoRicardo^talk 21:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. A "section" which consists of one bullet point? Sorry, no. Mark¹ 17:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Sections are rather short, links generally don't appear in section headings, and lead is short. Also, there are too many lists. AndyZ 13:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Basically consists of a bunch of quotes with a little historical background but little else to string them together. The part about Dead Poets Society doesn't even include any real discussion. And one example from one film gets a section all its own? Surely more can be said on this topic. — BrianSmithson 14:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose This is not up to snuff. Too many bullets and short paras. A section of one bullet? Use prose. Also, there should be a dab line at the top noting that Hoi Polloi was the title of a 1935 short by the Three Stooges (thanks to Coffeeboy on that one). Rlevse 18:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Gross Domestic Product

A highly informative article which is well written, near complete, and fully wikified and formatted. An important subject not well-understood by many. --Christopher 15:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Has no references as required by criteria 2c of the Featured article criteria. --Allen3 ^talk 15:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Concur with Allen; no references; lead is way to short; too many lists. AndyZ 20:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object; no references, no inline citations, excessive bold, underdeveloped sections, and lists that should be prose. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Short lead, no references. Too many lists, need converting into prose - Generally needs cleaning up, probably copyediting as well. Refer to peer review. — Wackymacs 19:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Australia at the Winter Olympics

Self-nomination. The history of Australia at the Winter Olympics from a 1-man team in 1936 to a golden games in 2002. It has received a brief peer review. It could serve as an article to feature some day during the 2006 Winter Olympics. Andjam 10:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's too short, I'm afraid. The lead section is too brief, and almost every section is too short for an FA. It really does need more detail across the board. Ambi 10:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you think adding material from the sub-pages of "Australia at the (year) Winter Olympics" will make it long enough, or do you think I'll have to add some more research? Thanks, Andjam 10:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the information seems to be there, but you might have to do some more on top of that. Incidentally, it'd be nice if the individual Olympics pages were linked in the article (perhaps a template?) - I'd completely forgotten they existed until you mentioned that. Ambi 11:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I developed a template after seeing someone do one for Australia at the Summer Olympics, but didn't really think of using it on the main page. Do you think it should be placed at the very bottom, or above some of the "boring stuff"? Andjam 11:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Very bottom, I'd say - I think it'd make a good footer. Ambi 13:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly improved, but it's still not quite comprehensive. The individual sport sections are very summary - I suspect they could still be expanded significantly, as could the paralympics section. It just needs more research, I'm afraid. Niggly minor little complaint - there's a couple of instances of people being referred to by their first names, which is a Bad Thing. Ambi 06:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the article yet but I did look at its length. White's tree frog was recently featured on the main page, and it's about as long as this article. --CDN99 15:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Presumably that'd have more pretty pictures, though. :P Andjam 09:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree that it is too short. One thing that is missing is a simple summary of the Australian medal winners: at the moment, they are scattered through the text (with 4 medals, it should not be too hard to present). Extending the table Australia at the Winter Olympics beyond 1992 would also be nice. My last suggestion is more anecdotical, but I think that the history of the first Australian Gold medal (Steven Bradbury in speed skating) deserves to be in this article. Schutz 11:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

As in a fuller description of his races that night from heats to finals? Andjam 11:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not "full description", but at least a mention that his win was a bit "accidental" (sorry, I don't want to devaluate Steven Bradbury's medal, but I cannot think of a better word for it). Schutz 12:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned the "accidental" nature of his win in the "history" section, though not in the "overview by sport" section. Though if you didn't notice it, that could indicate a problem with the article. Andjam 12:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed that (my edit was in conflict with yours). The history section could probably go first, as a general overview. I would still put a bit more information about Bradbury (the fact that he got lucky so many times in a row, 3 if I remember well), and maybe just mention it briefly in the "Speed skating" section. Schutz 12:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't you hate it? You're going along fine, and then suddenly you've collided with another wikipedian and are sliding towards the edge of wikipedia at 50km/h. Putting the history section first sounds good. I'm happy at putting more detail in about what happened, so long as I don't repeat myself too much. Andjam 09:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, with only 4 medals, and a lead section that is too short, I think it would make sense to detail the medals in the introduction. Schutz 12:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Andjam 09:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the article yet but I did look at its length. White's tree frog was recently featured on the main page, and it's about as long as this article. --CDN99 15:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the defense, though I'm happy to try to work on these suggestions. At school I sometimes had a tendency to be a bit terse with my essays. Andjam 09:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on dealing with the objections. I'd like to invite people to have another look at the article, and point out what they'd like more info on if anything. Andjam 13:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Helsinki

This Featured Article nomination is inspired by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turku/archive3. Anything Turku can do, Helsinki can do better! I feel that this article is at least as well written and informative as Turku, particularly since I and User:Gillis (well, mostly Gillis) went through it over and over again and formatted it to be more encyclopedic. It's currently the most linked-to article about a Finnish city, and its own category has the most articles and subcategories, which is only fair, as it's by far Finland's largest city. I also want to express thanks to User:Ulayiti for all the work he did on the Turku article. JIP | Talk 20:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Object. This is nowhere near Featured quality. Try Wikipedia:Peer review first? — Matt Crypto 12:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object, though I feel that this article will soon be ready for featured status if it goes through peer review. Simple redirects to main pages on things like "Politics of Helsinki" aren't enough, there needs to be at least an abbreviated discussion of the main themes found on that page, and so on. The article is nice, but it's still a few steps away from being a truly professional treatment.
• Object, agreeing with other users; No references. Sections are extremely weak, often with as little as one sentence. The article has to become much more thorough for a chance at FA status. AndyZ 20:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object, As much as i'd want to see this article that i have worked on quite a bit myself to be featured i'll have to admit it still needs a bit of work to reach FA-status, although i am certain we can do that with the help of a peer-review. And i am certainly certain we can beat Turku to it ;) Gillis 21:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The article is (literally) structurally flawed as many images and text compete for space. Peer review is imperative for this article. - Sidar 02:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

As the first completed drive of the Pokémon Collaborative Project, this article meets all of the standards here, as generally accepted by both Pokémon WikiProjects. It recently underwent a peer review (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Bulbasaur/archive2) and all actionable critisism was resolved. It is still slightly on the short side but I feel it covers the subject well and as it meets all of the standards on the FAC criteria page, I have decided to nominate this article for Featured article status (hopefully without sparking up another Pokémon debate. --Celestianpower ^háblame 12:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I have reviewed the article on request at IRC, and it looks pretty good. While, yes, the article is short, but it is very concise. There is little to no cruft in this article or any other "space filling" information. I checked the images and they all follow the Fair use policy and all have sources. If other Pokemon articles want to make it to FA status, they should follow the example that the Bulbasaur article has set. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 12:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Another Support here. The article, as pointed out by Zscout370, holds on tightly to the topic, without provision of unnecessary details. Let's have it have a go at it. -- SoothingR^(pour) 12:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well structured, well written article, perfect to be a featured article. FireFox 16:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Once again, I am supporting the article. Excellent work! —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Object. Provide a fair use rationale for the Image:Bulbasaur_TCG.jpg image, and include additional references. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Support. It's a Pokémon article, yet it is excellent! I am amazed, and it certainly deserves featured article status. However, I must note that one might want to include some additional references as to avoid the whiners on Wikipedia. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• See, us at the Pokémon WikiProject do want to make this Encyclopedia better, contrary to popular belief. --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I'm now supporting this article since my concerns have been addressed. — Wackymacs 18:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Object. Sorry but this doesn't fit the FA criteria - it is not well referenced, the in-line citations need to be converted into footnotes (see Wikipedia:Footnotes). The lead is too short. 'In other properties' section needs cleaning up (subsections removing and list converting into prose). 'Websites' subsection should be a section of its own named 'External links' per WP:MOS. 'In popular culture' section is very short, including a one sentence paragraph. — Wackymacs 16:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  I'll reply one by one:

  1. Not well referenced - what on earth do you mean? It has plenty of references. Please clarify.
  2. Inline citations - okay, I'm onto that now.
  3. Short lead - What do you think needs adding?
  4. 'In other properties' - okay - I'm onto that one too.
  5. 'Websites' section - no, they're references (IE, they were used as source/reference material in writing the article). I can add some external links if that's what you want.
  6. 'In popular culture' - Okay, what should I do about it? Merge it into the lead perhaps? That'd fix point 3 aswell.

  Thank you. --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. By not well referenced I mean there are not many references, only two book references and websites as a whole should not be listed as references as they are - they should be listed in footnote form to specific pages rather than website homepages. Subsections should not be used in the 'References' section, its already obvious which are websites and which refs are not. I'd like to see the addition of an 'External links' section if possible at all. For tips on writing a good lead, see WP:Lead, the lead should summarize the entire article and at the moment I don't think it does this. I would merge the 'popular culture' section into the lead. I also have the concern that maybe this article cannot become featured because it is very short - It's only 10K. Are you sure there isn't lots of information missing, or is this just a difficult topic?— Wackymacs 16:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've just noticed another thing: Image:Bulbasaur_TCG.jpg requires a frame and caption, and the image itself requires a fair use rationale (according to its current license tag). — Wackymacs 16:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, yes, I did not catch the image missing a copyright rationale. Therefore, I have to object to this article's nomination as of present time. Also, as I've noted above, one will absolutely, positively want to include additional references, as I figured someone would point it out (and not necessarily whine, sorry if I offended you, Wackymacs). —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Weak Support Much improved Object Does any information exist about how the character was designed, who designed it, ect? Does the biology section use information from the show or the video game or both? Also the writing needs to be copyeditied, the writing does not flow well sometimes. I think you need to put in more background about the game and show. For example,

I can't support this anymore, unless what the huge gap between the intro and the Content list is fixed. I just wish it had more information outside the Pokemon game and cartoon. MechBrowman 06:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

1. "Several Bulbasaur have appeared in the animé, although only two of them are major characters. One of them is one of the first Pokémon Ash Ketchum acquires, and the other one is one of May's Pokémon." Can be changed into: </s
2. "Several Bulbasaur have appeared throughout the animé, only two as a major characters. Pokemon's main character, Ash Ketchum, owned a Bulbasaur through much of the series. Another main character, May, had also aquired a Bulbasaur."

More general detail like this throughout the entire article would help the article flow better, especifally for people not familiar with Pokemon. Also try to avoid starting a sentence with "it", and don't say "interestingly", thats POV. Also Website references need to be written in a proper form, similar to the book references. Recent edits: McDonalds and Burger King does not belong in the intro, please put in In other properties.MechBrowman 17:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Right, okay, addressing the concerns of the above:
  1. References - now got a few more - all properly formatted. I'm searching out some more as we speak.
  2. Image copyright - a new image is being sorted. Give it a day.
  3. Lead - what more does it need? It explains why it's notable, how the name came into being and what it is.
  4. Missing information? No, at least I don't think so. Consise? Yes.
  5. MechBrowman: I don't think it does. I would assume it'd be Satoshi but that'd be a guess.
  6. Copyedit - okay - going through now.
  7. Paragraph moved.
• Anything else? --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Too bad you can't find anything about the conception of the character, if you ever do I encourage you to put it in. Copyediting is my only serious issue left, after your effort and other eyes I imagine this being fixed. One more thing is that you don't need repeat your reference listing if its been placed in Notes. Keep up the effort. MechBrowman 18:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Do I not? I was advised by User:Nichalp that I should do. --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't imagine why you would repeat the reference like that, doesn't make sense to me. Its already cited in notes. I still think they should be removed, buts its not a serious issue. MechBrowman 19:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've done my best to now expand a bit on anything I think that a lay reader may find hard to understand. Please tell me if there's anything else that needs rewording (no need to actually reword - I'll do that - but as I'm an "expert" as it were, I find it hard to pinpoint where lay readers may be confused). --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, =notes= should contain only the raw link. The reference should be formatted acording to standard references citation styles. See Geography of India and the discussion here on the =Notes= section. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support This is the most rounded and encylopedic article on any of the pokemon characters I have seen. --Alf ^melmac 18:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object; the article looks good, but I don't think there's any reason to mix footnotes and inotes here. The two should be converted into a single format (of your choice). —Kirill Lokshin 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  Right, okay. Is there any reason not to use both? I asked another user about it and he told me that that was what I should do. I mean, the inotes are for general paragraphs worth of stuff, losely based upon information found at the relevant sites and the footnotes are referencing specific facts. --Celestianpower ^háblame 23:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  There's no reason why footnotes can't be used for paragraphs as well, of course. More generally, inotes are utterly useless both on printed versions and on most mirrors, so I think their use should be limited to cases where there are too many to convert to footnotes; but this may just be a stylistic preference on my part. —Kirill Lokshin 01:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  There's no "correct reference style, but we shouldn't fall prey to using footnotes in every paragraph. W. Mark Felt is a bad example where footnotes have been used in almost every paragraph, making it awfully cluttered. Please note: inotes are citations, while refs are actually footnotes. None of the encylopedias or encyclopedic articles go overboard with footnotes. A mix of both is perfectly acceptable. See Economy of India =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  Economy of India only uses footnotes for extended explanation, not citation; and it has rather more of them in any case. But as I wrote above, this may be a stylistic preference, so I'll withdraw my objection and leave the issue of which style to use to your discretion. —Kirill Lokshin 04:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Question: Is a 10k article on Bulbasaur really comprehensive? Has this pokemon ever been in the news? What about its more evolved forms? I don't know what else could be added, but it seems like there must be more to say about such a popular character. Dave (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  A few news citations have been added. It's evolved forms have articles: Ivysaur and Venusaur. I can't think of anything else to add. If you do, please drop me a line! --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Very poorly written; almost every sentence needs surgery. Here are some examples, all but the first from the short lead:
  • 'commonly-appearing' (no hypen after -ly words)
  • 'is notable as one of the first Pokémon a player can have in the first Pokémon games' (plural for first Pokemon, please; 'have' is a bit vague; 'earliest' better than 'first')
  • 'one of the most commonly-appearing Pokémon' (see above two points, plus 'one of the' for the second time in two sentences)
  • 'one of the "lead critters" on the series' ('in', not 'on'; 'one of the' yet again)
  • 'can be construed as a portmanteau of "bulb" (regarding the large bulb on its back)'. ('regarding' is plain wrong—perhaps 'reflecting'? 'can be construed as' should be just 'is')
  • 'can be construed as a portmanteau of bulbe meaning bulb, and bizarre' (repetition—see previous point; and just look at the punctuation ...)

• Now please find someone to go through this whole text intensively, to make it 'compelling, even brilliant' prose. As it stands, we're kidding ourselves. Tony 04:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  Hmmm, well, if it's a gramatical check you want then I can definately do that - one of my friends is a complete grammar nazi so I'll ask him tio go over it later today. As to a couple of specific points, "have" is the best word for it in my opinion. I can't use catch (as it isn't caught). The player is given the opportunity to be given the Pokémon but that's horribly wordy. As to "one of the", it is. There are 3 Pokémon that the player could choose - Bulbasaur is just one. --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I addressed some of Tony's concerns. However, I feel that he may be overreacting, given his almost malicious rejection of the article's quality, which I find sufficient. Nevertheless, he does make some valid points. I'm not willing nor am I able to do a full copy-edit of the article, but one should be done. The article's content is Featured Status, regardless if it has a misplaced hyphen or apostrophe. Given the amount of editing any given article experiences, if we were to deny Featured Status due to a few punctuation errors, we should abandon Featured Articles altogether as impossible. Basic Summary: support, but someone needs to finish a copy-edit. RyanGerbil10 04:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  Response. No, it must pass all of the Criteria. If thorough critiqueing is going to be regarded as 'amost malicious', I'm afraid that WP is a spent force. In any case, you say that you find my rejection 'sufficient'. So be it. Please note that I confined my criticisms to the quality of the prose, and that at issue is more than 'a misplaced hyphen or apostrophe'. I don't doubt that in some respects the article might pass muster. Please don't be upset; I'm sorry that I've offended you, but I don't step back from anything I wrote above. Tony 05:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is a lot better than it was a few days ago; I'm not entirely satisfied with the article, but at least at the clause level it's no longer an embarrassment. Tony 12:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I wish this article had been on peer review more than 2 days. Why did you remove it? This article is maybe the best pokemon article, but it stills short and could be improved to be a more detailed and comprehensive article. CG 07:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  Yes - being "too short" isnt an FA criteria. I feel it's the right length - there may be a couple of things I can add but not that much really.

• Comment Whilst it is true that criteria have been met for inclusion in the wikipedia project, and indeed, certain referencing quibbles aside, they seem to be met for being worthy of a featured article, the heavy commercial bias of this subject matter remains. We may well be validating more than popular ephemera with this article, as it could be construed as advertising. I feel it is necessary for this point to be made, if not directly addressed. --HasBeen 08:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Bias? Advertising? What points of view have I missed? Granted, there is no criticism of Bulbasaur but there's no "bigging up" (I can't think of a better word right now) of him either. Any criticism of him is criticism of Pokémon in general. --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It's the commercial nature of the subject matter that I am highlighting. Your NPOV is very good in as much as I learn much about this "character" without having an opinion about it thrust at me. Again, this article does indeed meet with wikip's current criteria for inclusion, I am pointing out where I see potential for the project to be criticised. --HasBeen 08:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I essentially agree with HasBeen's comment. There is recurring concern over the current close and rather arbitrary connection between FA and TFA that has everything to do with how FAC functions. And when it comes to articles where there is a clear commercial component, supporting a FAC nomination has to be considered an equally strong vote for main page exposure. As it is, we are regularly putting up what essentially amounts to choice Web advertising. The recently (and, IMO, entirely wrongly) promoted Apple Macintosh comes to mind; discussion is now going on whether or not to feature it on the "birthday of the Mac", or if that coincides to closely with a Mac convention... It may be hard to get to the fine points, but some "commercial" categories are no-brainers: working entertainers and their products (actors, musicians, movies, and so forth) and current brand-name products (electronic gadgets, software) are not "traditional" encyclopedia topics and don't have reasonable references by WP standards (mostly media reports and publicity material). While I believe we should DEFINITELY have topics in abundance on WP, sticking them in with the current rest of all knowledge on FAC, and then fast-tracking them to hundreds of thousands (or millions or whatever the daily traffic is) of public impressions, is...bizarre. We ought to be able to come up with some sort of provisional policy dealing with at least the obvious categories of commercial topic: WP won't die or even feel a thing if we don't put a few FAs on the front page... --Tsavage 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sympathetic to Tsavage's argument; I think that commercial articles can be FA-worthy, but we want to make sure articles don't become advertising mechanisms... we don't want Microsoft to hire someone to work on Windows-related articles full-time and put Windows XP and Word 2003 on the front page every few days. Dave (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object--there is very little information in this article which does not come from sources pertaining to the company which makes the cards/games/etc. If we approve this, we will have to have hundreds of featured articles about individual pokemon as this template is filled into. This really isnt the best wikipedia can do. Although its not a bad overview of bulbasaur within the video game, there is little assertion of his importance outside of the video game. 69.22.42.35 09:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  Are IPs allowed to vote? I'll respond anyway. Very little of it comes from Nintendo, the inventors of the game. Outaside the video game? See the 'in the anime' section and 'in other properties' please. And anyway, what's wrong with hundreds of Pokémon FAs in a year or 2s time? We ideally want all articles to ba FAs, surely? --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  In theory, yes. But why on earth would we want an article on Pokécruft to become an FA before something of the magnitude of Simone de Beauvoir or sewing? It's not like we have a lack of punters to write articles about minor details of pop culture and hyper-commercial products... / Peter ^Isotalo 14:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  I was waiting for the word "pokecruft" to rear its ugly head. "It's not on a subject I'm interested in" isn't an FA criteria. It gets 170,000 Google hits - it's definately notable. So that's a non-argument really. You can't say that "this isn't one of the best article on Wikipedia because it's about a Pokemon, can you?". --Celestianpower ^háblame 14:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  IP and other disqualified votes are not counted by the admin who finally wades through the debate to decide whether to promote this article to FA. There exists no Wikipedia guideline about what to do with them - leave them, strike them, remove them, etc. - but people tend to be touchy about altering other people's comments, so I'd leave it be. Regardless, that argument is bunk, per Celestianpower. I'd never touch a Pokémon article myself - but that's just my opinion and I have no right to strike down others just because I'm not interested. -Rebelguys2 17:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  I think the answer to Peter's criticisms would be to put effort into developing articles such as Simone de Beauvoir and sewing towards featured quality rather than complaining about "Pokécruft" making it to the Main Page. Extraordinary Machine 18:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  Why should I? I already work on serious articles. And guess what? I find sewing pretty damned boring, and yet I don't call it cruft, because it isn't. Pokémon isn't cruft either, but writing about each inidiviudal character is. You know that as well as I do. But the one who gets the last laugh in all this is, of course, Pokémon Co. What toy maker wouldn't want this kind of coverage in a freee, non-profit encyclopedia? Peter ^Isotalo 11:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  I agree that Wikipedia's coverage on some topics (such as Pokemon) is rather excessive and needs to be improved, but from my Pokemon experience, Bulbasaur is certainly one of the more significant characters in the Pokemon canon, if not one of the most important Pokemon after Pikachu. Extraordinary Machine 13:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object.Bulbasaur appeared as a main character in Housoukyoku...., could you clarify that please, i.e. what on Earth is Housoykyoku? «LordViD» 13:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  Okay - thatwas about the manga so I've removed it. --Celestianpower ^háblame 14:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  Another thing, the ability listed, Overgrow, is taken from which Pokemon game? Or has bulbasaur's ability always been Overgrow? «LordViD» 15:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  Ever since Abilities were introduced in Pokemon Gold and Silver it has been overgorw - now clarified in the article. --Celestianpower ^háblame 17:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  Great, thanks. Support. «LordViD» 21:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Weak object. The images (apart from Image:Bulbasaur TCG.jpg) need fair use rationale, and the trading card image Image:Bulbasaur TCG.jpg appears to be bigger than the actual physical real-life trading cards (I used to collect them, I'm ashamed to say :)). Also, while this isn't part of the objection, I'd like to see some coverage of the real world impact of Bulbasaur. For example, has the character rank highly in surveys of Pokemon fans? Has there been anybody suggesting that Bulbasaur represents or characterises certain values/themes/etc., or possibly reflects events or people associated with the creator(s) of the character? Extraordinary Machine 18:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  No, the image is the same size (it was scanned).

  As to the others, I thought that screenshots, if low resolution and tagged correctly didn't need rationale - it was in the template.

  Okay - fair use rationale is on all the images. --Celestianpower ^háblame 12:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks. It's just that I've previously been instructed to add fair use rationale for every image, even if it repeats something in the image tag, as it makes a stronger claim of fair use that way. Anyway, I now withdraw my object vote. Good work! Extraordinary Machine 13:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Ken Livingstone, then United Kingdom Transport secretary, at the start of a meeting about the future of the London Circle line, says that he would trade a Geodude and Diglett for a Bulbasaur and a Charmander." This requires verification. ' 19:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  Done - I forgot to add the link - it was in references. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Support There are a number of objections to this article that all seem to be tiny, irrelevant factors. While many people may simply be opposed to having a Pokemon article featured, that's no grounds to come up with obscure reasons to object. - Cuivienen 23:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support I don't see too much wrong with this. Let alone all the bazillions of pokemon articles, this one has lots more to say about it, and there is definately more in this article than most of the others, is an interesting read, and is long enough (for me, at least) to be considered a featured. Well done! Toastypk 19:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, while short, I don't think it can be expanded without being really, really crufty, and it's bad enough as it is now. Still, a well-done article on a subject that deserves coverage. Tuf-Kat 08:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant object—I really want to support, because I love WP's coverage of topics like this, but it's just too short for me. I know it's just one Pokemon out of many, but it seems to be a famous Pokemon, relatively speaking. It's one of the few Pokemon that I, as a non-fan, could recognize. I don't want to set a ridiculously high standard for length and have people being verbose and including every insignificant bit of detail to add on some length, but I think there is room for expansion here. If someone can convince me otherwise, I'll withdraw my vote. But even a few more paragraphs would probably suffice for me. Everyking 08:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I noticed a link here to an article about Bulbasaur on a Pokemon wiki. Could some info be derived from this source, or at least to develop some ideas about expansion? Everyking 08:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

    Well, I'll try ;). That link that you said about Bulbapedia has a little bit of prose at the beginning but the rest is movesets, statistics tables and other fan-orientated information. I can however add some information from here perhaps as the information about May's Bulbasaur is limitted to 2 sentences. That'll add a paragraph or so.

    This isn't at all relevant but the reason I particularly get excited about this sort of article is because we're making the best information resource to be found anywhere on Bulbasaur, unlike topics like Quark which have had a myriad of essays and reports and investigations written on them. --Celestianpower ^háblame 10:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

    I think that's the best I can do without delving into the subtrivial. --Celestianpower ^háblame 21:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This is a pretty full article, very encyclopaedic, and definitely well-done. Also, it's good to see that even Pokémon have their place on Wikipedia. - CorbinSimpson 20:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Knowing a little bit about Pokémon, I can say that the major areas are covered in appropriate detail, without getting into Pokétrivia territory. Also, the Pokécruft objections don't satisfy me, as the topic is certainly notable, and the article is of excellent quality—systemic bias can be countered by making good articles of other more "global" subjects, not by shooting down great specialized articles. Just one request: can you make the text in the References section smaller (as done with Hurricane Dennis, for example)? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very well done. Just a query: Why do you use external links in footnotes, when you already use inotes? For instance, you can move the external links to references and refer to it using inotes. --Pamri • Talk 17:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object:This article is far too short compared to every other fa. It only includes references to bulbasaur in the US games and other media. And even then it couldnt be considered NPOV by someone who had played ALL the games. Also the general quality of the writing is poor which is probably endemic of the fact that people under the age of 14 probably wrote most of this article. 64.134.168.123 15:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  Again, IP votes?

  Too short has come up before. If you can think of anything to add then please tell me otherwise, it is comprehensive (which is the real FA criteria).

  Only in the US games? Well, we have mentioned all of the games available and all of the other media, I can't see any games thatI've missed. I live in the UK and there aren't any other games out here.

  Poor writing? I've had many very experienced editors copyedit this. Plus, saying the 14-year-olds write really badly is bordering on a personal attack. I'm 16 but many editors are youngere: and they're all very valuable members of the community. --Celestianpower ^háblame 17:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The writing is quite excellent expository prose, and sounds no different from the Encyclopedia Britannica in most regards. When you say that 14-year-olds write badly, you clearly are generalizing based on your experiences with instant messanger programs and the "omfg can you believe she said that well i cant" crowd. I've been contributing for roughly a year now, and I can safely say that the kind of person that cares enough to write to Wikipedia is the kind of person who tends towards impressive grammar and brilliant prose. - CorbinSimpson 21:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Well written, has sources, doesn't have any unnessicary filler, and is from a video game that, along with Mario and Zelda, is one of Nintendo's most popular series. The first game of that series, no less.Dr. B 00:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object Not confident in factual accuracy and proper use of cited sources. After two months in FAC, I find the process is not very rigorous, and the quality of articles being promoted is uneven and often not good at all. Nobody seems to want to seriously hold these things against the FA criteria... A too-obvious case in point, the final, crowning sentence of this article: "Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, said at the start of a meeting about the future of the London Circle line that he would trade a Geodude and Diglett for a Bulbasaur and a Charmander."4" is from a satirical take-off of a city council session. It's just a joke. With a mistake like that, every other single fact ought to be checked against its source before this goes near FA. No?

• Also, referencing media as authorities in the lead in this way, According to CNN and Time magazine, Bulbasaur is considered one of the "lead critters" in the series.[1] is extremely dubious, and particularly considering that CNN cites its own sources in its article ("As any good "Pokédex" on the Web can tell you")... --Tsavage 05:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC) (addition by Tsavage 05:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)) This has been on too long, I don't know if it applies any more as I've stopped following this FAC. --Tsavage 07:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, firstly, I apologise for that Ken Livingstone bit, I should have read more of the article, not just do a google search and then in browser search for "Bulbasaur". The reference is still valid but needs its wording changed "The Guardian Newspaper referenced Bulbasaur in its satirical...".
• As to CNN, the Pokedex says "A strange seed was planted on its back at birth. The plant sprouts and grows with this Pokémon." so that "reference" is moot. They were probably talking about some other site and mistaking it for a Pokedex (this for example).
• As to a fact check, I have done that on everything else, before I added that citation so everything else should be kosher. --Celestianpower ^háblame 09:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• My basic points relevant to FAC have been missed in these replies. In the first instance, that even one bit of "fact" was added from a hastily done keyword search (which can be guessed, but then is confirmed here in Talk) casts doubt on the quality of all the material by that author. If a science paper in university was found to contain a piece of Star Trek science represented as real science, even if the paper got a passing grade, I doubt it would get an honors mark, which is what FA is (or claims to be). This isn't a personal attack on the author, it is a point of procedure. We're trying to vet articles to a high standard. Having every contribution by an author found to have made egregious mistakes should be explicitly checked and each citation explained in the article's Talk would be a reasonable academic vetting remedy. Accepting an, "Everything else is OK" for FA is weak, it's really a "whatever, you happy now" response to the original error.

In the second instance, use of popular news media as authorities is extremely questionable. If WP were a journalistic venture (which it acts more like, and perhaps should be styled towards), then citing other media as general reference would be OK. But media are really not reasonable, stable sources for anything but specific first hand reportage, like eyewitness descriptions, dates, times. Everything else is questionable. There are thousands of newspapers which have to publish every day, i.e. they have to fill up with something, word count can be as much a consideration as..."importance". Prominence of a paper is not enough, else the National Enquirer is just as valid a citable source as the New York Times (and WP does say the Enquirer is "well-regarded for its very thorough research", it must have something on Bulbasaur). "Trust" in the papers' standards is not enough: Didn't the NY Times publish a public apology for getting all of the US involvement in the Iraq war wrong? If the quote is meant to show that "Bulbasaur" is extremely popular, citing routine CNN.com and Time Asia articles (also, Time Asia is not the same as Time), and then quoting them as well, is wrong. And, my mention of CNN "citing" its source is not about whether that source is valid, "As any good "Pokédex" on the Web can tell you" indicates in ambiguous newspeak shorthand that this is a trivial fact that can be (and quite probably was) verified by a quick Google; IOW, the reporter didn't interview a cultural anthropologist who spent the last years studying Pokemon for this fact, he probably just googled for it himself. So here we'd be basing "verifiabilty" on sources simply because they have a big brandname in information products.

Also, the new version of the Ken Livingstone quote, In a Guardian Newspaper satire about Ken Livingstone Mayor of London, the writer references Bulbasaur as one of the Pokémon Ken wants to trade.[4] is even more meaningless now (is the Guardian a notable source of contemporary satire?). Might as well quote Bulbasaur haiku and limericks from the The Big Bulbasaur Book of Haiku and Limericks. --Tsavage 16:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, let me see if I understand. You don't like the citation of the article in news sources. Few Pokemon do in fact appear on CNN and Time etc so I thought a mention would be good. When I was talking to someone about putting it in (a person with 4 FAs), he said it's good. But if I took these out, you still wouldn't support. You think that because I put in one of those references, you think that the whole article is tarnished and all of the facts are now ultimately very questionable. I can tell you that they aren't. I consider myself the most active editor of Pokemon articles here at Wikipedia so have picked up an awful lot of knowledge on the subject and everything in there is correct. I can even get someone else to come and say the same if you like. The fact that things get put into Wiki articles that are not true, misguided or misleading is all a part of the cause. Just because this happened here doesn't mean that the whole article is now worthless. --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• No, one error of course doesn't make the article useless. And it's an interesting and readable piece. And I wasn't even going to vote on Bulbasaur until I found that big error (the kind of thing that would go down great on the front page), because I don't find FAC to be very effective as is, and I figured this would make FA so why bother even delving deeper, the superficial "real criteria" of passable writing and citations and lots of voting support seem to've been met -- any "deeper" problems would likely be ignored unless others happened to chime in... But, I did vote. And if you're worried about my vote, don't, it probably won't matter in the arbitration of consensus, because it will likely be found to deal with "minor", "easily remedied" things. But no, one error doesn't make the article worthless. In this case, however, the Livingstone error should disqualify this FAC nomination, because it puts the article's stability in question. FAC is supposed to be a review, not an intense peer-assisted rewrite session. "Rewrite anything and everything" shouldn't fit under "addressing actionable objections", the interpretation of that is far too loose. The shortening of the candidacy to one week from two seems to indicate this intention. Yet here, we have over 80 edits logged since the nom date. Even if they're one-word edits, that's still a lot of adjustment to something that was supposed to be ready to go on nom. In fact, (I find now) the source of my objections weren't even in the original nominated version. The Livingstone quote wasn't there, and the CNN quote was MUCH better presented at that time as well, less vague, given a plausible context that seems suitable for this type of current, pop topic: " On 5 October 1999, CNN cites Bulbasaur as a one of the "lead critters" of the series [1], in their article about the banning of Pokémon cards in schools.". So you must see my point: with lots of changes going on, big errors creeping in, and the like, it's not stable, it should be out of this FAC nom. And this, IMHO, is a result of the way FAC is being handled, where it is perceived that you can get a good peer-review from editors who may not have wanted to participate in an actual peer review for a particular article... In fact, mass changes under pressure almost inevitably lead to shoddy writing and worse. Bulbasaur may've been better when it came into FAC, but that's certainly not a reason for promotion, and as one reviewer, I have to question everything based on Livingstone and CNN. I'm not acting as some sort of academic detective, I just read what's there... (A reasonable limit to the number of changes before an article is considered "changed from nom" is perhaps a good FAC guideline.) Another interesting stat: about 50% of the Support votes were made on Dec-29 (the nom date), after which, over 50 edits were made...do those original votes apply to the new and improved version...--Tsavage 17:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Maybe a paragraph about its abilities, techniques and attacks with a detailed description could be useful and cool for both the Fan and the non-Fan. 212.98.150.6 13:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  Well, the Pokemon Adoption Centre agreed that such information was very subtrivial and should be avoided as it adds nothing to non-fans. If I was to write evaluative comments about the attacks then this would be very POV. If consensus here however is to add the list then I'm fine with that. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Question I'm not quite clear as to the editorial meaning of subtrivial. Shouldn't articles stop at or about the simply trivial (as in, of little significance)? --Tsavage 17:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know - that's just the word that we tend to use on-wiki. --Celestianpower ^háblame 17:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support, well-written, sourced, not too long, not crufty. Probably one of the best Pokemon articles out there. Robert 18:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is one of the best Pokémon related articles I have ever seen. This article should be a model for all the other Pokémon articles and I hope to see more nominated here in the future. Tarret 01:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Having read a few times it is very good. Forever young 13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. What's there is good, but this is too short, and I'm not convinced that this is all that could be found. For instance, information on evolution gets only a mention in the infobox - I suspect this could be as much as a whole section on its own. I also don't understand this sentence "Bulbasaur remains on Ash's active roster for much of the series, leaving it in Professor Oak's lab after Pokémon there start fighting amongst themselves." Ambi 23:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  As I've said repeatedly, size is not an FA criteria. I will however add a few sentences about evolution, but there isn't a whole paragraph to write about it. I will also ry to clarify that sentence. --Celestianpower ^háblame 10:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  Done. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ambi, I noticed that too, and I'm going th ave a little fiddle with it, try and fix it up. It appears to meet all the featured article criteria (to my untrained eye), and has my Support. As an aside, this, in my personal opinion, is the best Pokemon article I've seen on Wikipedia. -- Saberwyn - 05:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support, reluctantly. This is good, but short. However, there is no restrictions on size for FAs, so I'll go ahead and give my vote. Dee man45 00:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strenuously object: Clearly the best pokemon character article on wikipedia but no where near among the best wikipedia has to offer. There is just an inherent limitation on the article's quality when all of the information comes from Nintendo publications. If we approve this article, in one month half of the featured articles will be about pokemon. I do not mean this is offence to people who wrote the article, but this exact template of the article could be mapped onto the articles of each of the hundreds of pokemon and then they would be "featured article quality". Having a complete run down of a subject does not necessarily qualify an article to be featured. There's just nothing special here. Savidan 08:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  Well, to be honest, a lot of Pokémon articles could never become featured as there is much less to write about them. They can all become good, but not all featured. Plus, it's taken a lot of work to get this article from WP:PAC/S standard to Featured standard and I don't think I could do it for many more. I'm thinking Charizard would be next on my list but that won't be for a while. I doubt that in a month, there would be any more Pokémon featured articles at all, even if this goes through. --Celestianpower ^háblame 23:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support, however, more should be said about Bulbasaur's evolution ritual, called the mysterious garden. Otherwise, I don't see anything really warranting editing. Also, you should say more about Bulbasaur's role in other video games besides red, blue, and yellow.

Bibliomaniac15 22:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I will do the first, no worries. The second however is impossible as it doesn't appear ;). --Celestianpower ^háblame 23:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Question Shouldn't the audio box be at the bottom? Most other articles do that, it looks kind of weird in the lead. Forever young 04:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  In my opinion, it's no use to anyone at the bottom as when the blind person uses a screen reader down the page, he gets to the talk box last. --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support, though I feel that this article still has a little room for improvement in terms of its prose. While a couple more peer copy edits wouldn't hurt, the article is definitely feature quality. KrazyCaley 18:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Being a featured article means not only that the Wikipedia community vouches for the quality of the article, but also that we actively want to showcase it, i.e., feature it. I think featuring this article would detract from the seriousness of Wikipedia and undermine its reputation. Kudos on the article though, it looks impressive.--ragesoss 00:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  It's a serious and well-written article. I dpn't get your reasoning. --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  Furthermore, it's not really a valid reason to object. Currently, an article on any subject deemed worthy of being on Wikipedia can become a featured article. If you wish to object to this policy, do so on the FA talk page. - Cuivienen 04:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support in principle, conditional on someone giving the text a good copyedit ("There's a computer worm named BULBASAUR" - ugh!). Article length and importance are not relevant considerations: "brilliance" of prose and comprehensiveness are. If the Pokemon fanatics say this is comprehensive, I assume it is. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  I wonder if you could do it. I don;'t see the problem and seeing as most of it has been gonre over by Bishonen, then I can only assume there's not much to do. Thanks! --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  OK - done; not as bad as I first thought. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support Excelent article. It must have been a challenge to bring it up to FAC status. I, for one, am definently impressed. TomStar81 05:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

ObjectComment (Oh, well...) I withdrew my initial objection, but reread this article just now for different reasons, and I'd feel hypocritical if I didn't point out:

• A central problem here is that the Pokemon game which is the context for Bulbasaur is neither established nor explained - It is apparently assumed that "everyone knows about Pokemon". This is not the reality. Scrutiny of the article, first of the summary, and then, the rest, reveals no contextual explanation of Pokemon. IOW, what the hell is Bulbasaur? A character in a game? What type of game, what's that about? I'm not suggesting that what Pokemon is ought to be explained in depth in Bulbasaur, simply that it should be...included. (Yes, perhaps this ISN'T necessary, a link to Pokemon is enough. But, barring convincing arguments otherwise, I'd tend to think that a self-contained Pokemon character article must contain a basic explantion of what Pokemon is (this could take all of one or two sentences).--Tsavage 06:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Opening paragraph explains it enough to me. A fictional character/appears in games/anime..wikilinks to relevent articles are there for anyone who wishes to read further. Forever young 13:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with Tsavage. There needs to be more contextual background on Pokemon, preferably in the introductory paragraph. I added 'video game' but I'm not sure that's appropriate since Pokemon is also an anime. Gflores ^Talk 18:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Follow this "no context" view further, and a fair percentage of the article starts to sound quite bizarre. Because it is generally well-written, and loosely establishes that this is game/fantasy topic, it's easy to lose critical focus on what it's actually saying. In fact, what do statements like this mean, in the absence of explicit context:

If the player chooses Bulbasaur, the player's rival will invariably choose Charmander, since Charmander has a type advantage over Bulbasaur. This seems an entirely unsupported conclusion. Invariably? Is this based on "commonly known" information? Is "type advantage" something like, say, natural selection (in fact, it turns out to be "the foundation of a complex yet mostly logical rock, paper, scissors-system that applies to every Pokémon and their respective moves")?

As Bulbasaur is a grass/poison type, his attacks are particularly effective against ground, rock and water Pokémon, but psychic, fire and flying attacks are particularly effective against it Really? Is this self-explanatory? What is a rock Pokemon...?

To relate this to the "FA rules", this is an issue of comprehensiveness, but even more with "staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". For example, it is one thing to say that a game character "can beat many other characters", even with some additional detail, but it's quite a jump to, out of the blue, "psychic, fire and flying attacks"... In a gamers' encyclopedia, the rules and reader expectation would be somewhat different, but here, IMO, there is a problem with control of relevant detail... Especially when other seemingly basic questions, like if it's a "lead critter" in the series, Why is Bulbasaur so popular? and How many Pokemon characters are there, anyhow? are encouraged but not answered... --Tsavage 21:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Balsham

Nomination A succinct, well-rounded article about the sleepy village in which I once lived. Yellowspacehopper 16:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object and refer to WP:PR - very short (one paragraph with 5 sentences for lead, three with a total of 10 sentences for history, a bit more on local services, and then trivia) and so surely not comprehensive; no references; only one image and no map; and in need of copyediting. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object for the following reasons:
  1. Article has no references. References need to be brought up to the levels shown at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles can help with the formating but are not required.
  2. Wording needs to be reworked as per Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words to clean up sentences such as: The entire village was said to be massacred apart from one man named Jack Balsham who hid in the church tower or Balsham is sometimes said to be the highest point in Cambridgeshire. The history section also needs more details such as the century when initial settlement began on the site and the years when major events such as viking raids killing the majority of the population occurred.
  3. There is no information on the local government such as current office holders or organization. In addition, information on any major economic contributors and major attractions is missing (unless the two public houses are the major attractions and local economy, in which case this needs to be explicitly stated). Other types of information commonly included in city articles includes local sports teams, cultural events and venues, demographics information beyond the current population, and climate information.
  4. Geographical information should be moved out of the lead and expanded. The article should also include a map showing where in the UK the town is located.

This article may also benefit from spending some time on peer review. --Allen3 ^talk 18:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• • References added, and an attempt made to clean up sentences identified above. A map will hopefully follow shortly. Yellowspacehopper 15:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Map uploaded. Will probably be moved and resized for a new Geography section. Yellowspacehopper 18:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object fails 1, 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) & 5 of WP:WIAFA. Mikkerpikker ... 20:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. Staxringold 01:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Maglev train

I spent a little time on this article but many people worked on it. It seems me well done altough I'm not sure about References and size. It's quite detailed and with many free photos. Armando82 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The article needs a few things to be a Featured Article.
  • The lead section is too long. Try whittling it down to three paragraphs.
  • The photos would look better if spaced out more evenly throughout the article.
  • The proposal section has too many subsections. Maybe you could beef up two or three subsections to use as examples, and create a daughter article to hold the full list.
  • The external links section is exceedingly long. Either delete a few, or try shrinking the font size down. The Hugo Chavez page has a small text, two-column link section that you could use as a template.
  • I'm sure other people will point this out, but you could use some footnotes and a few more references.
  • Hope this helps.

— Lovelac7 01:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Lead section should be shorter. The fourth paragraph, in particular, seems to be a rather out of place digression. Ditto pretty much everything else Lovelac7 said. Two sources aren't enough, IMO, and footnoting — especially the native MediaWiki supported one (see ketuanan Melayu or Windows 2000 for an example of its use) — should be a must. The proposals section should only contain a summary of the minor ones and a couple of subsections about the most well-known projects. Also, why not use &mdash; (—) instead of - or --? Johnleemk | Talk 17:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object is not well referenced enough. Whilst inline citations are not necessary, they do make things easier. One way or another, though, this article needs to be accountable to the outside world. Batmanand 22:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object - not top quality standards Palmerston 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cattle

Note I had to fix this FAC submission. It was not done correctly (wrong location and not linked). The original entry was: "Very informative article, well refined, good pictures" and submitted by anonymous user 202.7.166.169 Rlevse 10:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Inadequate references. Mark¹ 16:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Mark, also, I know little about cattle but is the article comprehensive enough?? Doesn't seem to be & hence fails 2(b). Mikkerpikker ... 20:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object for inadequate references. Also, the list of breeds slows the whole thing down; it should be spun off as a separate article. Daniel Case 04:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Captain Beefheart

An excellent, well-written article on the music legend, poet, and painter. (Ibaranoff24 23:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC))

• Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 23:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
• Paragraphs seem quite short for a FA... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with previous user, and also there are no inline citations, a requirement for FA status. The lead paragraph is only one sentence and would be best merged into the 2nd paragraph. It also should've 1st gone through a Peer Review. A bit of copyediting also needs to be done. AndyZ 14:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless things have changed recently, inline is not a requirement for FA. It's a preference. Citations are a requirement, but format wars are fruitless. Geogre 15:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object for now: It needs some more work on the writing, as there are tense shifts that are disturbing, and the whole of the article shows its seams between the various editors who have worked on it. The images should probably have captions, and the biography right now doesn't match the lead. Surely it's enough to say that CB is one of the most influential musicians of the last 40 years: we don't need to give a parade of people influence by him (as the list could be five times as long and include every punk with brains and every experimental musician since). Generally, it needs a single thesis and a rewrite from a coherent point of view. I suggest Peer Review. Geogre 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object: According to the criteria I am working on at the Featured Music Project, this article fails:

1. Lead - 2 and 4: Free pic would be nice, list of admirers not relevant, lead should summarize the most relevant bits of the rest of the article
2. Sales - 1, 2, 3, 4: Appears to not mention sales anywhere
3. Pictures - 1, 2, 3: Pics need captions and fair use rationales, free pics would be nice
4. Audio - 1, 2, 3, 4: No audio samples
5. References - 2, 3, 4: Only one inline cite (and it's an external link), refs should include books that take a broader focus
6. Discography - If he never released singles and the discography section is comprehensive, then the discography is good
7. Format/Style - 1, 2, 3, 4: Needs copyedit, section under "studies" is too short, specifically cite opinions and remove weasel words

• Tuf-Kat 20:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Streetlight Manifesto

Fitst peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Streetlight Manifesto/archive1
Second peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Streetlight Manifesto

Self nomination. I think this article is reasonably detailed and sourced, as well as being well written and stable. The band are also quite notable within their genre. Both images have acceptible copyright status. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 19:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Support Well written and concise, a deserving subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.166.169 (talk • contribs) 04:46, Jan 16, 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

• All good articles about music should have sound samples, even if they are just fair-use. This isn't an official guideline but I think it is necessary, especially in this case since so many people who aren't music fans might not have an idea what "third-wave ska" sounds like at all. I think all, or nearly all, of our current music FAs have sound samples.

• Damn I've been meaning to add one for a while, thanks for reminding me. I've added a sample of the first track from their album, which is also availble in full from the record label website for free, should I upload a full OGG Vorbis version or just link to the mp3? — Ian Moody ^(talk) 12:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• The lead says they did not record or perform live until 2003, but the infobox gives 2002 as the earliest year they were "active." Did they just form and then rehearse before late 2003?

• They recorded a demo EP in 2002 and sent it to record labels. The lead just says they didn't release an album or perform live until 2003. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 12:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• most notably Tomas Kalnoky, Jamie Egan, Mike Soprano, and Josh Ansley, from Catch 22 and One Cool Guy's Stuart Karmatz, Pete Sibilia, Dan Ross and Chris Paszik. Not sure I understand this: The first four musicians are from Catch 22 and the last four are from One Cool Guy? Or is it just Karmatz who is from One Cool Guy and just Ansley who played in Catch 22?

• First 4 Catch 22 last 4 One Cool Guy — Ian Moody ^(talk) 12:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• I've reworded it to: most notably Catch 22's Tomas Kalnoky, Jamie Egan, Mike Soprano, and Josh Ansley, as well as One Cool Guy's Stuart Karmatz, Pete Sibilia, Dan Ross, and Chris Paszik., how's that? — Ian Moody ^(talk) 13:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Audio interview by Tyler Rodgers on 2003-12-20" is cited as a source. Was this for a radio show, a podcast, or just a case of a Wikipedian talking to Kalnoky? Is a recording available to the public?

• According to the mp3 file I have for it, it is for "Charles Bronson radio 90.5 WCVH in Flemington" — Ian Moody ^(talk) 12:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• I've changed it to say "Audio interview by Tyler Rodgers for Charles Bronson Radio on 2003-12-20" and included a link to a copy of the mp3 file I host. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 13:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• When listening to their first album, Everything Goes Numb the similarities between it and Keasbey Nights are obvious, particularly in the case of the third track, "Point/Counterpoint" with is similar to "Keasbey Nights", also the third track of Keasbey. I'm not sure what the second half means at all. And are the songs musically similar, or just similar because their lyrics are interlinked?

• I've rewritten that paragraph for clarity and also to include more information. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 13:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• The section titles labeled "Robbed!" and "Again!" are not in an encyclopedic style-- too jokey. They should probably be combined into a single heading "Robbed" or "Thefts" or something like that (with no exclamation point).

• Fixed — Ian Moody ^(talk) 12:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• The picture of the band should be near the top and should be larger.

• Moved to top of history section and increased size to 450px — Ian Moody ^(talk) 13:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• From the image summary: "Modification work by unknown (Mark Brown's head has been put onto Dan Ross' body)" What? Why?

• I believe either someone from the band or someone at Victory did it so they would have a promotional photo with current line-up on. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 12:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• A photo of the band playing live should not be hard to get.

• I've asked at the message board, which is where the photographer of this public domain photo of Tomas Kalnoky can be found so hopefully he will be willing to provide a similarly licensed group action shot. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 13:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• There is now 1 shot of them performing live, and I think there should be a second one soon. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 21:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Second photo has been added. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 00:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Levine 00:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've written a new section from old commented out info I forgot about. You can find it here. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 21:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object: According to the criteria I am working on at the Featured Music Project, this article fails:

1. Lead - 1, 2, 3, 4: Needs to be expanded
2. Comprehensiveness - 2, 4: Needs organization of info, and expansion if possible; has anyone been influenced by the band?
3. Sales - 1, 2, 3, 4: Does not mention sales
4. Pictures - 2: Pic under history way too big, need fair use rationales
5. Audio - 3, 4: Need more, need captions
6. References - 3, 4, maybe 2: Sources don't look comprehensive or authoritative -- can't tell which, if any, were used to write the history section
7. Discography - If it includes all recorded works by the band, then it meets all criteria
8. Format/Style - 1, 2, 3, 4: Needs copyedit, external links don't all look relevant, no citations for most of history, no content directly under "History"

• Tuf-Kat 21:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support. This article is probably the best resource available on Streetlight Manifesto. While the Featured Music Project is interesting, none of the current featured articles meet all the criteria, and as said this article is reasonably detailed -- although it should mention something about sales, whether irrelevant or not. Punkmorten 19:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

L.A.M.F.

Self-nomination. What was going to be a little bit of expansion and cleanup ended up being a good two hours plus of major expansion on this article. Not bad if I do say so myself, but I'll put my ego in check and see if anyone else says so. ;) --Cjmarsicano 07:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Object This article has certainly become better through the efforts of Cjmarsicano (talk · contribs), but I think it should under go a peer review before being considered for FA. There are only two references for the entire article. There are several critical POV statements that would be fine with citations, such as "The original vinyl release of the album was notorious for its lackluster sound." Also, the article does not discuss the social impact of album or how well it sold. For some ideas on good album articles, take a look at Smile, a featured article about the Brian Wilson article. -Scm83x 10:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think I'll put it through peer review first. Thanks. It was late when I decided to do the nomination and my pride got the better of me. --Cjmarsicano 13:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Whilst it is true that criteria have been met for inclusion in the Wikipedia project,the heavy commercial bias of this subject matter remains. We may well be validating more than popular ephemera with this article, as it could be construed as advertising. I feel it is necessary for this point to be made, if not directly addressed. --HasBeen 09:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Response: Then I'm going to directly address it. To be honest, I don't see how you construe the article as a glorified advertisement. What did I do to get that accusation thrown my way? Mention what record label currently holds the master rights to the album? Mentioning which version is in print? These are facts relevant to the topic at hand. I wrote this article, and every article I've contributed to Wikipedia, in as NPOV a manner as possible. Conclusion: "Heavy commercial bias," my ass. --Cjmarsicano 13:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added my thoughts on the article to the to the Peer Review page, but I wanted to chime in to agree with Cjmarsicano. The mere fact that this article acknowledges the existence of a commercial product does not make it advertising. I agree with HasBeen that we should make an effort to eliminate advertising on wikipedia, but IMO this article does not qualify as an advertisement. The Catfish 07:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The subject matter may be misconstrued as product placement. The article itself is well written. --HasBeen 08:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

By that token, every entry about an album on Wikipedia could be an advert. -- CJ Marsicano 16:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

An asute observation, and as good an argument for limiting their access to the front page as possible, even so far as to limit their inclusion as FAs, but perhaps that would take things too far?--HasBeen 10:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That would really, really be taking things way too far. At the risk of using a "pimply teenage hyperbole" (to quote A Hard Day's Night) at my age (38), it would also be very, very lame. Recorded albums are works of art. There are scores of articles on classic recordings on Wikipedia; the article on L.A.M.F. is just one of my proud contributions to that. -- CJ Marsicano 14:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that the album is a fine art-form, but their nature as a readily purchasable item does ring certain warning bells when they make roads to the front page. Again, this is a Comment rather than a minus vote. --HasBeen 10:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. For the record, the featuring of Smile has already set a precendent. :) And anyway, I'm sure that many of the articles in WP:ALBUMS have already inspired readers to check the albums out. That's not my main concern when writing album articles, but if a few people decide to check out an album I've written an entry about, that's cool with me. -- CJ Marsicano 16:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am now reassured that your motives are purely driven, and in no way represent deliberate product placement. However, without this sort of dialogue, the creeping horror of grass-roots marketing may slip past unaddressed. It is hellishly difficult to determine the real thing (a well written article with no ambitionds to shift units, such as this one) from a bid for a free advert. Thanks for arguing it out. I will take care not to add this comment again to other projects you are involved with. --HasBeen 09:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

William Tecumseh Sherman

I feel this article is good enough to be a featured article. The article is informative and has plenty of images.--Kross^Talk 02:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lead too short. 1st paragraph of "early life" is confusing (I stumbled upon the second ocurrance of Tecumseh; it took me a moment to figure out who was meant: that needs rephrasing), some biased or at least unfortunate word choices (some examples: "Liddell Hart famously declared...", "Ironically...", "...most prestigious...", ...most hated..." (incidentally, that phrase is rambling out of context anyway), "...successful conclusion of the war"). The long quote in "Reaction to secession" needs a precise source: when and where did he say or write that, and when was it reported by whom? Depending on that, the "presciently" may or may not be warranted. Last paragraph of "total warfare" needs scrupulous referencing. Who thinks his memoirs were "marked by a forceful, lucid style"? The references to his memoirs could be linked to the online version. (Comment only: Anyway, I'd like to see more online references—surely there must be trustworthy web sites on him out there? Would have the advantage that things could be verified without the books.) What about the buffalo killing mentioned on talk? If sourced and agreed upon, that should go into the "postbellum" section to clarify the "resource destruction" point. Where does Image:Map-sherman-march-sea.jpg originally come from? The given source URL doesn't say, so how is it known that this is {{PD-old-70}}? (It's not a very clear map anyway. Anyone got a better one?) Lupo 13:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Some problems:

1. "Sherman never truly accepted "William", however, and friends and family always called him "Cump"." Source?
2. "Ewing secured the appointment of the 16 year old Sherman as a cadet in the United States Military Academy at West Point" Source for the influence of Ewing?
3. "Sherman's arrival in San Francisco was indicative of the turmoil of his time in the West" Leave such judgements to the reader. If they are the opinion of someone notable, cite your source.
4. "Ironically, the first president of what is now one of the most prestigious Southern universities was a Yankee general who would later be considered one of the most hated men in the South." Leave judgments to the reader.
5. "He resigned his position and returned to the North, declaring to the governor of Louisiana, "On no earthly account will I do any act or think any thought hostile ... to the ... United States." " Source?
6. The "Reaction to secession" has no source, the quote is too long (better convert it to indirect speech), and it really should be inside section "Civil War".
7. "He was one of the few Union officers to distinguish themselves at the First Battle of Bull Run on 21 July, where he was grazed by bullets in the knee and shoulder." Who says there were "few" officers who distinguished themselves...? As compared to which other battle?
8. "he rallied his division and prevented a disastrous defeat." Disastrous in whose opinion?
9. "Sherman developed close personal ties to Grant during the two years they served together." In whose opinion?
10. "During the Vicksburg Campaign in the spring of 1863, Sherman performed well under Grant's supervision." Well in whose opinion?
11. " the subsequent March to the Sea from Atlanta to Savannah in the autumn of 1864 made a great contribution to Abraham Lincoln's re-election as president and the successful conclusion of the war." This cannot be stated as fact. It's an opinion.
12. "Sherman was convinced that the Confederacy's ability to wage further war had to be definitively crushed if the fighting was to end." Source?
13. "although officially forbidden, historians disagree as to how well this regulation was enforced" Which historians? Are there any examples?
14. "The speed and efficiency of the destruction by Sherman's army was remarkable." Leave that judgement to the reader.
15. "Many Southerners reviled him for ransacking their homes and economy, while slaves hailed him as a liberator" Source?
16. "Neither of these claims tells the whole truth." Leave that judgement to the reader.
17. "In 1875 Sherman published his two-volume memoirs, a minor classic, marked by a forceful, lucid style, and the strong opinions for which Sherman has become famous." Ditto
18. "He was devoted to the theater and was much in demand as a colorful speaker at dinners and banquets." Source?
19. "Johnston famously replied: "If I were in [Sherman's] place, and he were standing in mine, he would not put on his hat."" Source?

JoaoRicardo^talk 01:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Healing Device

Self Nomination I started this article in conjuction with Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate. Since then at least a dozen people have improved it. After I put the finishing touches on this article I decided to nominate it here. It covers everything on the topic. And I mean everything. I don't think any new content can be added here. This shows wikipedia's uniqueness greatly. I was only able to find one other page on the entire net descibing this device. It is well written, perfectly formatted. Fit style, is fully wikified, and is well written. If this article becomes featured, it will also, add to our FA diversity, as no Stargate articles are featured yet. Stargate is a very popular show, and this article represents the device described in it very nicely. Tobyk777 04:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article is far too short, and the only references are other Wikipedia articles. It also doesn't give enough background for those of us who aren't Stargate fans. Also, there are punctuation mistakes and sentence fragments.Captain Jackson 04:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, numerous spelling and grammatical errors, generally poor writing, very limited amount of context provided for non-fans of the show. Andrew Levine 04:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It would have been much better to improve and nominate the Stargate article itself, as it would be much more interesting to the general Wikipedia audience. Captain Jackson 04:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Response That article is far too general. The only good thing about it is that it links to more specific articles. That article already may be up to FA standards, but this information in it is so general, that only someone who has never even heard of stargate would benefit from it. These are more specific articles that can be nominated, (Though still too general it think) which are good for non-fans: Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, List of Stargate Atlantis episodes. Stargate is just so general that it only serves as a basic introduction for people who have never heard of Stargate before. Tobyk777 05:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, being general does not prevent an article from becoming FA as long as the article meet all of the required attributes. We encourage sub-articles which go into specifics, so that our initial article can be comprehensive over the whole topic and not end up 2000 pages long trying to cover everything. -- KTC 23:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Many spelling and gramatical grammatical mistakes, article is too short and too confusing for people not familiar with this TV show (like myself). I also agree with Captain Jackson above. JoaoRicardo^talk 22:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • OMG! gramatical mistakes you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.225.129.66 (talk • contribs) [1]
• Object, not comprehensive among other objections. -- KTC 23:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not comprehensive? What's that supposed to mean? There is no more information that can be added. It exhausts the topic. It's probably one of the most comprehensive articles on wikipedia. Many of these other objections are valid, but saying that it's not comprehensive is totaly false, if you watch the show you will be able to see that this covers the topic to the extreme. Tobyk777 04:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The point is that it's just too damn short. Whether or not there is anything else to say about it doesn't matter. An article should be much more than two or three paragraphs long to be a feature article. Again, I strongly suggest giving up on this one and finding another Stargate article, preferably one describing one of the series, improving it, and nominating it. Don't forget non-Wikipedian references, inline citations, and brilliant prose. :) Captain Jackson 23:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, the article could benefit from relating the subject to the production of Stargate, not just its storyline. For example, Spoo from Babylon 5 describes its origin and etymology with the writer, as well as its physical characteristics. --maclean25 19:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object: this article is too short, hasn't been referenced properly and the actual text doesn't seem to flow. This information would have come to light had it been Peer Reviewed. --Matthew kokai 09:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Corey Haim

Self nomination An article that many have worked on, including myself. It went through a peer review here. Notably, short paragraphs were removed or merged, filmography became select and off-topic information and quotations were removed. I believe it is quite comprehensive and informative. Thanks. Smerk 00:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose:
  • Movie titles should all be italicized.
  • The italicized section, here and in other such cases throughout the article, should be in quotes. Andrew Levine 01:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, all titles are now italicized, but do you think that the ones in the film box at the bottom should be as well? I removed 'textbook' as well as fixing all the quotations. Smerk 01:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. 1) "His friendship and on-screen collaboration with actor Corey Feldman was widely publicized", weasel words. 2) No inline citation at section "Early life", like for the claim that his shyness was the reason his mother enrolled him in lots of activities. 3) "Haim started to make a name for himself in the industry, earning critical acclaim and his first". What critical acclaim? This sentence is redudant. It sufices to say that he won the Young Artist Award. 4) "The pair of Feldman and Haim had become teen successes." It is not up to the article to make such a judgement. If this is someone else's opinion, cite your source. And when did he say he was optimistic about returning to the film industry? JoaoRicardo^talk 04:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Changed to His friendship and on-screen collaboration with actor Corey Feldman was widely publicized during the late 1980s, both starring in a number of widely released films and financially successful films, the pair were dubbed "the two Coreys".
2. Was in references section but citation was added
3. Changed to Haim started to make a name for himself in the industry, notably by earning his first Young Artist Award...
4. Changed to The two Coreys had become a popular on screen collaboration, following two successful films the pair would meet again in 1989, when Haim appeared in the film Dream a Little Dream.

• Comment: Years and decades are overlinked (see date formatting for when to link these). Also Corey Feldman is way overlinked: He's linked six times just in the first two paragraphs of Teenage idol and Career decline. In general, several words appear to be linked every time they appear, instead of just on first occurrence. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 22:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed almost all the year dates, leaving a few, but made them all more specific, for example 1989 instead of just 1989. Feldmans link appears only twice now and other numerous links such as film titles and locations were removed Forever young 05:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Years in films should not be piped, see Wikipedia:Piped link. And there are still several unrelevant years linked. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Piped years removed, all other year links removed as well. At the top, I left 1980s and 1990s linked, is that appropriate do you think? Thanks Forever young 15:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's okay to have them as they are somewhat relevant, but they should link to the actual articles about the decades and not just to the first year of the decade (e.g. to 1980s, not to 1980). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, just fixed them. Thanks for that. Forever young 06:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

2003 Invasion of Iraq

Although I haven't been sucessful nominating here in the past, this is a far better article than others I have nominated. This article, despite its contriversial nature, is NPOV and has an incredable amount of detail. It has tons of notes refrences and external links. Is well written, and is complete. Tobyk777 19:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Before I actually go in depth with the article, the article contains no inline citations, but on the other hand contains too many embedded links that hamper the articles readibility. AndyZ 20:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Concur with AndyZ, dozens of external links should be made into inline citations, which is the standard for FAs as I understand it. Also, this is 124K long--way too big. The WWII article is only 84K long and that was the biggest war in the history of the planet. Some of this should be split off into sub articles. The length alone kept me from reading it. Rlevse 21:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Before touching on the vexed issues of POV, culturocentrism and balance—which would be hard for the most skilled, diplomatic writer to manage in relation to this topic—I have to say that it needs word therapy throughout. A start could be made by rewording the opening sentence to remove the repetition (the majority UK and US participation is covered twice). Overall, it's not disastrously written, but it's not up to FAC standards; when you look closely, there are numerous little glitches, such as 'Americans, British, Australians, Polish', which should all be grammatically consistent. Tony 00:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object Some of the numerous problems with this article have been touched upon above, but there are others, including large sections of poor prose and uneven coverage of topics. This article should be on the Article Improvement Drive, not here. - Blake's Star 02:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object - yes, inline citations might need to be made. That said, should I use the new ref tags, or the old ref templates should I embark on this (that's about 90 different links!)? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 12:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object, the text is way too long and wordy. It needs a total rewrite, and sections should be summarised. The references of the news should be linked to the reference section as it will be much neater than what it is now. -Terence Ong 12:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Among other issues, the opening sentence should summarize what the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was. As it is now, it's a chronological statement. It's a confusing topic, but this doesn't clarify it sufficiently. Crunch 13:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object as per above. (note: as has been said above, the article is way too long, please split off into sub-articles)... Mikkerpikker ... 23:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic programming

"Everything can be dealt with on this article. NLP is not rocket science. The principles are explained very well on this article already. HeadleyDown 02:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)"

The editors of this article has spent 8 months collecting evidence and have been compiling an exhautive list of references from scientists' opinion on the subject. The time has come to nominate this article. --Dejakitty 13:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• ObjectComment: A Feature Article with a cleanup tag on it? AndyZ 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Apparently, if a featured article candidate has a cleanup tag on it, it needs much more work to become a Featured Article. The "inline citations" are literally tons of books and years published dates strung throughout the article as well as tons of external links, harming the articles readibility. It all has to be converted into Inline Citations, probably using Wikipedia:Footnotes, to provide an organization to the article. The lead itself is clutterred with tons of author names and publishing dates that are useless to a reader. There are a couple of useless, random bullets that are in the article. At 58kb, the article can also benefit from employing Wikipedia:Summary style and by dividing the article into subpages. AndyZ 23:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object and Remove nomination. This was put up in severe violation of WP:POINT, just to challenge an editor [2].Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. I do support removing the nomination though. This is clearly not going to be a featured article without a lot of work, and will probably also require some more mediation. Fieari 04:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The article is neither neutral nor stable. In fact it exemplifies POV and instability. If you'd like to know more, here's why... NPOV is disputed at least weekly on this article by many editors. Many editors are accused of being sockpuppets. Facts and citations are debated and deleted daily, and revert wars are common. Even the opening sentence is contested lately. A 6 month or longer uncivil edit war is still raging. Four or more mediators have failed to bring lasting results. The latest mediator is achieving results but at a painfully slow rate towards consensus. There is a current arbitration case addressing several users (including the one who made this nomination) who are still active and inserting contested information into the article. Cleaning up the article has been agreed by many editors to be a large process. Many editors have stated they will wait for the arbitration case to finish to undertake cleanup. The arbitratiuon case seems like it will continue for at least another month and perhaps longer. Daughter articles linked from the main are only just now appearing and also need a lot of work before they would make sense linked from the feature. The article has a long way to go before it is even close to feature presentable. To actually nominate this article is misguided. The motives of the nominator might well be questioned. Peace. Metta Bubble 04:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This article badly needs attention but deserves no commendations. However, I'd welcome and be glad to participate in an RfC or some other forum which would bring new voices to the table. (Please, no more "new voices" that edit no other articles.) -- Shunpiker 00:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The article is biased. While well referenced, the quality of some references is questionable, while others are not represented fairly. I've been away 2 months but the disagreements appear to still be there. GregA 10:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. A very very biased article <-- Please sign flavius 00:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. I too object on the grounds that it needs much more work. There remain some unattributed statements and claims and the prose in many places remains poor. I disagree strongly that the article is biased. I have spent much time gathering and reading cited articles and books (pro and con) and they are (thus far) accurately represented in the article. The balance of opinion presented in the article regarding NLP does not adequately represent the actual balance of opinion amongst psychologists, neurologists, psychiatrists and linguists. NLP is akin to phrenology, blood-letting, Silva Mind Control Method and Dianetics. It is a "loony-tunes" fringe concern so far out on the margins it poised to fall off the edge. The article should reflect this. The four or so (unremarkable) academics that Comaze has been promoting are insufficient to offset the broad consensus against NLP. Similarly, most clinicians (medical, psychological and psychiatric) do not use NLP. Also most professionals (lawyers, accountants, etc.) do not use NLP. We would be able to find as many professionals that claim to use CoS "Tech" as we can professionals that claim to use NLP (if necessary I will write the CoS public relations branch to obtain figures). The vital point is that NLP is fringe pop-psych/self-help/quasi-religion, naming two universities in the world that teach NLP or three academics that have written sycophantic essays to Grinder, reporting that some organ of the UN once employed an NLP practitioner or listing even hundreds of professionals that claim enrichment from NLP doesn't change NLPs status. It in fact affirms its status as marginal. I can easily parallel most -- if not all -- pieces of alleged evidence that NLP is something other than "marginalia" offered by Comaze, FT2 and GregA with cases drawn from the CoS. The CoS has amongst its membership not only doctors, lawyers, accountants, computer programmers, pilots and academics but members of the North American cultural elite. Again, the point is proportion. The proportion of lawyers that are Scientologists like the proportion of lawyers that are NLPers is tiny (<1%). It is so tiny it becomes incidental, insignificant and thus incapable of forming a basis for generalisation about lawyers vis-a-vis Scientology and similarly lawyers vis-a-vis NLP. In response to GregA's comment above, the questionable references (eg. Crabtree, Watchman Expositor) have been excised. Would you care to point out which you deem questionable on the discussion page? flavius 00:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The article editors has specifically attempted to put NLP in a bad light using guilt-by-association (see New Age references and dianetics references in the main summary to start with), and when challenged and asked for a Yes/No statement on whether they were doing so refused to provide one and handwaved instead. There is plenty to critique NLP for, yet this article goes way beyond that, misrepresenting what NLP is and using guilt-by-association. I consider this article to shame Wikipedia. --EivindEklund

Nonsense. NLP is "in a bad light" and it's defects stand on their own merit, no guilt-by-association is or need be resorted to. NLP is connected to Dianetics via (a) influence of General Semntics; (b) Frtiz Perls; (c)modus operandi namely "reprogramming" and submodality attenuation; and (d) common assumptions about origin of pathology; (e) common notions of perfect memory and infinite subconscious repository (reactive mind vs. unconscious mind), Time Line Therapy is even more like Dianetics. If the article mis-represents NLP what then is the proper representation? NLP is a science? NLP is an art? NLP is an epistemology? What? Put up or shut-up, that's what the discussion section is for. Argue your case. flavius 12:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Turku

Partial self-nom. The issues raised in the two previous FAC nominations (archive1, archive2) have been met, and I think the article is good enough to be a FA. - ulayiti (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. No inline citations, especially for statistics. AndyZ 20:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. What AndyZ said. Otherwise I'm ready to support.--Jyril 20:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just referenced all statistics and a whole load of other information with the {{inote}} template. (Having footnotes would, in my opinion, make the article look ugly, since there would be quite a lot of them.) - ulayiti (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree witgh ulayiti, and I still don't in the least believe that inline citations should be a requirement since statistics on Turku are hardly a controversial subject. Making a sub-section in References listing all the statistical sources should be more than enough. / Peter ^Isotalo 09:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. No inline citations, weasel terms, no mention of the city problems. JoaoRicardo^talk 00:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See above. Can you provide examples of weasel terms in the article (because I can't find any)? As to problems, you must have missed the following paragraph in the 'Economy' section: 'As of 2004, the city's unemployment rate is 13.1%, well above the national average of 8.9%. The problem of unemployment is particularly troublesome in the districts of Pansio, Lauste, and Varissuo, where it hovers at around 23%.' I've added a few more sentences about some other problems as well. - ulayiti (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Some weasel terms and some comments in which the author's opinion has crept into the article text:

1. "the Port of Turku is considered one of the most important seaports in Finland." Considered by whom?

   Changed to 'one of the busiest'. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

   Fine, but now it needs a source. JoaoRicardo^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

2. "Turku has a strong cultural identity" A matter of opinion.

   Removed 'strong'. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

   Well, "Turku has a cultural identity" isn't much useful. I believe it is better to drop this. JoaoRicardo^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

3. "Turku is usually considered Finland's 'second city'." Considered by whom?

   A lot of people, but it's a bit difficult to change this, since attributing this statement to a specific body would be quite difficult. I did a Google search for turku finland's second city and it came up with a lot of stuff, including this. And somehow saying VIA Magazine considers Turku Finland's second city wouldn't sound very good. Any ideas on how to improve this one? - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

   I recommend dropping it. We should stick to verifiable sources. If there are no verifiable sources, then it is better not the include this in the article. JoaoRicardo^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

4. "the city became the most important location in medieval Finland." Important by what standard? Number of inhabitants? Economy?

   It's explained in the following paragraph. It was the archbishop's seat, the only city to trade with the Hanseatic League, the largest city, and the capital of Finland. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

   But don't you think it is better to leave this judgement to the reader? JoaoRicardo^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

5. "Turku has been viewed during the 20th century as 'Finland's gateway to the West' as a result of its good connections with other Western European countries and cities." Viewed by whom?

   Clarified that this is the opinion of Jarmo Virmavirta. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

6. "Since the 1940s, there have been particularly strong ties with Stockholm" Strong by what standards?

   This is from Virmavirta as well. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

7. "The region is usually considered to include, in addition to the city itself, at least the neighbouring cities..." Considered by whom?

   Well, they're part of the metropolitan area, which has quite a specific definition. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

8. "Turku is an important administrative centre" By what standard?

   It's explained in the same sentence. It's the capital of both the province and the region, it has a Court of Appeal, and the Archbishop of Finland sits in Turku. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

9. "Olavi Mäenpää, chairman of the far-right organisation Suomen Kansan Sinivalkoiset (SKS), is a highly controversial figure in the city's municipal politics." In whose opinion?

   Changed to 'has provoked some controversy in the local media'. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

10. "In the last municipal elections in 2004, he received more votes than any other candidate in Turku, probably in large part due to protest votes." Speculation.

    But true. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

    It may be true, but it is speculation nonetheless. Better drop it. JoaoRicardo^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

11. "For a city of its size, Turku has a good public transportation network of bus routes." By what standard?

    By frequency of services. It's explained two sentences later. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

12. "Turku has always welcomed new influences" A matter of opinion.

    Explained in the same sentence. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

13. "Turku has a long educational history" Peacock statement.

    Changed to 'longer educational history than any other Finnish city'. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

14. "The city also hosts another rock festival, Down by the Laituri, and boasts a vibrant nightlife" The vibrant nightlife is a matter of opinion.

    Actually it's pretty much a given, and something that most Finnish people know. How do you suggest it should be phrased? - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

    Again, it is dificult to write about people's intuitions. Saying that this is something most people in Finland know is not verifiable. If there is no source for it, writing about it yourself might be viewed as original research. I recommend removing it. JoaoRicardo^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the problems, I was wrong. There are indeed some mentions of them. How about expanding it? ;-) JoaoRicardo^talk 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

See the 'People' section and the end of the 'History' section. I don't think there's much more that could be added. I mean, I could write a lot about the primary school in Kakskerta closing down, but that would not be very relevant to the article. - ulayiti (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support, the article about Turku looks really good. Can we have a nomination for Helsinki as well? JIP | Talk 14:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with the article but I don't know where else to go. The article states that Turku was the capital of Finland from 1809 - 1812. Fair enough. But what was the capital of Finland prior to this? I thought that Turku was the capital from the time of the Archbishopric of Finland being founded. If the answer to this was to be Sweden's Stockholm would we argue that the capital of Ireland was London until Irish Independence? If the capital of the Duchy of Finland was somewhere else prior to 1809, could we have this mentioned in the article and if the Swedish administration was based in Turku before 1809 can we have Turku as the capital of Finland from the time that that admininstration began. Just three years as the capital seems to negate an awful lot of Turku's history as the primum mobile of cities in Finland. Jatrius 14:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Randy Savage

OK. Yes, this is weird! However, during the 80’s and 90’s, Savage was an icon in entertainment wrestling. Millions of people know his name, but not much more than the character he has portrayed in wrestling entertainment. His unique voice, flamboyance in and outside of the ring, and his years as a wrestling superstar make him interesting as a candidate for featured article. This article really goes deep into this man’s life, and shows a different side of the Macho Man Randy Savage most people never knew about – his career in minor league baseball, rap album, etc. for example.

A very well written and interesting article, if I do say so myself. Mikecnn 12:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - it has potential but it has no references - these are mandatory. Section headers should not be wikilinked. Trivia section should be absorbed into the article. If it's not worth saying in the article itself, chances are it's not worth saying at all. Needs a copyedit to improve writing. There are many examples of "&" being used. These should all be substituted with "and". The lead paragraph should also be expanded as a brief summary of the article itself. I'll read through it more carefully when these obvious faults are dealt with. Rossrs 12:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Correct me if Iam wrong, but shouldn't the article be called Randall Mario Poffo or Randall Poffo? Names like Mankind, Triple H, The Undertaker, Booker T, Scotty 2 Hotty...etc etc do not go by their stage names. It seems that only SSSA and the Rock have done so. Think about redirecting the article, it seems the way to go for Wrestler articles. Forever young 15:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Insufficient lead, improperly formatted references (no inline references), two images are not tagged and provide no rationale for fair use, bad formatting (including links on section titles, instead of proper "Main article: xxx" summary style) trivia section is a disorganized list of statements without source. This is not a valid FAC. Phils 17:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. What Rossrs and Phils said. Plus the article is written in an inappropriate tone, and makes many judgements that would be better left to the reader. It should go through a peer review before being nominated for featured article. JoaoRicardo^talk 22:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Black Death

Well-written and well-referenced article about a MAJOR event in both European and World history. It has already gone through peer review, and has been listed as a good article. I can't image anything else which can be done to improve it, but if you can please do it an then support this nomination. Captain Jackson 04:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support. The formatting of the references will have to be changed to be in line with Wikipedia standard, but other than that, the best Wikipedia article I've ever read. RyanGerbil10 17:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

hmmm. Ryan "Gerbil." Could we have a bias problem here? Sfahey 04:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Where are the inline citations? No references for all of the statistics within the article. Other references sneak into random places of the article. Related Events should be changed to See also and moved outside of the sources and further reading section. AndyZ 21:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. No inline citations, many adjectives and adverbs which create an inappropriate tone, many weasel terms and judgements that might be better left for the reader. JoaoRicardo^talk 23:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Looks good; I'll read through it thoroughly later. In the meantime, I wonder whether you'd mind delinking the trivial chronological items (e.g., '14th century', '1700s', '1347'). One or two simple date links—that is, the year alone—might be appropriate if they take the reader to a list of events that year that put your topic into context, but only if this is focused and useful. For example, the first year-link, 1347, takes us to the same image that is used at the top of Black Death, tells us that the BD 'ravaged Europe', and that Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor, died. Not useful. See WP’s policy on this at Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context; see other information at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous.

• Object. From a quick look, the article seems great. The reference section is good, but as have already been mentioned, there are not enough inline citation. (I can see 2, using different format.) An example of a problem: "A Swedish captain named Johan Strandberg in Norrtälje in Stockholm's skerries is the last known victim of this disease with deadly outcome [year unknown]." Who claim he is the last known victim (to die from it)? It also would be better if we actually know what year (with source obviously). -- KTC 23:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object Sorry to be piling on here, but:

1. WAY overlinked introduction, which also doesn't mention the cause early enough.

2. Start of "alternative expl'ns" (An interesting hypothesis about the appearance, spread and especially disappearance of plague from Europe is that the flea-bearing rodent reservoir of disease was eventually succeeded by another species) is not an "explanation" for the plague.

3. First sentence talking about its cause (The bubonic plague was endemic in populations of infected ground rodents in central Asia, and was a known cause of death among migrant and established populations in that region.) is typical of subpar writing in this article; is it the rat or the human populations who died here.

Sfahey 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Since only a miracle can save this nomination, would anyone like to close it? Captain Jackson 18:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Wiegert

is lenghty, informative, and cites it's sources, I believe that this could make a good featured article. --Karrmann

Oppose Sorry, but the sections are way too short, the ending with the photo gallery is just plain weird & the article is in need of a table or info box. No inline citations, or written sources either.... can't help at all....Spawn Man 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose More about his cars than himself. Although there are sources, citations are required for statements like "Wiegert was glad that MegaTech offered such a big investment, but was outraged when they tried to take over the company", it lacks detail about Wiegert's life himself. Thethinredline 09:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Umm, not much is known about Wiegert as a person, most of his information conzsists of him as a businessman. --Karrmann

Oppose - agree with Spawn Man and Thethinredline. The article is really not about Wiegert at all, and if "not much is known about Wiegert" that's even more reason to oppose. Rossrs 22:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object with everybody else on the matter. Sources should be properly cited if possible. The image gallery is rather unnecessary. Surely some other information about more personal life can be included; there is nothing about marriage or any other type of personal life throughout the article, just more Vectors. AndyZ 23:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • His marital status is unknown to this day. --Karrmann
    • Oh I see... Certainly something more still can be included specifically about him, not his cars? AndyZ 21:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've removed the information about the cars, which already have their own articles. The article is now fairly small. I would urge Karrmann (talk · contribs) to remove his proposal. The article is in need of attention from people with access to more information - articles from 1980s and 1990s automotive magazines, books about supercars or about Vector itself, any interviews given by Wiegert in his lifetime. Pc13 10:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Basics of quantum mechanics

Partial Self-nomination. This article is professionally designed and illustrated. It is written in a manner consistent with current scientific data that can be understood by readers of prominent encyclopedia such as Encyclopedia Britannica. It does not pretend to be for the scientific community alone and one does not need to be a physicist nor mathematician to understand it. It is well-rounded, presents all main features of its topic, and has had the eye of the physics Wikiers constantly upon its development and construction. preceding comment unsigned by Voyajer (Mikkerpikker 17:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC))

• Oppose, this is certainly a good article & can be brought up to FA level with a bit of work but I don't think it is there yet:

No inline citations, no reference section. Please see 2c at WP:WIAFA and WP:V

Actually, there is one inline citation and one reference. AndyZ 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Object to opposition, there are two references added, however, as the article should not be too long, I do not want to add the nearly 100 references actually used in the article. Certain references are imbedded in the article itself by external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Voyajer (talk • contribs)

Two of the essential principles this encyclopedia is founded on is Verifiability & Neutral point of view. There is no choice but to reference and cite source. Not referecing something that is used not only does not fulfil verifiability, it's also Plagiarism. -- KTC 15:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking. I've been a researcher in a Research and Development Laboratory for over ten years. I'm a published writer of scientific papers in scientific journals. I understand plagiarism and it is "a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work". My reading and studying physics for over twenty years, my reading and studying quantum mechanics textbooks and dozens of journals on the subject, and THEN writing an article in my own words about everything I have read is not plagiarism. I cannot take each sentence from the article and give you a page in a scientific journal that I copied the sentence from, because I did not do so. Instead, I could give a dozen references that amount to saying the same thing for every sentence and every word I've written, however, nothing is a direct copy. I have given four references including one textbook that I've read in the compilation of the article aside from the one cited in the note and besides the three embedded as external links in the article. There are dozens of quoted references as well on the "discussion" talk page of the article because we were so very careful in writing the article that we would dispute the use of a single word such as "disturb". This is because each word, each sentence, each idea, had to be scientifically accurate. Yet, to cite each reference in the article would unduly overload the site.--Voyajer 22:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I never intended to suggest you copy work and presented as your own, nor have I ever question whether you know what you're writing. If everything is written from your head, then the article need some references that confirm what you're writing. Quoted references in "dicussion" isn't any good for the casual reader who only read the article page. From your mentioned background, you will know that if you used a source as help in writing the article, then it need to be mention somewhere. I'm not saying mentioning every book / papers on the subject you've (or any other editor) ever read, but those that were used directly during writing of the article. -- KTC 00:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

So extensive quotation from external sources without identification or direct reference (as in the Celine Dion article you put a "support" note on) is OK, but failing to meet footnoting standards on generally reported scientific information justifies a charge of plagiarism? That's just loony. Monicasdude 21:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for following Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith! Enough said. -- KTC 22:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I assumed good faith and quickly reached the conclusion that your comment was irrational, which is just what I said. And nobody who dropped a charge of plagiarism as lightly as you should hector anyone about assumption of good faith. Monicasdude 03:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My comment was "Not referecing something that is used not only does not fulfil verifiability, it's also Plagiarism.", and not "you have done that". If you have a problem understanding the difference, that's not my problem. -- KTC 04:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'Background' section needs to be expanded fairly extensively (perhaps merged with 'early discoveries'??) -- Mikkerpikker 18:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Object to opposition Background is now merged with 'early discoveries'. However, this does not improve the article. It doesn't change anything really. The explanation was already there. But per suggestion has been merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Voyajer (talk • contribs)

• Oppose in addition to what Mikkerpikker says the lead is too short WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 21:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object to opposition. Lead was never too short. The whole article is one enormouse lead-in to modern quantum mechanics. The entire article is a slowly building step-by-step logical orderly proceeding from simple ideas to complex ones. However, the background info now includes the early discoveries which are background.--Voyajer 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please see WP:LEAD - this probably should have a lead of at least two paragraphs, maybe three. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per Mikkerpikker. -- KTC 22:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please also note I have listed the spectrum image for deletion for being Education license. (I don't see it justify FU either.) -- KTC 22:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Object to opposition due to spectrum image. Image has been removed, however, it does appear in several other Wikipedia articles.--Voyajer 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Although it is ground for opposition, that wasn't why I voted oppose. It was purely a note to say that I listed it for deletion. -- KTC 15:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object There is a single inline citation and reference, and a reference section is not necessary for FA status as long as the references are stated; in this case the reference. However, 1 inline citation and reference is certainly not enough for FA status. The quote is unreferenced, as are many other numbers such as the value of h I believe. Certainly, this article is composed for sub-articles... please use {{details|subarticle}}, {{mainarticle|subarticle}}, or {{background|subarticle}} appropriately. At 49 kb, it could benefit from Wikipedia:Summary style. It needs to be of appropriate length. AndyZ 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It actually does provide the value of h in the article, and also linked to our article on Plank constant which provides more details. Only problem is, the value it provided doesn't match the one in our article for the constant. (I've changed it now) Haven't check about the other constant used in the article. -- KTC 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object to opposition against length of article. We are covering an entire field of science, an incredibly involved and complicated field of science in this article and we do so covering all salient points within 49 kb. This achievement is an incredible accomplishment. I doubt any other more thorough coverage of an entire field of science has been done in so concise and clear a manner as is presented in this article.--Voyajer 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying that the length is too large, considering some of the other FAs, but I'm saying that this article should be appropriately divided into daughter/sub pages to maintain the article size. AndyZ 00:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object to opposition to Planck's constant. Just as the calculation for pi of 3.14 is accurate and so is 3.1415 accurate for pi, because you can calculate pi to so many digits of accuracy so is Planck's constant accurate whether one uses so many digits after the decimal place or not.--Voyajer 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • He said the values of constant was unreferenced, not that it wasn't precise enough, and I've already provided a correction to the statement. I said it wasn't agreeing with our entry on Planck's constant, because it wasn't. If one is going to list a value to a certain precision (number of decimal places), one better make sure it's accurate to that many decimal places, especially if we also have and linked to an article on the constant. 6.62618 is not the same as 6.62607. -- KTC 15:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Also note, this is one perfect example of why our work need to be verifiable and citing source. It is verifiability and citing source that allows error just as this to be caught. -- KTC 16:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • A google search shows 177 articles referencing Planck's constant as 6.62618 x 10^-34 and 88 referencing Planck's constant as 6.62607 x 10^34. Referencing would not make any difference with constants which are always being refined. The alteration by KTC was appropriate, not because the original was unreferenced, but because the original number although used more frequently is not the latest calculation. The calculation changes every four years. Every constant evolves, usually, with more and more precision.--Voyajer 16:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Planck's constant rightly reference and cite CODATA's value. Having the reference allows updates if / when it does get change. Values change when experiment with more precision comes up with a better value, not calculation for it. If you're worry about the small changes every few year (it's less common than that for any one particular value), use less accuracy. No one say you need to provide the best possible accuracy available in this article, especially when you're only discussing rough value. -- KTC 17:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This looks like a fork. What's the rationale behind having this article and quantum mechanics? Tuf-Kat 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object to comment that article is a fork. Quantum mechanics article is fundamentally different from this article. It introduces quantum mechanical ideas, but in no orderly fashion. It randomly introduces the scientific language of quantum mechanics with explicit assumption that the reader can understand both the math and the expressions of quantum mechanics. Basics of quantum mechanics rather than giving an overview of Quantum Mechanics as in the original article is written as a perspective of the development of quantum mechanics giving the basic principles as they arose historically and develops each point rather than from a non-mathematical viewpoint, from a conceptual viewpoint. It could be entitled Conceptualization of quantum mechanics, but that might not convey the meaning. The title was chosen after consideration of many titles. It is very different from the other article on Quantum Mechanics in its conception, visualization, sequence, readability, treatment and clarity. The article entitled merely Quantum Mechanics sits one deeply inside quantum mechanics in a random manner which requires prior knowledge of the subject, and the other article discusses applications, philosophy, and interactions with other sciences'. The article Basics of quantum mechanics does none of these things. Instead it takes the average reader and informs in a logical progression through the development of the theory, clearly explaining each aspect and does not involve itself in the philosophy, application or interactions with other theories. In the end, the Basics of quantum mechanics is a completely different treatment unrelated to the other article called Quantum Mechanics. It is well-developed, accurate and readable. It is as short as any article of its kind can be without being incomplete. It was a monumental effort and reflects the work and attention to detail that went into its making.--Voyajer 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You don't need to say object to everything. This was a comment and question by Tuf-Kat. Just provide an explanation or justification and it will suffice. -- KTC 15:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe it need to be renamed to that like Special relativity for beginners to make it clearer. The intention of the article is that it is a beginner (non-scientist) article. It's intended to be for different audience to the other article (one that's can get deep and technical), due to the nature of difficulty of what it's describing, and the length of any article that would be if it tries to do both job at once (nevermind how annonying it would be for everyone who either don't understand, or don't want to read half of the article). -- KTC 15:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Have you read the article? It is not quantum mechanics for beginners. Rather it is quantum mechanics for the college-educated adult who is possibly an accountant, medical practitioner, architect, or politician and wants to know exactly what quantum mechanics is. Going to the main article on Quantum Mechanics one reads under 'Interactions with other scientific theories', "The fundamental rules of quantum mechanics are very broad. They state that the state space of a system is a Hilbert space and the observables are Hermitian operators acting on that space, but do not tell us which Hilbert space or which operators." This is going to tell the average college-educated reader nothing. It is only going to be understood by specialists in mathematics and physics. Basics of quantum mechanics takes the college-educated reader step-by-step through its development with particular emphasis in explaining the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. It does not talk down to the reader but assumes a basic knowledge of algebra and geometry and elementary physics. It also enables physicists to come to a better understanding of their own field. One Quantum Field Physicist who was in discussion concerning the nature of quantum mechanics in the article was concerned about origins of certain principles and the correct explanation of these principles. This article provides that. Physics in the university is often a discussion of arriving at the correct mathematical calculation rather than the principle it was built upon. This article provides for the physicist too, in that it clarifies the underlying concepts of quantum theory. I tried to post the article on the "Simple English Wikipedia". It was erased. The explanation was that it was not simple nor for beginners, but could not be understood by teenagers. This in itself is proof that it is not for beginners, but is an article for adults in other fields interested in information on quantum mechanics, and it is for students of physics trying to grasp fundamental principles, and it is for physicists who wish to more firmly understand the underlying concepts of the theory. --Voyajer 16:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

      • it is quantum mechanics for the college-educated adult who is possibly ...... is an article for adults in other fields interested in information on quantum mechanics .....

        That would qualify as one of my definition for beginner. Someone who is not in the field.

        Physics in the university is often a discussion of arriving at the correct mathematical calculation rather than the principle it was built upon.

        Any students would do better to choose a different university.

        It does not talk down to the reader but assumes a basic knowledge of algebra and geometry and elementary physics. ..... The explanation was that it was not simple nor for beginners, but could not be understood by teenagers. This in itself is proof that it is not for beginners ....... and it is for students of physics trying to grasp fundamental principles .....

        Just because it's for beginner in QM doesn't mean it can't assume some other knowledge. We're not writing a popular science book that aims to sell to 5 years old. -- KTC 17:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
        • You appear to have missed my sentence: "This article provides for the physicist too, in that it clarifies the underlying concepts of quantum theory." Perhaps you haven't majored in science and don't realize the pedagogy of the typical textbook in the typical university. It frequently happens that one can pass the tests exceedingly well, but one cannot apply the concepts. This article reveals concepts that can be hidden from the physics student at any university no matter how highly acclaimed and even concepts that have not been considered by a physicist working in the field, because it deals with the evolution of quantum theoretical concepts.--Voyajer 22:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
          • You're right that I haven't majored in science at uni, that's because I'm in science at uni right now, so I'm actually in the perfect position to judge what the typical textbook is like. My personal opinion is, if the exams by university level can't seperate those truely understand and able to apply the concepts, compare to those who only remember a few facts and equations, then the university haven't done a very good job (or even a remotely acceptable one). If what you're saying is true, why the hell are uni and professional bodies taking into account UG transcript when deciding on PG placement / sponsorship. They would do the job by just putting all the applicants with above certain grades into a random lottery. -- KTC 00:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Now this is an entirely different subject and a "pet peeve" with me as I also tutor students to pass the GRE. It is well-established that testing methods themselves are geared toward people good at taking tests. However, this has been a point of contention in the school systems for over thirty years with no real way to resolve it. As a result, from personal experience and research, I know that there are veteran accountants who don't understand GAAP, I know that there are veteran IT professionals who don't understand how a microchip works, what CMOS is, or how Windows was created, and I know that there are scientists who do not understand from where the knowledge they possess was derived. I know because I've worked with them for over a decade. That is a main reason for this article. It describes the main principles of quantum mechanics and their derivation.--Voyajer 16:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Object. This is a fork of a valid article, and may therefore be more appropriate for a Wikibook on quantum mechanics than an encyclopedia article. If quantum mechanics is not a good article, then it should be fixed; if subarticles are needed, they should be based on topics and not readership. Tuf-Kat 16:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • These two articles are fundamentally different. The approach is different. They cannot possibly be merged and they cannot possibly replace one another. The contents for "Quantum Mechanics" goes:

Contents [hide]

1 Introduction

2 Description of the theory

2.1 Quantum mechanical effects

2.2 Mathematical formulation

2.3 Interactions with other scientific theories

3 Applications of quantum theory

4 Philosophical consequences

The present article "Basics of quantum mechanics" goes from Background to Old quantum theory to Modern Quantum Mechanics with particular attention to the basic principles of quantum mechanics. Therefore, one article is about "effects", "math", "interactions", "applications", and "philosophy". And the present article is about "basic quantum mechanical principles, concepts, and foundations". These are TWO different subjects.--Voyajer 16:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The article basics of quantum mechanics does not present itself as you describe it. The lead to this article needs to explain what topic is being discussed, and how that is separate from the broad field of quantum mechanics. The dab block does not make sense if the distinction is as you describe it, since the main article on quantum mechanics apparently focuses on mathematical aspects. Perhaps this article ought to be at quantum mechanics and the article currently at that title ought to be mathematics of quantum mechanics or something. But then, as the TOC you gave demonstrates, quantum mechanics does not appear to be all about math, so the dab block may be incorrect. In any case, these two articles do not adequately distinguish themselves from each other. Tuf-Kat 17:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right that the titles themselves are deceiving. However, it would be difficult to call one: "Quantum Mechanics, its effects, mathematics, interactions, applications and philosophy" and, then, call the other one: "Basic principles of Quantum Mechanics" or "Quantum Mechanics, its principles, concepts and foundations". The article presented here is a presentation of what Quantum Mechanics is composed of, its tenets so-to-speak, its rules, its concepts, its principles, its precepts. The other article, "Quantum Mechanics" is concerned with what quantum mechanics does, its applications, its relation to other science, its philosophy. A change of title is not the question. Neither is the "dab block" as that is simple to change depending on how intricate and precise one wants to be about the fundamental differences. This discussion has not centered on the one point in question: What are the merits of the article? The article is fundamentally sound. It is well-presented. It is everything one could wish from an encyclopedia article: a precise, accurate, complete, concise description of the matter under discussion.--Voyajer 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Difficult as it may be, both articles need a clear subject area-based focus. What's there looks nice, but I can't support this article as is. Tuf-Kat 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your stance, however, there are difficulties in consensus, especially about article titles. The fact is that reading the two articles one after the other makes clear the fundamental difference of the articles and information gleaned from one cannot be derived from the other. Would you think it were clearer if this article were named: "Quantum Mechanics, its Basic Principles" or "Basic Principles of Quantum Mechanics"? Obviously, this does not change your vote in the matter, but your opinion is appreciated.--Voyajer 16:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Basic principles of quantum mechanics (note the lowercase) would be fine with me. Tuf-Kat 16:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that such a title would set quite the right expectations. I am aiming at an article that does not jump into the middle of things with the attitude that either the readers don't need to know, or that maybe the readers need to know but WE know and if they don't know, heh, heh, heh, that's their problem. To the extent possible, readers should be able to go from what they have already experienced or can fairly easily arrange to experience (such as the two-slit experiment) to an understanding what what physicists think is going on, and why. So the title should include the idea that the concepts used are given firm foundations (not sprung on the reader from on high), and that the reader is then taken from that point as far as one can go without getting involved in higher math. George Gamow wrote a book entitled One, Two, Three...Infinity, and that title suggested that he would start you at steps one, two, and three... and then maybe you could go beyond that point, the sky is the limit, but the means to get there might depend on you. I thought of "The ABCs of Quantum Mechanics," and maybe that is still a good idea. We are not, after all, dealing only with "principles." To me, that sounds like Euclid's approach to geometry. P0M 07:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Based on what's said above, the article should have undergone the peer review process. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 06:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This article was debated on AfD 10-18-05, with the result of Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyajer (talk • contribs)
    • PR and AfD is two completely different thing. AfD discuss and decides whether an article should exist at all, while PR discuss how to improve it. -- KTC 17:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• You don't need to constantly use the word object, Voyajer. Simply responding to someone's vote is enough to register your opposition. Object may be mistaken for a oppose by the closer of the nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Please sign all any vote, comment or response with ~~~~. -- KTC 17:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have been interested in the QM articles for some time now, having spent a great deal of time on another article (Philosophical_interpretation_of_classical_physics) because the opinions (sic) expressed there had an impact on other article I was involved in editing. I spend weeks trying to get clear on what the original author was trying to say, and in the process I became somewhat familiar with many of the articles on physics and especially quantum mechanics. I have a better background in physics than the average well-informed reader, having spent my first two years in university as a physics major at Stanford, but starting with the QM article I discovered a great number of these articles would be entirely over the head of anyone who had not completed a year or two of physics for physics majors. I have mentioned this observation in a couple of places, but I have never noticed much in the way of comment -- except to direct me to the article currently under discussion. When I first saw it, it was barely more than a stub. It is now an article that will give the general reader a helpful introduction to (not a superficial snow job on) quantum mechanics. There may be some reason for the Quantum mechanics article to continue as it is. It would not be easy, I suspect, to shoe-horn its contents into the Basics of QM article. Nor would it be easy to put the accessible materials in Basics of QM among the paragraphs of dense mathematical formulations. Essentially either way the two articles would be merged there would be a great danger of having two threads alternating in their appearance through one article, i.e., an Easy, Hard, E, H, E, H ... structure. I think the standard for writing in an article of this type would be that it should be as clear as the writing of somebody like Brian Greene in his Fabric of the Cosmos, and entirely supported by proper citations. The other physics articles I happen to have encountered do not reach that level of accessibility, but the Basics of quantum mechanics article seems to be very nearly up to the highest standard for this type of writing. P0M 21:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - A lot have been said and quite quite a few changes have also been made. It's too late for me to look at it now, but I'll have a look at it again tomorrow and think over the article to see whether all my (and others) still stand. KTC 00:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - - I've started back over the article, putting in footnotes and improving wording in some cases. Adding footnotes does not really add to the length of an article. (Wikipedia is not paper.) Also, it can be very useful for students to be directed to some of the original articles by people like de Broglie, Heisenberg, Bohr, et al., because they had the bandwidth to be a little more discursive and most of these scientists also wrote excellent English. The trouble for the person seeking a way into a subject may be that if they read something by, e.g., Heisenberg, they may be coming into the middle of a complicated "movie" and have no idea of the social and historical context for what is being said. A good article can make sure that all of the underpinning needed is actually there or at least accessible via links to other Wikipedia articles. P0M 17:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Quantum mechanics is more accurately termed "a theory," not "a science"; the main article treats it that way, as should this one. Not simply a verbal slip in the intro, but similar comments elsewhere in the article. Monicasdude 03:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Style of Background section. The Background section seems polluted by too many names of scientists. Their names appear first in the sentance before the phenomenon that they discovered, which detracts from the phenomenon. The article should be less like a history of QM and more like an introduction to the Theory. Names should be included but given less prominence. Newton's theories should be moved from middle (what is the unlinked word "corpuscular" doing in a basics article anyway) to start of this section (they are after all the background to QM), and the first theories of QM phenomena contrasted to them. Muxxa 11:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Film colorization

Self-nomination. A while back, there wasn't a whole lot in this article, but I did some major cleaning up on it, and some other Wikipedia users have added to the article. I think that the current product is a very good, well-written, well-put together article about colorization technology: the pros, the cons, the controversy, how people do it, why people do it, etc. I think it would be interesting to see this topic become a featured article candidate. This is something that has led to so much discussion. (Ibaranoff24 00:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC))

• Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 00:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC))
• Object Lacks references, needs a lot more on the process of both old and modern coloring techniques. Needs better orginization, technology and technique should probably be first and then a history section. Needs more information on use in old films, how popular was it? Were audiences thrilled when color appeared on the screen? Generally all information should be expanded. All opinons need to referenced with in line references or some other way of stating where that opinion came from. Writing needs to be in the third person, no "we". References to colorization in pop culture section needs to be deleted, one line jokes are not notable. MechBrowman 02:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• I reorganized the page somewhat, adding in some more material. Is this update better? (Ibaranoff24 06:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC))

Its better, but far from FA status. I recommend putting it up for Peer Review. MechBrowman 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. What MechBrowman said. JoaoRicardo^talk 04:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. No references, in-line HTML citations need to be converted into footnotes (see Wikipedia:Footnotes) and put into a notes section. Lead is too short. Lacks lots of information - Please see the FA criteria, refer to peer review. — Wackymacs 11:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Minor object - Needs referencing section, per above. --Kilo-Lima 12:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Slight Oppose. I got grilled for not putting in footnotes, I've been passing on the favour ever since. Footnotes are needed, information is needed, work is needed. As per above, put it up for peer review... Spawn Man 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Got the footnotes into the article. (Ibaranoff24 04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

Still needs to be under the footnotes section, not external links. Do you have any printed info in the footnotes? Spawn Man 05:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

All my sourcing is from online articles. I don't have any printed material that refers to colorization. (Ibaranoff24 21:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

Changed my vote slightly, although I still stand by my original comments. You definitely need to beef up the article substansially & get printed sources on the article. I agree with below that a library should have some stuff on it in the technology section, & that the internet is not the most reliable place to gather information. It is sad however, that people who place false things on their websites, ruin it for other who only place the facts on their websites. Excellent job with the footnotes! Most people can't get the hang of them straight away, but you're already doing them like a pro. Great job. Spawn Man 00:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I recommend aquiring books about film history and technology either through a library or some other means, I don't think this article can be comprehensive with just online sources. The majority of the content in the article are examples of colorization. The article needs to place how film colorization fits in with the advancement of film technology and film's development as an artform. It's better organized now, but it's just not comprehensive. Also when you cite your references, web or otherwise, please use a proper format. Examples MechBrowman 23:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Extraordinary Machine

After reading through this article, I found it to be one of the most informative and comprehensive articles about an album on the entire site. II also found it extremely well referenced and written.--Fallout boy 09:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The article's peer review from last September can be found here. Extraordinary Machine 17:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, comments:

1. Fails 2a (esp. "Background and production" and "Delays and leaked tracks")
2. The intro doesn't quite work & is confusing, what about: "Extraordinary Machine is the third album by American singer-songwriter Fiona Apple. Produced by Jon Brion, it was originally scheduled for release in 2003 but was delayed several times by Epic Records without explanation, leading to speculation that a dispute had arisen over its commercial appeal."
3. Direct quotes (such as "The first couple of years [after Pawn], I didn't have anything left in me to write about...I just figured if the songs came to me, they came to me, and if not, 'Oh, well, it's been fun'") need to be cited
4. The whole 1st paragraph of "Background and production" needs citations
5. Perhaps you could excise the tangential info about Frank Sinatra (or put it in a trivia section). Ditto for the birthday factoid in "A reworked version of the song was performed at Largo on September 13 (Apple's twenty-fifth birthday), and Apple was joined by Brion on the celeste."
6. The URL for ref 2 is dead
7. Ref 4 doesn't point to the correct page on the website, couldn't verify source...
8. "It has some good bits, but I still think we never have topped the second version. Ideally, we would combine some of this with that, but obviously we can't. Sigh. Ask the others what they think - I know she was partial to both of them, particularly the second". is a direct quote, needs a ref
9. Quote attribution: "It's our understanding that Fiona is still in the midst of recording her next album, and we at Epic Records join music lovers everywhere in eagerly anticipating her next release."
10. "Delays and leaked tracks" is repetitive & needs serious copyedit
11. "Reception" is a section stub...
12. etc. (more of the same all over...) --Mikkerpikker 11:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and PLEASE enlarge the font of the "Notes" section, it is unreadable! Mikkerpikker 11:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Articles with sections that are stubs should not become Featured Articles. They need to be well-researched.SoothingR 14:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object, per above comments (I should note that I am one of the people alongside Fallout boy who has been contirbuting to this article). There's hardly any material on the album's history following its release (its Grammy nomination could use a mention, for example), and no quotes from any critics regarding the official version. Also, as Mikkerpikker pointed out above, some factoids and bits of trivia I originally added to the article are unimportant (as I now realise) and should be removed. I think that it should have gone through peer review again. That said, I respect and appreciate the concerns raised by other users, and hope that this article can be brought up to featured standard eventually. Extraordinary Machine 17:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Aside from the stubs argument, this is an article re: a commercially available product that may be misconstrued as advertising by a casual reader. We may be validating more than just ephemeral pop by featuring this (and many others of a similar category) article as best practice. --HasBeen 11:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Billings, Montana

Changes have been fixed and it's time this goes through again. FireSpike 03:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article lacks a reference section, contains too many lists which should be turned into prose, also, has too many one sentence paragraphs. RyanGerbil10 04:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fails 2b by a wide mark. Tony 04:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a very good start to the article, but all of the sections are too short and should be expanded. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 04:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As per above, "Goverment" & "Economy" should be substantial sections. "History" is way too short & "Future" needs some serious work... etc. More images would also be nice... Mikkerpikker 05:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Too many short sections/subsections - too many short paragraphs,sentences. Too many lists (these need to be converted into prose). No references? Please see the FA criteria and refer to peer review. — Wackymacs 07:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: as above Giano | talk 09:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object per all of other arguments. The article needs to be fixed up to be written better; just one example:

More widely famous people who have lived in Billings include Charles Lindbergh, who once worked as a mechanic at the Billings Logan Airport and performed as a barn stormer. - More widely famous? Needs to be corrected

The article needs copyediting{1 and 2a,b). It also needs references and inline citations(2c). There are way too many sections (3c). AndyZ 15:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

San Pellegrino

Since I, metaphorically speaking, seem to be the only contributor to the article, this is a self-nomination. I believe this article has gone through major renovation. Since the first peer review, I have managed to do what everybody requested. Similarly, I have also been able to meet the demands of the latest peer review. I have adressed the situation of both peer reviews. I generally describes the situation of the water: History, Popularity, Overview, and Analysis. Even although very little vandalism is not a valid reason for support, it could be interesting to note that the article hasn't been touched by a vandal. Thanks, --Kilo-Lima 14:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Please expand the lead to two concise paragraphs (see WP:Lead). The History section is missing a lot of information - what happened in the 1910s, 1920s, 1940s, 1950s? Information on marketing/advertising is missing. Production and sales figures require references using Wikipedia:Footnotes. Information on the packaging seems to be missing. Has it gone any rival products? Some of the tense is incorrect, saying 'is' instead of 'was' or 'are' instead of 'were', such as: About 100 years later, in the late 1899, 35,343 bottles are produced; 5,562 of which are exported. This is the first sale figure of the water. Those bottles were produced, not are. References are generally lacking, 3 of them are from the same website and one just from a bottle itself. What about news reports or information from the drink's official website? The addition of the drink logo would be a good thing to add. The article is generally lacking in information - it is too short to become featured at this stage, I was able to find lots of information about the drink on the official website that is not included in this article. — Wackymacs 17:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. According to the San Pellegrino website, everything from the 1910s, 20s, 40s and 50s is generally unnecessary. 1911 and 1917 talk about "some" casio: this couldn't be prose - I decided not to include it in the article becuase I, personlly, don't think anyone would want to read about a casino - when the entire article is about the water. There is no mention of the 1920s on the website. 1940s: There is, yet again, no mention of the 1940s. 1950s: There is only one entry for the 1950s: "The Societa Anonima delle Terme di San Pellegrino purchases Acqua Panna". -- Personally, I have no idea what this is about. What is "he Societa Anonima delle Terme di San Pellegrino" and what is "Acqua Panna"? Since I don't speak Italian, who knows. I will continue to improve it tomoroow. --Kilo-Lima 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC). PS: I have uploaded the folowing images:

Image:San Pelly official.PNG - The logo of San Pellegrino. I have already added it to the article.

• Object. Ditto Wackymacs. Rlevse 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. "San Pellegrino also produces carbonated beverages in various flavors. Some of which include: Aranciata (Orange), Limonata (Lemon), Sanbittèr (Bitters), and Chinò (Chinotto). The cost of such drinks are about the same as a 500ml of San Pellegrino." The price information for a bottle of 500ml San Pellegrino was never mentioned in the article (only the 750ml). Because of this, this comparison is meaningless as the we do not know the property (price) of the thing which is been comapred against. The point I'm making is that before a comparison, we must know the properties of one of the objects (price, size etc.) and therefore we can relate the property in the subject, originally unknow before the comparison, to the same know property in the object. As we don't know how much a 500ml San Pellegrino costs, even there is a comparison made we still don't know the price of the different flavours. It's like saying evaluate x when x=y. Obviously y is also a variable and without enough information neither can be evaluated. Of course, this might be a simple typo error which originally inteded the "500ml" to be "750ml".Also there are not much information as a whole in the article and there seems to be an abundance of positive annotations for the drink. I'm sure there is some negatives out there as well that can be added. E.g. did the drink ever caused controversy? Some of the materials already there can be expanded and new information can be grabbed off the internet and re-written. And lastly dittoing Wackymacs, the tenses need a good fixing. --★Ukdragon37★^talk 19:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments, Ukdragon37, but perhaps you would like to go to Tesco (I know where you live) and look at the drinks refridgerator, nearby the newspapers, and help contribute to the article by finding out the price of the 500ml. Personally, I know. --Kilo-Lima 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • To answer your comment, I am not the person who wish to promote this article to FA status. Also, if Tesco's the only place which you got your prcing information, then I must say it might be a "biased" source as that's only one retailer. Perhaps you should go to Sainsbury's or some other retailers and average out the prices? Also this article lacks flair, it seems boring and contains not much information. Most featured articles contains a full and rich introduction probably because if the article gets further promoted to Main Page status the introduction will most likely be the only section which will be shown directly. I am willing place a bet that if the article gets FA status, which I doubt, you will want to nominate it to be shown on the Main Page. Do we really want people to see a stub of introduction the first time they visit Wikipedia? I think not. The introduction therefore should be expanded, in my opinion, for all articles that have or is trying to gain FA status despite whether or not they will be put up to the main page as the introduction will give the reader a fine idea of what the rest of the article is like. A short and unimaginative introduction will put readers off reading the rest. It's much likle story-writing, where you must write a good chapter 1 to compell the readers to read the following chapters. Also, the horrid use of pictures in the article has created horrendous gaps in the main text. Please fix this as it is certainly not FA material. --★Ukdragon37★^talk 12:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • And just another pouint I forgot, if you know the price of the 500ml bottle why don't you add it in? Articles must not be discriminant, which means revealing information for those who knows something else. In this case, only the people who knows the price of the 500ml bottle will know the price of the different varieties. What about the people who never heard of San Pellegrino before? Not everyone on Wikipedia drinks San Pellegrino and knows every single price of the different bottles you know. --★Ukdragon37★^talk 13:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have been to Peckham's, and Tesco to price it. And I have already added it to the article. --Kilo-Lima 13:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC) I have also added where the spring is in the introduction. San Pellegrino is anything but a stub. --Kilo-Lima 13:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If you have read my comments carefully you will see that I did not say that the article was a stub. Rather, I said the introduction is much like a stub and it will not feature nicely on the Main Page or for a standard FA. Comparing the article to today's Main Page article De Lorean DMC-12, it pales in comparison. The introduction of De Lorean DMC-12 was very well written and is three times as long as your introduction. The introduction must have a sufficent length to give the reader a good impression of Wikipedia when they look at the Main Page. Hoever i'm just guessing that you want your article on the Main Page. The same can be said to the whole article. De Lorean DMC-12 is I think 4 times longer than San Pellegrino. There are many times more references, footnotes, external links and related article links. This just comes down to the major point, the article is simply not long and exciting enough to constitute as Wikipedia's best. --★Ukdragon37★^talk 14:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It depends on what people would define as "interesting." Shoe polish is a featured article, and personally, I don't think very many people would like to talk about show polish. I believe on the Talk Page of the Main Page, there were several minor discussions about how disappointed people where when they realised it was a featured article. And becuase De Lorean DMC-12 contains more words than San Pellegrino, then by de facto the lead section would be longer. --Kilo-Lima 14:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • A specific article cannot possibly gain the support of every because people themselves define differently what makes a good article. However the general idea is the same. That's why we have a majority voting system where the concensus decides the result. There will always be people who are disappointed but our aim is to please the majority and if the minority suffers, that's unfortunate but nothing can be done about it. See Utilitarianism. Also, the size of the article gives us to some degree whether that article contains a lot of useful information. Granted, it might contain a lot of garbage but often this is not the case. What is certain is that a short article will not contain as much information as a long article, regardless whether those information will be useful. Of course the introduction is proportionate to the whole article and this just further strenghthens my point, where we could make an educated guess about the length of the article by looking at its introduction. Again I re-emphasize, San Pellegrino is not nearly long enough to be featured. on the "interesting" issue, iteresting can be defined as an article that gives a lot of good information. The fallacy in your statement is that an article will only be "interesting" or "good" if many people are willing to talk about it. This is not true. The quality of the article is given by how well it's written and how much information it gives, rather than how many people wishes to discuss it. If for example Prostitution or Occult is put up for FA, "not many people are willing to talk about it" will not be a valid opposing reason. There's a difference beetween whether the article is interesting or the subject of the article is interesting. The article can be about insignificant things (like shoe polish) and still be interesting because it's well written. I am aware there will always be people who are against the majority decision but to enforce an orderly system, this is the only way. We can't please everyone at the same time. --★Ukdragon37★^talk 15:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not everybody is a Utilitarian. Also, we do not have a voting system. Wikipedia is not a democracy - This, FAC, is actually a discussion, and who it can be improved toward a FA status. --Kilo-Lima 15:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes but we are trying to reach a concensus here through discussion and such concensus will be the result of whether this article will be up for FA. Through this, we are using a system similar to utilitarianism so it is not relevant whether we are utilitarians or not. Also, don't you think this discussion is getting far-fetched that we are debating about the concensus system of Wikipedia? The main point is that the article is not long enough and it lacks information. No amount of debating can cause it to spontaneously grow in length. --★Ukdragon37★^talk 18:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, you would like to contribute to the article, itself. You did say "I [you] am [are] not the [only] person who wish to promote this article to FA status". --Kilo-Lima 18:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I merely pointed out the fact that as you are the person who wants to promote this article, you should improve the article and share it with us. Unfortunately I am not even close to a San Pellegrino fanatic and therefore I know very little about the subject. I am only pointing out things that are generic to all articles. --★Ukdragon37★^talk 18:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No-one necessarily has to be a fanatic about the water. I like it, but that doesn't mean I am obsessed. I know very little about the water, also. That's why - as people who have access to the internet - reasearch upon it. --^KILO-^LIMA 17:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object. It has grown slightly better since my comment on the peer review, but unfortunately it is far from featured article quality. Following the other comments on tenses and illogical comparisons, the article could use much copyediting. The lead is short and weak. There is actually only one reference; the one website for San Pellegrino, not enough for FA status. The information is lacking, not thorough, and not well-written. For example:

San Pellegrino (also known as S. Pellegrino, SANPELLEGRINO, or S. PELLEGRINO) is an expensive carbonated water, produced and bottled at San Pellegrino Terme, nearby Milan, Italy. - lead sentence incorrectly uses the word "nearby"

• • I have added an image which shows the comparison of the two towns. --Kilo-Lima 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Owned by Nestlé, San Pellegrino's logo is a red five-pointed star, with another white five pointed star as a contour. - incorrect wording; this says that the logo of San Pellegrino is owned by Nestle, not San Pellegrino itself.

• • Thank you for fixing it. --Kilo-Lima 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Below is some of the major ones throughout San Pellegrino's history- a useless and superfluous statement that should be removed.

• • Thank you for fixing it. --Kilo-Lima 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Almost 200 years later, in 1509, Leonardo da Vinci, who dedicated a treatise to water and studied it, - too many commas

About 100 years later, in the late 1899, 35,343 bottles were produced; 5,562 of which were exported. - second part is fragmented, semicolon should be changed to a comma.

• • Thank you for fixing it. --Kilo-Lima 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In 1904, the Bergamo—San Pellegrino railway line was made - what? sentence doesn't make sense.

• • I have added more minor detail. --Kilo-Lima 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This would probably make it easier for San Pellegrino to be exported; and possibly cheaper, too - Probably and possibly? what kind of research is this? Must be factually accurate.

Some of which include: Aranciata (Orange), ... -fragment

• • Fixed. --Kilo-Lima 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• There are several other mistakes that have to be corrected. Dashes are used too often and are incorrectly used. Sentence structure is too repetitive, for example the last too sentences in the history section both start with Later... Later... . The article has to be expanded so that it is thorough and well-written, failing criteria 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 5. AndyZ 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose needs more work. what about the Italian city? It might help avoid the need to put a map of San Pellegrino's location (as there are way too many pictures in the article right now) if a separate article were created for the city at San Pellegrino (city) --Revolución (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, the Italian city is called San Pellegrino Terme and is mentioned in the opening paragrapgh of the article. As you can see, it's a red link. --Kilo-Lima 12:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object Fails 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a and 3c. This article needs a lot of work before it will be up to FA status. Mikkerpikker 03:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Libertarian Socialism

This is a former Featured Article that was, as far as I can tell, removed because of the efforts of a single, dedicated individual who saw the concept of 'Libertarian Socialism' as a contradiction in terms. While, I'd be happy to argue this point with this individual in another forum, the fact is that historically 'Libertarian Socialism' has been used as a synonym for the movements described in the article. (In fact, I've read that the use of the term 'Libertarian' in describing socialist anarchists predates the modern usage of the term to describe modern supporters of Laissez-faire capitalism--I don't have a source...but I'll search for one if needed) Again, this is not the place for personal political opinions, or difficulty with the name of the article. -- harris0 12:45, January 6th

• Oppose. At the present, contains no explicit references section. RyanGerbil10 06:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Fails 2a, 2c, 3a & 4. Mikkerpikker 01:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Only one reference as far as I can find, which is not enough, and besides there is no references section, criteria 2c. It also needs inline citations (not external links scattered throughout the article hampering readibility), again critera 2c. It is also starting to grow rather large, at 46kb, and needs to be divided into daughter articles through Wikipedia:Summary style. AndyZ 15:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

A very good article, not too long, cites sources and references, violates no policy of wikipedia and is also written well. Easily at the standard of past featured articles. Pictures are set out well, and the style is easy to follow.

Support I submit this article having seen it and I say that the only minor problem that could be changed is the length of the final paragraph. However, this is only the worst part of the article, and it is still very good. --The1exile 16:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I think you're not supposed to vote when you're the submitter of an article. Also note that new FACs go at the TOP of this list, not the bottom.–Rlevse 17:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object The only references are two external links. There should be a reference section (bound to be some a topic this important and well known), with inline citations (see Wikipedia:Inline Citation and FAC criteria). Most of the Specifications section could go into an infobox similar to the one in USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67), making the info more readable. Most of the Design section could be put into prose (see FAC criteria). I haven't read the text yet. –Rlevse 17:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment To clear up these issues, as far as military aircraft go there is usually a section on the specifications of the aircraft, as in F-22 and F/A-18 Hornet rather than an infobox. Also, I'm pretty sure that there is nothing on the featured article candidates page saying whether the new submissions should go at the top or the bottom of the article, so I decided to submit this like a new comment on a talk page. And feel free to ignore my support comment then. I will strike it out. Finally, with 13 external links, I dont understand your problems with lack of references. --The1exile 19:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Item 5 of the "Adding Nominations" section near the top of this page says "Place ===name of nominated article=== at the top." Did you read it? The F-22 and F/A-18 articles aren't trying to become featured articles. External links are generally used to refer to amplifying data, a reference is used to provide source info that directly supports the points, comments, etc mentioned in the article. -- Rlevse

• Comment Is it my browser that doesnt show my preceeding comment on the main page? I have already tried a purge. --The1exile 19:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know why, but when you edit the FAC page, they don't show up right away, but if you click on a edit button for a FAC nomination, they'll be there. It seems to take about an hour for the total refresh to happen. I think it's strange too. Rlevse 00:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. First of all, the style does not conform to the layout given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. Featuring an article that doesn't follow a WikiProject's guidelines defeats the purpose of the WikiProject — besides, the WP:AIR format is easier to read. The "Specifications" and "Design" sections should not come before the main body of the article; if I were to skip the lists, as many readers do, by the time I got to "Project history" I would have passed over half the article! A good article will keep be top-heavy with prose, keeping any listy stuff at the end; some of that information could also be reformatted as prose. Also, the title "International participation" is used for both a section at the top and a subsection near the end; is the info in them related, and should they be merged, or does one need a new title? --keepsleeping sleeper cell 01:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The Wikiproject Aircraft is something I was not aware of. As for layout, yes it needs to be reworked, I will fix it when I have time. The F/A-18 article was an example for layout; using a USN layout for an aircraft seems to be an unneccessary comparison. It may not be featured article yet then; I will fix it and then say when it is more ready to be a FAC. --The1exile 18:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Now that I have time to read about WP:AIR in detail, I find problems for it; the layout is evidently designed for past or current aircraft, rather than future fifth generation fighters like the F-35. About the section at the top; it shows theorised partners and minor disagreements and their reasons; the section at the bottom is bigger and is almost exclusively about British and Australian discontent; the first section is short enough to be an introduction, while the last is long enough to be read after interest is sustained. If they are merged then the information becomes long enough to become patently unreadable. --The1exile 12:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Object The "Non-vehicle differentiator" section reads like incomprehensible jargon ("The ALIS system will also be the gateway for operating units to tie into the JSF global supply network. ALIS also will provide a wide variety of global, fleet-wide analysis of supply chain, costs, and vehicle and warfighting and performance. ALIS will also interact with legacy government systems.").

What does that mean? I don't know - it reads like vaporous propaganda. Until that section explains what ALIS actually does in a way the average person can understand, I don't think this should be a featured article.

130.164.79.248 17:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment A couple of comments:
  • the section on the Australian debate on the F-35, while interesting and worth including, seems to be over-long and rambling should be tightened. In addition, quoting Karlo Copp's views at length is somewhat risky as he tends to be on the fringe of the Australian defence establishment and is noted for exagerating the air threat to Australia and what Australia needs to do in response to this threat. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's analysis of the F-35 at http://www.aspi.org.au/15690bigdeal/index.html is probably more worthy of attention.
  • In the section on 'USAF STOVL Purchase' it is stated that However, due to opposition from people involved with the program, and the associated cost of developing a fourth variant, the USAF version would likely be identical to the USMC/RN F-35B specification. Who are these 'people'?--Nick Dowling 11:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support I would support this article if the above points were adressed. It is well written, NPOV and cites sources and references well, but the length of some sections needs to be improved. Rewrite the Australian debate section, and you've got my vote. BTW, I know some people use this PC to vandalise Wikipedia, but I can only hope that the morons who do so stop soon. Disadvantage of a public computer. --212.85.15.74 13:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Any more problems? I have combed through the article, but even todays featured article had an obvious problem with the links (which I corrected). If this is the current standard of featured article, then why not vote this one in? --The1exile 16:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Boudica

I think this is a thouroughly comprehensive, well-referenced and interesting article. --Nicknack009 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

*Please sign your submission (four ~ will generate your username and time stamp). Condidtional support, will look over more later. Rlevse 18:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Lead is too short. Several paragraphs are very fragmented - the English could be improved (specifically in the 'Cultural impact' subsections). 'Further reading' and 'External links' sections should not be subsections of 'References'. — Wackymacs 19:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Article is very well written, but I'm uncomfortable with it making the Romans look evil and the Iceni look good. It should be more balanced. But it is certainly in the right way. JoaoRicardo^talk 01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object. I have to agree with Wackymacs and the Romans vs Icenii point of JoaoRicardo. However, I do think it's very close to an FA and can get there with a little work. Rlevse 03:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support.

1. The lead is too short, it needs to be two to three paragraphs long.
2. Like wackymacs, I believe there are stylistic problems, especially in the first part of the 'History' section. (This section is also the most important part of the article because it gives an account of Boudicas revolt and it should therefore be named 'Boudicas revolt'.) The sentences appear like they were written 'under the influence' of complicated Latin sentence-construction. I suggest shortening the sentences and leaving out some of the qualifiers.
3. Also, in the section describing the revolt, I am missing much of the description of Boudicas involvement. Her name appears only three times in this section. What exactly did she do? The reader is only told that she leads the revolt. None of her actions are described. (She gave a speech to the troops in the beginning, she was shouting encouragement from her chariot while they were fighting.) Since the article is about Boudica I would mention her several times: the rebels under the leadership of Boudica burnt down London..., the Iceni, lead by Boudica..., the Britons under the command of Boudica... etc. Also, the reader needs a description of what she looked like (tall, red wavy hair down to her knees) before reading the section on the revolt, maybe in the intro.
4. Also, I would accurately describe the 'atrocities' committed by the Iceni, preferably using a direct quote from Tacitus.--Fenice 08:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

World War II

I believe that this important article has greatly improved since the last time it was nominated. Much of it has been thanks to the article improvement drive. I truly hope that this time it makes it to featured article status this time. Tarret 14:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak SupportWeak Object The two bulleted items in the Cause should be converted into simple prose. A debated starting date probably doesn't deserve its own section, and could be merged into the participants or chronology sections. Resistance is slightly short, looking at the main article written for it, and the paragraphs can use some development. AndyZ 14:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that my concerns have been addressed, I'm changed my vote to a weak support. AndyZ 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object as follows:

• Please use a standard infobox template.

I think the casualties are wrong here. The casualties1/casualties2 fields are meant to have information for each side in the war, not a military/civilian breakdown.

• There are many very specific points given in the article; inline citations, in decent quantity, would be appropriate.
• Is there some reason why all of the images are on the right side? It's somewhat unbalanced.
• The see-also template at the bottom is of rather questionable value; is there any possiblility it could be reduced in size?

It seems a good article overall, but the technical points—particularly the lack of citations—need to be fixed. —Kirill Lokshin 18:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Covers all bases. Well presented. Zzzzz 18:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support:I added info to the Resistance section, fixed the see also template and the images now seem to be equally distributed throughout the page now. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck
• Object, no inline citations. Please use any method of inline citations—{{inote}}, Wikipedia:Footnotes, whatever—and cite the facts in this article. There is no lead need for the non-standard "Summary" section—that's the point of the lead section. Condense and move information from the summary section to the lead and eliminate the "summary" section. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

this article has only a half a dozen sources with no inline citations, but still is an FA. This process is simply biased. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 07:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it uses {{inote}} quite extensively. Go into edit mode and take a look at the end of most of the paragraphs. In principle, though, you're right—many old FAs, and even some new ones, don't have inline citations. Standards are certainly increasing as time goes on, but I think that's a good thing, because it shows how far we've come. See User:Spangineer/inline citations for why I think citations are important. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 16:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the summary section has already been elimated. Savidan 20:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object : 1. At ~78kb, this article is huge! It should be written in summary form and details moved to daughter articles. 2. The ToC is bulky. Please reduce the sub-sections. (I have lots of other points, but this has to be done first. ) =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'm sure many users understand that World War II spanned seven years, and I'm sure many users understand that the history that was made during that time period was incredible... but the size of this article is ridiculous! The war most certainly was a time of intense action and information, however Wikipedia has a policy, and this article... it's just too long. Attempt to shorten it by at least 20KB. If it decreases to 50KB, then perhaps I'll give it a read-through. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The featured article, Hugo Chavez was 100+ KB. I think is argument is moot. You're saying it isn't worthy of an FA because it has too much information? Wow. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 07:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because an article has slipped through once, it doesn't mean one cannot object on the size. Wikipedia:summary style explains why a summary is needed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. Therefore, my objection stands. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not about making excuses for why this article should be promoted due to absence of inline notes or size of other articles. It is showing a very bad reflection of Wikipedia, in my opinion, when some instead of all articles are put on such demands. Thus, I see it as getting an FA is like winning the lottery. We are putting standards on some articles, and ignoring others. IN my opinion THIS FEATURED ARTICLE is NOT as good as this one. World War II, given the size of the military campaigns and what not, deserves more room. To cut down info is crazy to me. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You needn't to get so defensive. People do have differing opinions, and for an article of this magnitude, we shouldn't point fingers at other articles. Fixing valid objections will get this article featured, pointing fingers and 'shouting' will not. If you were told to write about WW2 for a printed article, and given precisely four pages to fit it in, I'm sure you would précis it. The article is *not* written in summary style: I'll give you an example: Is there a genuine need to mention who piloted the Enola Gay? or what FDR's opinion on the Home fronts were; details of the battle of Crete etc. ? The history section in article on India effectively summarises 6,000 years of India's chequered history in about 6 paragraphs, leaving details to daughter articles. That's what a summary is all about. Nobody's asking you to cut it down to an exact number. Besides, the article needs a moderate copyedit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Even though the page size is too big, there is no reason to prevent this article from being featured. I don't think encyclopedia Britanica would take out information because it is too detailed. The amount of detail that the article gives is important. I can see the new slogan for wikipedia now, "Give lots of detail, but not too much." RENTA _{FOR LET?} 03:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you've read the summary style link I've posted above. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, I ask the users who are posting beneath my objection to halt from arguing. I have placed a vote, and will not be changing it unless the article is brought down in size. Thank you. And thanks, Nichalp, nonetheless. :) —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's the right size given the topic. Hydriotaphia 11:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. The problem is that the topic is so extensive, it's oversized even with correct summary style done. Look through the article - you'll see that nearly every section is short and leads to a daughter/fork article already. This article is summary style at its best. I don't see any other solutions (and please note that I'm going to be slightly facetious here), other than making this article out of nothing but headings, or pretending the Pacific theatre never happened. -Rebelguys2 17:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a "conditional" to my support, as I totally forgot about the lack of references while I was paying attention to size issues. See Wikipedia:Inline Citation; it states that although there are rare exceptions, articles should not use this rarity as a way to dodge the problem. Nobody^[1] wants^[2] to^[3] see^[4] this^[5], but it's possible to cite facts and figures, contentious issues, etc., inline while keeping the article flowing well.

Other arguments cite the existence of older articles that do not meet the standards we find here. I think we can all agree that standards for FA have rapidly become tougher and tougher - and I think we should all agree that this is a good thing. If there's truly a problem with an old article (and we all know that some of the older ones would never survive an FAC today), take it to Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. Becoming a FA is hard, becoming a FA should be hard, and we should not use old examples to dodge valid issues and prevent this article from becoming the best it can be. -Rebelguys2 21:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object My objection is the references. Contrary to Spangineer's comment, I see no inote entries (maybe I don't know what to look for here). I find a ² entry, but it does not link to anything (try clicking on it, I can't tell where the link should move to). On the other hand, I agree with Spangineer that the same standards are not applied to all FA/FACs. One of the most common points of contention is referencing. This article has references listed, but they are not linked to the body of the article. I can only try be consistent myself in the FACs I look over. For this WWII article, I'd like to see the references linked to the body of the article and the problem with the ² fixed. As for article length, WWII is a massive subject and the writer(s) did a superb job of handling it, as noted by Rebelguys2. I also think it is well written and layed out well. Rlevse 18:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Spangineer is talking about Military history of Puerto Rico when he says {{inote}} is used substantially, not this article, which has no inline citations that I can see. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, re inote. But I do not prefer them as one does not see the ref unless he goes to the edit mode. While it is a ref method, I feel it's better to see it on the article's page, like the ref/note method. Bottom line, I can support this is the refs are fixed. Rlevse 18:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object per others. I can stand the length for a topic this complex, but the lack of detailed inline citations is unacceptable for an article with so many editors. It is difficult to believe that all the contributors to this article really used just the few references listed. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object, echoing Chistopher Parham: The length is not a problem for me; I think it's absurd to suggest that the parent article on the largest war in all human history should be kept under 50k or some other arbitrary length. That said, the lack of proper citations prevents me from supporting it. Andrew Levine 20:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object: no inline citations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

From my point of view everyone is saying that they are objecting because of inline citation. This can be fixed. But do you really think that this great article should be prevented from being an FAC now just becuase of that. Why can't we get it to be FAC now and the fix the inline citations later. This FAC process could be too quick to change the inline citation so just FAC it now, work on the citation and then once it is FAC we can deal with it then. Oh and also Wikipedia:Inline citations says that for FAC there are exceptions, "rare exceptions," but I think this article is worthy of being a rare exception. I mean I think it is the best article on Wikipedia so doesn't that make it rare?? RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 03:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you. In theory, no article should be promoted until it fulfills all of the criteria. Otherwise the concept of FA loses it credibility. FA is for what represents the best of Wikipedia, not what could represent the best with a bit more work. Also, if this fails FAC now, it can still be brought up in the future once all the problems are addressed. And I doubt that one person's opinion that this is the best article on Wikipedia would qualify this article as a "rare exception". - The Catfish 05:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the writers of the inline citations page were thinking when they wrote that, but I can't think of any examples of articles that don't need inline citations. Perhaps an article on a topic so obscure that there's only one reference. Here, however, with so much published on WWII, it's imperative that citations be added. It's simple to reapply for FAC status later—I'd suggest adding copious citations and coming back when you're done. It's a hassle, I know—in my first FAC, I had to add 40 inline citations before the article got promoted. Also, I agree with the others who say that footnotes are preferable to inote. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Writer, I am the one who wrote the Wikipedia: Inline Citation article from the ground up, although others have since added to it. To answer your qestion as to what I was thinking, some articles on this site exist almost entirly on rumors and speculation, or on word of mouth reports. Such articles could conceivably run through the FAC prossess and pass, but they would have to do so without alot of source citing because the sources for such articles would be speculating themselves, or would have strong feelings one way or the other. I apologize if that was unclear originally, and in light of your question I have taken to nailing that part down some for future reference. TomStar81 06:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem at all; I can see what you mean. Even so, the classic "rumor" based article (GNAA) has numerous references and inline citations, and some claimed that it should have had more. Furthermore, it was still not granted FA status, largely for not being verifiable enough. In practice, therefore, I'm not sure that there is any FA that doesn't need inline citations. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 16:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will see about rewording that at some point today to reflect this discussion. And for the record, one good example of an article I had in mind would be the Montauk Project: awesome to read, but its attached to speculation the way an unborn child is attached to its mother, so trying to confirm or deny any of it would be virtually impossible, and thats at best.TomStar81 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I'm entirely clear on inline citation. In my eyes, all you have to do to fix the inline citation on WW2 is to take out the footnotes on the page. Can someone clarify? RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 00:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Support Great article about a really important topic in human history. My only condition is that the editors experienced with this article go through the external links and cut out any that may err on the side of linkspam and only keep the really important ones. No doubt, there are a lot of important links there, but just at a glance, how important is "Phil's WW2 photo page"? Great work. -Scm83x 10:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Summary section needs to be merged into the lead (since that is what it is anyway) and sized down a bit to make it more concise. The article is not well referenced - for an article over 70K long there are under 10 Notes! There are no general references, and the notes list should be numbered instead of bulleted. First two subsections in 'Chronology' are very short, so these should be merged together. There are lots of bolded words in 'Participants', these should be unbolded. Subsections in 'See also' should be removed. My main objection is that there are too many statements without sources of any kind, more in-line citations are a must. Please see Wikipedia:Footnotes. Wackymacs 20:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support A good article, touching on all aspects of the War. The size of the article makes it a bit of a monster, but that can't be helped, the subject matter and the size of the war both conspire against it. TomStar81 05:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Object. There shudent be anything about the UN-reform in this article Jonatanj 11:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That part has been removed. TomStar81 00:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Still needs lots of improvement. I'll just rattle off my complaints (: , top to bottom:

Introduction The far east shouldn't be given such a background position. The fascist expeditionary forces should not be listed in the intro, way too much detail (and somewhat misleading). Calling the Commonwealth the Allies is misleading too, the term only applys after the invasion of Poland. China goes to China as a civiliazation. Rape of Nanking (sp?) needed in the casualty section. "Fundemental shift of power" needs to be somewhat explained.

Causes Such a minute section for what is the most important! Some things needed include failures of the League of Nations, (lack of US, and USSR involvment in the League), The economic depression outside of Russia... In Germany the desperate economic climate was what saved the Nazi party. Japan is almost a characterised... like Germany the liberal democratic government there was percieved to be failing, and the militants came in with popular support. I don't think de-facto is the proper choice of words.

Participants The many other countries list needs to be fixed up, "considered important allies" is weasily, perhaps "fought under their own banners" or somthing as the such --India was an important member, but fought under Britian. How does the neutral situation create hotbeds of espionage?

Starting Date That is the most common date used in the west. Saying it is the most common in the world, is controversial, probabaly wrong.

1937 Which "Chinese government?"

1939 The charactarisation of Stalin in the second paragraph is written conversationally, and probabaly compleatly misleading, if not false. "Indeed, the Soviets had their agents in the U.S., working alongside Nazi sympathizers."

I will try to add some more later, hopfully this helps! --sansvoix 09:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Support, wish it could be stronger. How does one do justice to the greatest war, if not the greatest series of events, in all human history without writing an epic? A single author, assuming one is up to the challenge, is bound to leave something out and risks presenting mainly their own views. A group of authors risks turning out something which reads like it was writ by a committee. That is the greater danger here. You could devote a century to studying WWII and at the end of it still not know everything about it or know every story from it. As it stands, this work tells all the major stories in a readable, adequete manner. If someone is confused about some basic aspect of the war, this can be a helpful guide and resource. But it fails to go very far beyond that point. A subject of such magnitude demands more. Complete as this article is, I know something is missing. But I cannot bring myself to object on that basis.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Not sure if my vote will count as only a very occasional editor, and tend to even do this without signing in. However, I read extensively on wikipedia, so have some basis and frame of reference, and wanted to comment on this. This article is an excellent, well-referenced summary of the event it describes, and provides the interested reader with links to even more detailed information on each of the sub topics. Comments above that the article is too long are unrealistic, in my opinion. I think this article both summarises the period well, deals with each topic in a clear, well-defined and sensibly brief way, and frames the group of articles on WW2 to make research on the topic straightforward and intuitive. Staples 12:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Very comprehensive, well written, but needs a more concise summary at the front. Many readers who look up WWII may be looking for something briefer and easier to read. This sort of weak on 3(a) but sufficiently strong on all elements of 2 to compensate, in my opinion. Martinp 02:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This article is quite good. All these people are getting hung on slightly meager references when that could be easily fixed. -- Hurricane Ericarchive -- my dropsonde 03:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Is anyone watching this article? I have made some preliminary suggestions for improvment, and I would like to be confident they won't be deleted if I edit them in! See talk page.--sansvoix 07:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well written with lots of details, looks good to me and very good summarisation done. Not too long for such a broad topic, one of the better articles I've seen so far. --Terence Ong 13:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support: A well written, comprehensive article on a most complex topic. For the article scope, word count size can be overlooked. All aspects are discussed with an excellent use of summary style. Covers ~10 years of history leading to the war, ~6+ years of actual combat, and transitions into post-war realities. Covers all war consequences: home front, resistance, war-crimes. technology. Wendell 01:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object I dislike the new intro to begin with: bloated and unnecessarily repetitive relative to rest of the article. Some awful syntax remains. And yes, this is looooong. Marskell 09:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Could be stronger but it's featured article quality -- Wikipedical 23:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support:All intros are "repetitive" because they are a summary of the article. The article is long because WWII is a huge topic. I think that daughter articles have been appropriately created sufficiently. A brief reading of this page does not give me many actionable objections, but I'lll look for some and try to fix them. Savidan 19:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Horror film

issues from peer review addressed, now covers HK-horrorcomedy as well as the italian/french/spanish scene, j-horror is linked to, now has references for all major assertions, bibliography, etc etc. looks good to me. Niz 14:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support per nom Niz 14:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment for an article about Horror films, the article is simply about the History of horror films and a long list of directors. Shouldn't more be added about horror films, like their impact or how they are viewed upon by the population or something along those lines? AndyZ 14:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • its in the text itself, e.g. discussion about the impact of 60s culture and vietnam-reaction on 70s horror, the "video-nasty" scare of the 80s etc. Niz 15:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess, it is incorporated into the section. However, for such an article, it seems kind of short. The paragraphs themselves are remarkably short; most are just 1-2 sentences long. A lot of the movies introduced in the history could use some expansion. There is only 1 reference listed. The introduction is separated into too many paragraphs for such a relatively short article. It is not thorough enough to make a featured article, so I'll Object for now. AndyZ 16:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support I'd like to see more articles like this featured. Most of the movies are wikilinked to their own page so don't need further expansion here. There looks like plenty of references, not just 1. And it covers everything it can about the genre. Anything else would just be original research. Could still be tidied up a bit though. Zzzzz 18:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object; has no inline citations, only one reference, and only covers the history of horror films. More development of key movies and directors is needed (outside of the history section), and simply having a list of "notable" people and organizations at the end isn't acceptable; it needs to be developed. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 19:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

were you reading the same article? there were at least 11 in-line citations last i looked? Zzzzz 20:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Inline citations != imbedded external links. See Wikipedia:Footnotes or Template talk:Inote. In any case, the inline citations should refer to more than just web pages. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Article is missing a lot of information - It is dominated by the History section (I think the subsection titles in the History section could be more detailed instead of dates). There should be sections about the general thought of horror films, and discussion about how they are so different than other genres of film. 'Other notable items' section needs to have some actual context instead of a list. The coverage of today's horror movies and upcoming horror movies is very scarce. There are no real references (1 reference in the Bibliography section for the entire article?) and the internal HTML links need to be converted into footnotes with a 'Notes' section. The Bibliography section should be renamed 'References' too. Refer to peer review for more specific suggestions/comments. — Wackymacs 20:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Good article. (Ibaranoff24 01:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC))
• Object - Like it is said before, this should be History of Horror film. The article is missing a lot of information about the genre itself, its popularity. CG 08:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support I imagined it would be a little longer. Smerk 12:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I would support making it a featured article as History of horror films. But as the article on Horror it needs more than history. For example, a discussion of sub-genres (e.g. slasher film,splatter film), some tipology (like supernatural monsters vs natural scares). Moreover, cliches and conventions (or going against cliches) are very important for horror films (e.g. final girl), so should be discussed. - AdamSmithee 21:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object as per AdamSmithee.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Great article. | QzDaddy 14:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object per AdamSmithee and AndyZ. Andrew Levine 00:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object because it's too focused on history, as noted by others. Tuf-Kat 03:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object but not because of is focus on history, rather, much of the main article is rooted in popular views of the film (probably informed by relatively sloppy newspaper reviewers) instead of a more systematic and careful analysis. Very few citations are used, indicating a non-neutral POV. The article would greatly benefit from including summarized analysis from the many theorists and aestheticians who have discussed individual films and genres.

Tgkohn 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Horror Films are used to scary the fright of yourself and it gives you a jolt and a shake for your life etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.124.108 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Phil Collins

Well written article about an important, famous, and talented musician. Captain Jackson 20:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object - lead section is very sparse, needs to be a brief summary of the entire article ie his solo career is not even mentioned. 3 references seems to be inadequate. Potentially contentious items, such as the purported sales figures of his albums, needs to be referenced. The entire "Solo career" section is unreferenced. Will look at it more closely when these areas are fixed. Rossrs 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Rossrs above, though the lead seems okay to me. The article is dominated by many short paragraphs and short sections, especially childhood. Biography should be changed to "biographies" or even better "further reading". The entire section of the bottom is just several long lists. I agree also that 3 references probably won't do. AndyZ 23:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Did you write the article? Because I can't find your name in the history and you appear to be a new user. I assume you mean that you want Phil Collins to be a featured article, right? Like Rossrs and Andy said it needs references and some cleanup. The discography looks a bit chaotic and the bolding of unverified sales figures needs to be changed and they really need to be verified, because contrary to popular belief there is no such thing as reliable sales figures. But if you want to work on the article, try to find some references and check some information and if you have found a reference then make a note of it and change the article during the verification. Go to a library because there are books about Genesis and Phil Collins and research the subject and check the details. After you have done that the best way is to get a WP:Peer Review and then apply for Featured Article. KittenKlub 00:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Nomination Withdrawn because it is not well-referenced, and because I want to support the nomination of the Black Death. Captain Jackson 04:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Bjørnøya

Self-nomination. Peer review request, points listed there and on talk page have mostly been addressed. The article is perhaps a little short, but it's been difficult to find useful resources; I think I have taken the best out of what I could find, so IMO there's not much left to add. I am aware of two more problems: the copyright status of some of the images seems unclear (I have contacted the uploader by e-mail and on his talk page), and the style of writing may be quite uneven. Being no native speaker of English, I can't help much with the latter, so if the style needs improving, please give specific suggestions. Thanks. Kosebamse 12:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional support - It is a very well done article about an obscure subject, however it still needs some last minute touches. The history section should be made the first subsections, along with general Wiki standards. The Bjørnnøya Today section needs to be incorporated into the history section, and the miscellaneous section needs to be incorporated as well. The image gallery should be integrated into the article or moved off to commons, but it should not be there. Will fully support after these are met. User:PZFUN/signature 16:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks. I have moved the history section and incorporated the "today" section; however I just don't know where to leave the "misc" stuff (frankly I could live without it, but since somebody else included the facts...). Will look after the gallery images (but note the copyright problems mentioned above). Kosebamse 17:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  A map can be found here, a historical image here and here, a photo of the meterological station [3] here, and the person who took that image can be contacted here, this is also of the weather station and is from the Norwegian government, so therefore uncopyrightable. This map of Bjørnøya is from the Svalbard sysselman. If I found this many images in 5 minutes of search, it would appear there are quite a few more to be had. User:PZFUN/signature 19:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  I think that the images that we have are fine, only the copyright question needs to be resolved. I am quite sure the uploader would license them GFDL, but he's an infrequent user and I wonder whether he has received my request at all. WRT your links, I am not convinced that they are helpful, because I am not sure about their copyright status (those that are obviously old enough to have any copyright expired do not seem to show Bjørnøya, and I am not sure why Norwegian government's works should be uncopyrightable.) Will do some more research however. The map of Bjørnøya has long been linked from the article, but not included because of copyright uncertainties. A Google search for images relevant images yielded several hundred but none with usable licences. Kosebamse

• Object - echo Pall's comments.
  • ==Bjørnnøya Today== needs to be merged with the =history= section.

    Already done.Kosebamse

  • =Geography and nature= should be split into =Geography= and =Flora and fauna=.

    Done.Kosebamse

  • Please resolve the image copyrights. Till you get the necessary approval, please remove them.
  • Manual of Style not followed for units> Please use the non breaking space: &nbsp; for all units eg. 15&nbsp;°C; 20&nbsp;metres etc. Also use &minus; for sub zero values.
  • The word Bjørnøya not being native to the English alphabet needs an IPA rendering to allow a reader know how it is pronounced.
  • A map which depicts the exact location with respect to Norway is desperately needed

    If there were one. Advice welcome. Kosebamse

    The Svalbard location map will suffice. If both the maps could be merged into one, that would be even better

    I am not too happy with the Svalbard location map, but I'll ask our expert for a better one. Kosebamse 16:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  Done. Kosebamse

  • Please wikify the dates.

    I am generally not convinced that is a good idea, so more opinions would be helpful. Kosebamse

    I just had a discussion with someone about that. I like it, that way the dates will show april 1 or 1 april depending on one's preferences. Garion96 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

    I think that too many links are ugly and distracting, but if the "april 1" vs. "1 april" thing depends on a proper way of linking, it would of course make sense. Kosebamse

  • Single/Double sentence paragraphs shoulf be merged with larger ones.

    There's only one left and I don't know what to do with it. Sorry, confused that with sections. Kosebamse

  • Copyediting needed by a copyeditor.

    Would be grateful if somebody volunteered.Kosebamse

  • The gallery is unwanted. If the image copyrights are resolved, please embed the best images in the text like all other articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Addenda by Nichalp:
  • 74.5°N 19.0°E should be linked as 74.5°N 19°E / 74.5; 19
  • =Strategic location= should be merged with the =history=. Avoid fragmenting the history by using subheadings.

    It might fit into geography as well, but I am not convinced that it should be merged. I have deliberately made it a section of its own because it seems relevant enough (BTW the idea came from the Norwegian article on Bjørnøya which is longer overall but IMO unneccessarily talkative). Kosebamse

    The matter does not say why it is so strategic. It will flow better in the =History= =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

    Agree with that. Done.Kosebamse

  • A paragraph should have an ideal length of 8-12 sentences. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    I've fixed some of these. -- ALoan (Talk) 02:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

user:Denelson83 can provide you with the IPA. The article cannot be featured unless the images are appropriately licenced. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. I am very well aware of the copyright problem. As I said, I am quite certain that the person who made and uploaded the images is willing to give them the appropriate license, but he's difficult to contact, I'll try again. Kosebamse

• Object. Please delink all of the trivial chronological links (plain years, decades and centuries). Retain those that include day and month. See WP’s policy on this at Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context; see other information at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous. Tony 02:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Guns N' Roses

Moved new comments from archive but I haven't moved anything in the history. See previous nom --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Self-nomination. Article has been heavily revised since it was last considered. 26 Dec 2005

• Support. The article is much improved now and I feel it can be a featured article. --Snkcube 21:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Only two references and no footnotes - the article's references are not well cited in a Notes section. — Wackymacs 21:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Lead paragraph is an example of POV at its worst. Only 2 references and 3 inline citations in the entire article - much more is needed. Very little critical commentary for the band itself or for specific projects - if they were an influential band, much more needs to be said about how/who they influenced and what was said about them. Numerous examples of one sentence paragraphs followed by unrelated points - the article does not flow very well, in some areas it is very disjointed. Image:Axl Rose.jpg is the only image for which even a vague attempt to comply with Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page has been made (although it's weak). Every other image could possibly infringe copyright, and their use does not comply with Wikipedia policy. Image:NewGNR.jpg is tagged "unconfirmed" with a note saying it "may be deleted within a week". This is not acceptable, and especially not for a potential featured article. Rossrs 01:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. POV statements (specially the lead) and lack of references, as Bcrowell has pointed out. JoaoRicardo^talk 07:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Object per Bcrowell; didn't the Siegenthaler incident teach us anything? --Andrew Levine 08:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Obvously not; how else could an article asserting "Dinosaurs still exist today" be a successful FA candidate? (Fortunately, although it's already been noticed at one site highly critical of Wikipedia, it hasn't had much other attention.) Monicasdude 00:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object True sources lacking (Google some of the content!) Also sources cited quoted verbatim. --HasBeen 08:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As much as I would like to see this article featured (I'm the proud owner of three albums and a sweater of this band), I cannot be in favour of the article as of now. First of all, where are the sources? Second of all; Image:Axl1992concert.jpg doesn't have a source or license, Image:NewGNR.jpg has an unacceptable copyright status and no source either and Image:Guns_N.jpg has no rationale for fair use. Please address the sources- and images- problems accordingly. Until then, I'm objecting. -- SoothingR 23:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Portuguese Communist Party

This is the second time the article is being submited. This is the most complete article on wikipedia about a Communist Party, a subject that lacks a FA. The article contains info on the Party's structure, its 84 year history, its electoral results, media, youth wing, supporters and other info. Afonso Silva 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and Support. Afonso Silva 20:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, impressively detailed. There are still places where the wording is not quite grammatical, but I'm doing some work towards improving that.-gadfium 01:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object—needs thorough copy-editing (Criterion 2(a)). Tony 03:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object - per Tony --ComputerJoe 11:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I requested a peer review to the article, but it was soon archived. I agree that the article should have a better wording, but I can't do the copy edit myself, I'm Portuguese and I lack grammatical knowledge of the English language. If the article has a good content and its only problem is the wording, it would be great if someone could edit it in order to fix that. Afonso Silva 13:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Response—Alfonso, you need to find someone who's good at editing to go through it. WP has a list of tried, trusted and hard-working contributors who may respond if you put the article on their list. (Well, WP doesn't have that system, but should, and needs to develop some way of encouraging word-nerds to help; ahem. Apart from raising the generally poor standands of prose in the project, it would go some way towards helping second-language speakers to contribute their valuable, specialist knowledge.) Can anyone hear me? echo echo echo Tony 00:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The principles should be in a normal paragraph, not outlined one by one. Article seems biased towards its subject, specially in its use of language (" the workers achieved important objectives, such as the historic victory of an eight-hour working day", "The danger of a Fascist uprising in Portugal was also stated", "the Portuguese resistance against the fascist regime") lack of inline citations, unsourced claims ("the weekly Bandeira Vermelha (Red Flag) which quickly became a very popular newspaper among the Portuguese working classes", "Both of these groups [anarco-syndicalism and revolutionary syndicalism], at the time, were the most active factions of the Portuguese labor movement", "The beginning of the war also initiated a process of unstoppable decline of the regime as it originated a growing unrest inside the Portuguese society"). If this claims were not made by someone else, then it is original research. JoaoRicardo^talk 19:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - The principles are sourced in the statutes (as the article says), where they appear one by one, by a specific order, which I think, should be respected, that's the reason. I also think that a Party's statutes are the most objective statement of its principles. But it can be changed. For a worker, achieving less hours/day of work should be important, at least for the majority, I don't see the nNPOV of that. But I'll replace it by "their objectives". For a communist Party, the fascism is a danger, that sentence is present as a conclusion of the Congress, I cannot change that, if the Congress found fascism to be a danger, it can only be written like that and I don't understood where the nNPOV is in "resistance against the fascist regime", really. About the things you claim to be unsourced, they were taken from the Party's website, as a Portuguese speaker, you are able to read it, if you want, the link is in the references section, if you consider that source to be biased, no article can be written about the PCP. However, I'll try to fix it. To finish, I, as 99% of the people, think that it is pretty obvious that the colonial war had a major role in the end of the fascist regime, the first issue of the MFA's (the military responsible for the coup of 1974) program was the end of the war and the decolonization, that started in your country, in 1825, and finished in 1974. Anyway, I really thank you for your review.unsigned comment left by Afonso Silva at 14:02, December 29, 2005. - The Catfish 21:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Mild Object. Salazar's regime is referred to here unqualifiedly as "fascist". As our article on Salazar makes clear, that is problematic. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC) (dealt with -- Jmabel | Talk 01:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

• Mild Support - It has been a while since I have read a wikipedia history article from start to finish! I'm impressed. My only concern is that featured article status may welcome some ideological attacks. And one niggly thing, I would love for there to be a source for the second to last paragraph in "The end of the Socialist Bloc.." (and a few other places perhaps.) But nonetheless, very good!--sansvoix 01:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Lastovo

Very good article for a small island like this. Luka Jačov 17:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object Where are the refrences? How about adding a section about the island today and what it is used for? Tarret 18:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object no references, to start WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 19:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• I dont get with this references?! What is it good for u or anybody else when refences are in Serbo-Croatian? But if its neccesary I will write it down. But I mentioned that tourism is in begining and that it is going to be declared Nature park. Luka Jačov 19:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Image:Lastovo_grad.jpg has an unacceptable license and copyright status, and as said above, please cite your sources. -- SoothingR 23:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• For The article looks pretty good for such a small island. When those fixes are made the article will be ready. GTubio 23:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it be a little early to vote, seeing as those fixes aren't there yet? SoothingR 23:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My refernces r: Veliki Atlas Hrvatske and Antun Jurica - Lastovo kroz stoljeća Luka Jačov 23:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• We have no need for your sources here. Please include them in the article. SoothingR 23:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The size of the island is irrelevant. The article fails Criterion 2(b) badly. Nothing about the people, the government (surely there's a local government structure), and its relationship to the rest of the nation. Fails Criterion 2(a) too (poorly written). Tony 04:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object per Tony - poorly written. Rampart 06:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I ve put the references on the page. Could somebody show me example article of another island to see good model how it should be written. Luka Jačov 12:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• What are those references? Books? Articles in magazines? Please specify them a little better. And, if possible, link to these sources if they're available on the web (with acceptable copyright status). If you want a well written example, take Rhode Island (although the sources are in an entirely wrong place there..). -- SoothingR 13:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• No links sorry. Books ofcourse. I think u gave me wrong example cos u cannot compare US state and island that has less than 1000 people. Luka Jačov 13:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• If that island's population is really that low (and of course, it is), then I'm seriously doubting if there are enough possibilities to expand this article in such a manor, that an article with appropiate length for WP:FA is created. Also, provide a little more information on those books. See Template talk:Book reference for more info about that. SoothingR 14:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rhode Island isn't an island :). However, I think the point is that the article contains nothing about the local government structure. AndyZ 18:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. What everyone else said. :) — Wackymacs 17:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object· Needs a thorough copyedit. I'd do this except I can't guess what some bits mean - for example "After WWII, Lastovo experienced same faith as island Vis" ??? Morwen - Talk 15:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review I think the article would have benefitted from a peer review before coming on here, and it'd be worth putting it on there now - with a bit of luck someone will do a copyedit and you might get a few useful suggestions and offers of help. I don't think the subject is too small to get to FA standard (there's no minimum length if the article's good enough), but it needs a lot more detail to get there. I'd like to see the Croatian island articles expanded, so I'll see if I can find anything to add. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

One other thing: the sentence "People from nearby islands regard people from Lastovo as people who would eat the last dish on the table without offering anybody else before." really needs to have a source cited. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Everything listed above, and no inline citations ({{inote}}, Wikipedia:Footnotes). History is usually the 1st section to appear in an article. Too short and not thorough enough to make FA. It could benefit from information about the local government and the people (demographics). AndyZ 18:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - pretty nice article of pretty nice island. Luka, please just put a map of Lastovo, or map whit position in Croatia.--M. Pokrajac 21:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I had some problems with computer. I expanded the article. Luka Jačov 20:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

A decision that was just made recently, this article is referenced quite a bit and I think lives up to the standards of a featured article very well. --ScienceApologist 16:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Where are the references? Also, there are too many lists. Either they be converted to prose or placed into tables. Pentawing 16:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. In-line citations need to be converted from HTML links into footnotes (see Wikipedia:Footnotes) in a 'Notes' section. Lists need to be converted into prose or placed into tables. Sub-sections in 'External links' section need to be branched out into a 'References' section. Image:Dover.jpg has no license or source and is pending deletion. Image:20051220115909990001.jpg has no source link and no license. Lead length is a bit extreme, could be cut down to two more concise paragraphs? Refer to peer review for more suggestions/comments. — Wackymacs 16:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object the background is insufficient - it needs to mention other cases, the most important of which is Edwards v. Aguillard. The key plaintiff witness was Barbara Forrest, but her evidence from the subpoena of the early drafts of Of Pandas and People is missing. It's also badly written - a bit of a mish-mash caused because it was written whilst the case was in progress. Because of its immediacy, needs a while before the consequences become apparent. Suggest you try to get Edwards v. Aguillard or one of the others up to standard. — Dunc|☺ 16:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object It would make too much discussuion on that topic which won't help Wikipedia what so ever. Wikizach 16:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this a valid objection at all? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Object. This article deals with a lengthy, controversial court decision issued barely a week ago. Virtually all of the references and sources predate the decision. There has been virtually no opportunity for professional commentary on the decision to be published (and even no references in the article, so far as I can see, to any significant body of online commentary. This article does not meet the FA comprehensiveness requirement, and will not be able to meet the FA criteria. The enterprise is something like attempting to create an FA on a film on its opening night, just home from the theater. Monicasdude 22:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object My reasons have been stated above. However I would suggest that you go for peer review first to get comments and edit the article in relation to those comments; before relisting this article. --Chazz88 14:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

2005 Ashes series

The greatest Test series ever? Or did the 1960-61 Australia v Windies series edge it? Either way, this is a great article of England's greatest sporting achievement of 2005, jguk 12:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. I know a lot of hard work has gone into this, and it's a good article in many ways, but I'm afraid I can't support it as a featured article because I don't feel it's written in an encyclopaedic style. The match reports have too much hyperbole and colloquialism, which would be appropriate in a newspaper article, but not in an encyclopaedia article. Sorry. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Too few references, requires in-line citations using footnotes, see Wikipedia:Footnotes. More photos would be good as well. — Wackymacs 13:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The second half of this objection (the part about feature articles requiring footnotes) is (a) flatly wrong, and (b) invalid. Raul654 22:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Featured articles do generally require in-line citations (see Wikipedia:Inline Citation); however, they do not have to be footnotes. If you'll reference Wikipedia:Inline Citation, you'll see that citations can be done in two ways: hyperlinking and ref/note templates. I see some hyperlinking within the article; however, it is inconsistent and broken apart into external link subsections. -Rebelguys2 16:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • They are best as footnotes which is why I suggest footnotes - there are also not enough in-line citations in the first place. — Wackymacs 16:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
      • They have now been converted to using the new automatic referencing system by Sam Vimes. [[Sam Korn]] 18:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
        • • Well, it's a work in progress, actually. I'd suggest people wait for a couple of days and then read it again, since I plan to do a thorough copyedit over the New Year (I know this isn't proper proceedings, but I didn't expect it to be nominated now). Sam Vimes 18:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object -- Copyedit + it should be written in summary style. The ToC is overwhelming. The text needs an update: England lost to Pakistan and the team members were given the OBE. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per comments above + a few more pics DaGizza ^{Chat (c)} 03:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Pictures are, for obvious reasons, rather difficult. I may have one or two from Edgbaston and Old Trafford, but it is very difficult to get free images for this kind of article. [[Sam Korn]] 11:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • How about a map of the venue locations and some graphs to jazz the page up? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That might be feasible. I'll have a look at making some pretty diagrams. [[Sam Korn]] 13:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - 71kb is monstrously long - it should be far more concise than that. Worldtraveller 00:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support: It's great - completely comprehensive. Yes it is long. To anyone disinterested in the subject probably very boring - very boring indeed; but it does meet all criteria for a FA. Some more pictures would be wonderful but unless any wikipedian fans took some, they are unlikely to be forthcoming. So look at the article for what it is - an informative and quite objective article. I was there- Whoa! It was great and this covers the series well. Giano | talk 15:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per Stephen Turner. --Kilo-Lima 19:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak object - uncomprehensive. This is almost solid text, make it user friendly and remove some of the no-notable info. Copyediting also direly needed here. -- Hurricane Ericarchive -- my dropsonde 03:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. While length is not a ground for objection, I too feel it's written in a style more akind to a (tabloid) newspaper than an encyclopedia. -- KTC 23:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Emperor Wu of Han

a referenced, comprehensive article--Jiang 04:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Mild object The article needs some work before it can become featured:
  • It has too few references and too few sources for an article of its lenght
  • a couple non-NPOV statements (e.g. "Consort Li was arrogant and jealous")
  • several unreferenced POV statements (e.g. "Emperor Wu led Han China through its greatest expansion")
  • Some of the sub-sections are too long & should be broken up to improve readability (esp. "Further territorial expansion, old age, and paranoia") Mikkerpikker 12:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how "too few references" can be actionable if those where the only references consulted. Nowhere does it say that an article of X length needs at least X references. We can only say a certain reference is biased or unreliable, or that some major reference that was used is not listed, but neither is the case here. The references listed are throrough and the sources from which almost all other references are derived.--Jiang 02:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant there are too few inline citations in this article (which is both actionable and part of the criteria: 2c). With respect to the sources cited: they are all ancient texts so I'm wondering whether they would count as authoritative? You most certainly can't write an article about, say, ancient Egypt and use Herodotus as your primary source of information (or use Plutarch on Caesar etc.). Aren't there modern biographies of Wu? (Even if these biographies are based on the same sources as you are using, professional historians are much more likely to interpret them correctly...) Mikkerpikker 03:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If you meant modern historians are more likely, I think you might be giving too much credit to modern historians being correct over than previous counterparts. Unless the difference is a historians of the time in question (or near enough to it) to be affected by other factors, then modern doesn't necessarily means more correct. Even then, the older historians might have access to primary or secondary source not available now making him or her more likely to be correct. (Note, otherwise agree with comment re. inline citing on an article of this length) -- KTC 23:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object as per Mikerpikker. Plus it needs a thorough copy-edit. Here are some random examples of problems in the lead.

In the lead, we're told twice that his state was centralised.

'an enduring effect throughout the existence of imperial China'—replace the first seven words with just 'on'?

'Emperor Wu's reign lasted 54 years'—why not just 'Emperor Wu reigned for 54 years'?

'Wu is best remembered for the vast territorial expansion'—'best' is a problem (it's unclear).

We have 'missions' then 'embassies'—use the same word and it's easier to read.

'While establishing an autocratic and centralized state, Emperor Wu adopted the principles of Confucianism as the state philosophy and code of ethics for his empire and started'—'While' is ambiguous; a and b and c—a list needs proper treatment.

'spanned' should be 'stretched'.

The whole thing needs word therapy. Tony 09:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object: This is a very informative and interesting page but I agree the reference section seems short, but if they were the only references used then so be it that cannot be altered. The references could though be better referred to through footnotes etc, especially the more definitive statements which could be construed as POV. I agree with Tony the whole thing needs a thorough copyedit and some of the phrasing could be made more concise - but I'm not sure that 'missions' and 'embassies' are the same thing, and suspect in China they were not. "Emperor Wu's reign lasted 54 years"- "why not just "Emperor Wu reigned for 54 years" seems to me merely a matter of preference. "Wu is best remembered for the vast territorial expansion" to me "best" is quite clear, but I would like to know by whom it is "best remembered"- who says this is a fact?. When these issues have been resolved I will be happy to change to support. Giano | talk 13:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think a lot of these objections don't make sense to any Chinese who knows a thing or two about Wudi. How about just say to many Chinese, he is best remembered for territorial expansion. Maybe we can add something like that Gaozhu (new shaky dynasty, appeased the Huns), Wendi/Jindi (building up new dynasty, avoided confronting the Huns), Wudi (went to war with Hun). Maybe that way it'll be clearer why Wudi was best remembered for territorial expansion. BlueShirts 19:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think that is going to make a lot of difference. You have to remember many of us here are a little hazy about Chinese history, so things must be a lot clearer than when explaining to a Chinese student. Giano | talk 10:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object as per comments on inline citation and copediting. Remember this article need to read just as well to someone with no previous Chinese historical knowledge, someone with a good deal of Chinese hisorical knowledge, or someone with that hazy tidbits (often combined with myth). -- KTC 23:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

SS Edmund Fitzgerald

I feel that this article is well written, stable, long enough, and interesting. Most importantly it tells a story that a lot of people, especially outside of the great lakes don't already know. -Drdisque 07:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object: Far too short
  1. Either Laker or SS Edmund Fitzgerald needs more information on the design of Great Lakes ore carriers: they're long, thin, straight-sided, sit low in the water when loaded, and aren't particularly good at handling a major storm.
  2. Needs an explanation of the November storms on the Great Lakes, and that the Fitzgerald was running unusually late in the shipping season -- IIRC, it was after most ships had stopped running for the winter.
  3. IIRC, there was a great deal of speculation around the lack of bodies in the wreckage. This isn't mentioned at all.
  4. Needs more coverage of "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"
  5. I'm sure there's more.

  --Carnildo 08:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Where are the sources? SoothingR 14:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. No references, no inline citations ({{inote}}, Wikipedia:Footnotes) at all, failing requirement 2c. Not thorough, 2b, and not well written enough, 2a. The lead section is entirely about the sinking of the ship, not the ship itself: SS Edmund Fitzgerald was a cargo ship that sank suddenly on Lake Superior, November 10, 1975. All of the statistics are unsourced. There are too many sections with too little information, especially the Search section, which should be merged into the Last Voyage section possibly. Many of the statistics are already listed in the The ship section, and the rest of them should be merged into the section in the form of prose. The article also needs copyediting.

In addition, the words it and she are used interchangeably; In the last voyage section, it appears once, she/her appears at least 3 times. The article has to be heavily revised in order to make the FA requirements. AndyZ 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object as per the others. Refer to Peer Review The Catfish 02:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object: too short, sentences are stylistically inadequate (very choppy) & no references... Mikkerpikker 11:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object per above. This is a shame, as the ship, the wreck, the song, all are worth serious attention, and there are at least two books on the subject. Both are somewhat impressionistic, but they also have good history in them. I nearly wish this were a COTW. I recognize that the anniversary of the sinking was recent, and that may have inspired the nomination. Maybe by next year the article will be worthy of its subject. Geogre 15:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object: A fascinating subject, but it's not FA material - no references - it's very short, even shorter without the list of crew, that need not necessarily a problem, but only one image as well....! There must be heaps more to say on this subject on which a great deal seems to have been published. Giano | talk 13:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven)

This is a renomination (old nom). I think all of the previous objections have been addressed. Raul654 10:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Additional discussion from this FAC review has been moved to the Talk page. You can view it here. (Tsavage 18:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

• Support. Reluctantly object as before. None of these seem to have been addressed:
  • (my main objection) the "popular culture section" is toe-curling. "Eventually, Donald joins Goofy in saving Mickey" adds nothing to my understanding of the symphony; things like this are information about the cartoon, not about the symphony. The paragraph on The Simpsons and Hitch-hikers is far too geeky, and tells me more about the preferences of the authors than about the subject of the article.
    • I've excised the toe-curling part - the multi-sentence disney description. Raul654 11:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The account of the symphony's influence is lacking. While it's fair enough to say "Every significant symphony since has been written under the influence of this achievement or in reaction against it", the article also specifies that, "the Fifth Symphony ... inspired work by such composers as Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Mahler, and Hector Berlioz". The obvious question is then: which work(s)?
  • Other than the Hoffmann quote, there's a lack of criticism generally. Specifically, the article lacks an up-to-date equivalent of Hoffmann, whose quote is very much of its time.
  • "The symphony is one of the most often-played orchestral works of its length" is an awkward formulation, and as has been mentioned above, a 70-year old citation is not impressive support for a claim about the symphony's popularity now. I'd just say "The symphony is one of the most popular in the repertoire", which there's no dispute about and which therefore doesn't need a citation at all. Mark¹ 10:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • But, to put it simply, that's not an accurate statement. There are tons of less-well-known, shorter works that get played far more often than the 5th because of the difference in length. Raul654 11:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Tons of shorter symphonies which are played far more often? Not where I come from. Mark¹ 12:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Not necessarily symphonies, but the replacement you suggested makes no such distinction. Raul654 12:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
          • "The symphony is one of the most popular" means "The symphony is one of the most popular symphonies". ("This man is the fastest" means "This man is the fastest man", not the fastest thing in existence). Anyway, this is a side-issue. As long as we can agree it's one of the most popular symphonies, I'm sure you can find a way to say it that you don't find ambiguous. Mark¹ 12:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
            • I switched "most often-played orchestral works of its length" -> "most often-played symphonies" Raul654 18:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support I'd say the article is about ready to be featured, it just needs some minor corrections:
  • Under "Notes and references," references 1 & 3 have no link (^) to jump back to the top
    • Look more carefully. Under the new built-in mediawiki citation method, the referneces section is automatically generated. For references that are cited more than once, superscripted notations (1.1 and 1.2, in this case) are used. Raul654 11:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I stand corrected Mikkerpikker 11:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Under "History/Reception and influence" a quote is cited in Harvard whilst the rest of the article uses footnotes - citation needs to be consistent
    • Done. Raul654 11:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Under "History/The "fate" motif" why is the quote by Anton Schindler first in German and then in English? Just put it in its English form, only a tiny minority of wiki readers will know German. Mikkerpikker 11:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not positive (I didn't put it there), but I believe it gives people who do read german a more accurate representation of what he said; nor does it detract from the article for english speakers. Raul654 11:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Again, this is something of a minor objection, but I feel the german does detract somewhat from the flow & could be found quite annoying by some readers. And as I've said only a tiny minority of people will benefit from the 'more accurate representation' you refer to. Mikkerpikker 11:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, I've removed the German passage. Raul654 11:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Sigh... object. I really want this article to be featured, but this isn't much different from the last time. The second and third movements still get the shaft, in terms of how much they're described. And even with the more grating sentences removed, the pop culture section is unnecessarily long and rambling. I should find time to work on this article, I guess. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Since this article is meant to be giving us information about the symphony, the purpose of the pop culture section should be to convey that the symphony has had a wide cultural impact. That could be much better done with one paragraph on musical references, and one on extra-musical references. Quotations from Chief Wiggum are not essential. Mark¹ 20:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Now this is just getting silly (not to mention pedantic). You are arguing that the article would be better by making it less informative, by taking out a recent, well known and rather on-the-mark comment that the symphony is much better known for it's opening notes than the rest of it. Raul654 20:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Encyclopedias are meant to sift out trivia. I'll wager Grove does not include musical analysis by cartoon characters in its article on this. We should also be trying to avoid systemic bias: the Simpsons and THHGTTG are not as important to most people as they are to net geeks. Mark¹ 20:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I've removed the animaniacs, HHGTTG, and Neslon Muntz references (by condensing the pop culture section as a whole), but I kept the Wiggum simpsons because I think it's insightful. Raul654 20:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. I basically agree with RSpeer and with Mark. The pop culture stuff worked so much better a few weeks ago when it was a separate article. Why not leave it all in, Animaniacs and everything, so long as it's separate and not harming the main article? Opus33 22:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Mild object. Needs a good copy-edit, still. In particular, the tiny paragraphs make for a disjointed reading experience, and here are too many slabs of third-party commentary, most of which needs copy-editing itself, or at least tweaking to fit the specific context here. These quotes don't improve the authority of the text, in my view. The description of form, and several other sections, are not 'comprehensive'. Tony 00:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object This is poorly structured and badly written (so far from a compelling read), and fails to answer many basic questions concerning the topic (not comprehensive). As a quick second nomination, given the number of standing objections from the first time around a couple of weeks ago, I'm quite surprised at seeing this here in largely unchanged form. Specific and actionable objections include (and these are examples only):

• Poorly written The writing is absolutely uninspired, with variety of problems that occur throughout.

• Much of it is written practically in point-form About one-third of the text is in single-sentence paragraphs (approx. 20 of 60 paragraphs), making it quite a choppy, unsatisfying read; a PowerPoint presentation comes to mind.
• Numerous examples of awkward sentences, poor formatting, uneven use of modifiers,... Just a few examples from the various categories:

• Lacklustre, throwaway statements attempting to substitute for engaging prose and/or actual relevant detail: "Not surprisingly given its fame, the Fifth Symphony has appeared frequently in popular culture", "The work has also been referenced in more humorous ways." "There is another tale concerning the same motif", "at a mammoth concert", "over the course of four years of tumultuous social and political strife", " triumphant and exhilarating finale" (unless "triumphant" and "exhilirating" are musical terms, they come out of nowhere and with no further explanation in the 4th movement section, following extremely dry introductions to the previous three)
• The initial motif of the symphony has sometimes been credited with symbolic significance as a representation of Fate knocking at the door.
• But regardless of the merits of these accounts, the motif sets the tone for the entire symphony
• Evaluations of these interpretations tend to be skeptical"
• The two symphonies appeared on the program numbered in the reverse of the order by which we know them today
• These examples are almost too numerous to mention. The writing is stiff and stilted, almost clinical (faux-clinical?) way, which makes the simplest statements somewhat grating to read.
• Sloppy formatting with instances well outside WP convention' There is an inline link to an external site for Simon Schindler, and external references like (according to this source, 1814), in an article posted here.
• An entire paragraph is constructed from an unattributed quote (footnote citation only)": "There is considerable debate among conductors as to the manner of playing these four opening measures. Some take them in strict allegro tempo, like the rest of the movements; others take the liberty of playing them in a much slower and more stately tempo; others again take the three Gs and the Fs 'molto ritardano' arguing that ... the holds over the E-flat and D do (at least tacitly) authorize ritardandos on the three flats and three Fs" [16]

• Presentation of the topic is uneven and often handicapped by poor sentence and paragraph construction Throughout, ideas and conclusions are expressed in ambiguous and confusing ways; often, the reader is pushed to make connections that are not explicit, possibly incorrect, and not well-supported. Some examples:

• In 1805, while Napoleon was occupying Vienna, Beethoven interrupted work on the symphony and composed his opera Leonore ... then went back to work on the "C-minor symphony. At the end of that year, Napoleon and Austria signed a treaty dissolving the Holy Roman Empire, of which Austria had been a part. As a result, the modern Austrian Empire was created. Entirely confusing. First, it is never stated that Beethoven was working in Vienna (was that the case?). Then, the connection between Napoleon's occupation and Beethoven switching projects is entirely unexplained. Finally, what bearing the treaty, the Holy Roman Empire, and the modern Austrian Empire have on Beethoven and his Fifth is...also unexplained.
• 'The "Premiere" and "Reception and influence" sections are poorly structured, incomplete, and inconsistent with the overall level of detail'- These sections mainly deal with the premiere, which is portrayed in quite some detail as technically poor and without much (critical) impact or even notice. Then, the still unintroduced Hoffman is quoted at rapturous length, about "another performance, a year and a half later"; however, aboslutely no other details of that performance are given. Finally, the sections are wrapped up with a superficial and rapid, one-paragraph summary of the Fifth's influence over the course of over 120 years... (see next point). From the section titles, and the length of these sections in relation to the entire article, it would seem that the premiere (at least, of the Fifth) was a significant and highly noteworthy event (although the text itself contradicts this), while the contribution of all other performances for the next decades need only be summed up in a couple of sentences. This is an extremely sloppy way of saying very little.
• "Groundbreaking both in terms of its technical and emotional impact, the Fifth Symphony has had a large influence on composers and music critics,[10] and inspired work by such composers as Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Mahler, and Hector Berlioz [11]. 'Every significant symphony since has been written under the influence of this achievement or in reaction against it' [12] The symphony stands with the Third Symphony and Ninth Symphony as the most revolutionary of Beethoven's compositions." These sentences could perhaps fit in the introduction; here, however, they are frustrating in their lack of detail. What was the "technical and emotional impact" impact? Which works by the composers mentioned? Who is being quoted, with such an unequivocal sweeping statement, and why is it in italics unlike other quotes (it seems like an attempt to pound the point home on faith, through aggressive text formatting)? Why is it one of Beethoven's three most influential? (None of this is further developed anywhere in the article.).
• The "The third movement repeat" and "Reassigning bassoon notes to the horns" sections are disproportinately long - This is interesting, useful content, however, particularly in light of the other problems with balance and writing style, these two relatively long sections focus in proportionately much greater detail than other, seemingly more fundamental aspects of the topic, such as the circumstances around its composition (which is poorly handled in just a couple of sentences), its position within Beethoven's body of work, and more than a cursory discussion of its four movements. These sections should be severely summarized, or the rest of the article appropriately expanded. Otherwise, they further hurt readability and easy assimilation. Writing quality should definitely include proper weighting of the relative importance of various parts.
• Introduction does not comprehensively summarize the topic' There are fundamental problems with the information that is included and omitted, and with the overall structure, beginning with the very first sentence:

• "Ludwig van Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C Minor, Op. 67 was written in 1804-08." The first, presumably topic sentence of the lead paragraph is rather uninspiring, and puts oddly exclusive focus on the date the Fifth was written.
• "... one of the most often-played orchestral works of its length [1]" is confusing and awkward, opening up more questions than are ever answered. Is length a common criterion for judging frequence of play? Does the use of individual movements, parts of movements, and even the signature motif not count as being "played"? The use of a footnote citation here is not helpful. Whether this is factual or not, it is a poor construction.
• "achieved its prodigious reputation soon afterwards." awkward construction and odd usage
• "At the time, E.T.A. Hoffmann described the symphony as "one of the most important works of the age." The unsupported focus on Hoffman ("the most influential critic of his day", perhaps?) and his pronouncement is confusing (the article link doesn't help, as the lead identifies him as an author and composer). Is Hoffman so well-known and was he so influential, that a simple mention of his name supports in the context of the introduction?
• short-short-short-long use of single quotes rather than double quotes (if quotes are required at all; the same phrase is unquoted later in the text). Small detail, but indicates to me a lack of basic proper proofreading, especially for a second nomination...
• "have become very well-known worldwide." limp and somewhat redundant (as its prodigious rep and frequent performance have already been noted).
• "elements from the symphony have resurfaced numerous times" awkward phrasing; "resurfaced"? from where?
• Inconsistent choice and omission of summary points: For example, the Fifth's role in pop culture is mentioned in some detail ("disco", "rock and roll"), bit no mention is made of a central aspect like the "fate" association (which is one of the longest sections in the article, longer than that of "Composition"); are any basic details, such as the fact that it is the fifth of his nine symphonies.

• "The symphony in popular culture" section is particularly poorly conceived and written It is a mish-mash of arbitrary references, with no particular supporting context, and reads like a hasty add on to provide some sort of hook pop hook.

• There are is at least one factual errors: "Alex DeLarge" was not the character in the novel, the DeLarge is strictly from the film
• the animation depicts paper butterflies being chased by a storm of darker, evil paper bats" is arbitrary and appears trivial, it doesn't convey the context in the thematic way that examples for A Clockwork Orange or the Simpsons do, much more appropriate to describe Fantasia, or what was actually going on in the scene.
• with songwriting credits listed as "Walter Murphy / Robin Thicke". descends into an unnecessary and confusing level of detail (what is the thesis here, that the Fifth is morphing its way through popular culture...?)
• The irony that they were composed by a German was not lost on many of the audience. The closing sentence is a somewhat bizarre way to leave the article (and it's unsupported). The final jump back of this item to WWII is also puzzling.

• Not comprehensive The renomination statement says "I think all of the previous objections have been addressed", however, my original objections almost all still stand (which makes me wonder whether they are simply being considered "trivial"). In any case, from the original nom.

• Critical analysis/description not mentioned here: These are all points of fact or discussion that I find interesting. Not having at least these general areas addressed, when they are commonly available elsewhere, is a problem.

• First movement: We must emphasize that the generating motif of this part also appeared in other works, either in the composer’s creation (sonata Appassionata), either in Mozart or Haydn’s works. (this seems important...especially if the "generating motif" is duh-duh-duh-duuuh).
• Third movement: This is considered to be the key moment of the entire symphony, both psychologically and from the point of view of the musical construction. (Is this a reasonably widely held scholarly opinion/analysis?)
• is rightly considered a natural continuation of Symphony No. III, "Eroica", because it approaches the same themes and it expresses the relationship between particular and general.
• Beethoven's Fifth is also historically important: it established the pattern of what later became known as the "finale symphony", i.e. a symphony whose finale assumes a level of importance at least as great as the other movements, if not greater. (Compare, for example, the Eroica; great as the finale undoubtedly is, it is overshadowed by the first two movements).

• General information not found:

• It is of his nine symphonies. (only mentioned in a title in References)
• The name under which it sometimes circulated, " The Symphony of Destiny ", is linked to the words of Anton Felix Schindler... (A title in the References does refer to this)
• Until the recent, almost inexplicable, supremacy of Vivaldi's 'The Four Seasons', this was the single most recorded piece of classical music ever. (and even second place is interesting...)

• No significant historical context - What was Beethoven the man going through during the composition years, both in his personal life (was he rich or poor, who working for, social climate, etc;), and in the overall course of his musical life (what stage was he at in his professional evolution kinda thing). This former seems to inadequately addressed in part with the slightly out of place tumultuous times/Napoleon stuff... Examples on the musical career context side:

• 1792-1802: Viennese period-Symphonies Nos.1 and 2 are composed in this period. In them, Beethoven innovates within the classical style.l 1803-1815: Heroic period-Symphonies Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are composed in this period. With these symphonies, Beethoven makes revolutionary breaks with classical style; 1820-1826: Late period-This period is dominated by the most revolutionary and influential composition of Beethoven's entire career: Symphony No. 9.
• Symphony No. 5: The Expressive Ideal Fully Formed. [...] He subjects form to context. He establishes motivic development as a fundamental of his art. He introduces the concept of drama into the formal layout of movements. He introduces the concept of primal, almost rock-and-roll-like rhythm as a narrative element. And he decrees that music must, above all, be self-expression.

• No notable recordings/performances - there should still be some mention of "important" recordings/performances; particularly with the emphasis given to the "textual question"; much of the article relies on quoted and attributed critical opinion, so it wouldn't be inconsistent to rely on the same for a "recordings" section.

I am honestly perplexed by this renomination. There are other concerns on the original FAC that also remain unaddressed. If my comments seem, uh, "overly detailed", it is because here I am somewhat at a loss as to what is expected of FAC. Interpretation of the guidelines is getting fuzzier in my head, especially since the nominator of this one is the FAC Director... In any case, I can provide more examples or clarity as required. --Tsavage 00:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Support I supported it before and I support now for the same reasons. If a Gwen Stefani single can be judged featured material, than this in-depth analysis and evaluation of one of the most recognized musical works in history, is surely equally worthy. What does it say of Wikipedia's reputation as a SERIOUS source of knowledge, that Cool makes it to the Mainpage while Ludwig Van's 5th fails.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It says that we judge the article, not the music. Mark¹ 03:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately so in this case... If worthiness of subject matter alone were the criteria, half the wikip'd pop ephemera would be excised, and there would be precious little quality control on the rest.--HasBeen 09:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I DID judge the article and find it, and not only its subject, to be feature worthy. The burden of proof is not on supporters here, but upon the OBJECTORS who must provide, VALID, ACTIONABLE reasons. So far most of the objections seem to be a laundry list of trivial gripes based on differerences of taste/opinion. Actionable, true, but hardly valid.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. May I chime in to voice my discomfort that Raul is nominating an article himself, alone, in an arena in which he is the final arbiter? Methinks there's a potential conflict of interest in his doing so, and that he should remain at a distance from the process. I'd have been more comfortable if he'd recruited someone else to be the main nominator, perhaps with Raul listed as a secondary 'contributor', or not at all. Perhaps I should have raised this on the discussion page—I don't know. Tony 03:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's never before been a problem. Raul654 05:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just that no one's said anything. Tony 07:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think T has a point that is both valid and a little disturbing. If this project is to gain the reputation as a serious source for knowledge, such avenues for abuse should be as tightly controlled as possible, perhaps with a secondary nomination system by randomly selected arbiter in the case where conflict of interest may arise? While this doesn't necessarily invalidate the current application, maybe a point worth taking to the pump? --HasBeen 09:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support: I don't think Raul nominating a page he has worked on is an "avenue for abuse", having someone else nominate it would be at best plain silly, at worst deceptive. This is a place for discussing the worth of a page, not the integrity of its author or nominator - a nominator, who incidentally, has given no one cause to doubt his integrity. So lets confine future comment to the article which seems fine to me. Giano | talk 10:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In my comments about FAC Director as nominator (and as far as I can see, in the related comments above), there is nothing to do with anyone's integrity, it appears a question of guidelines and process. While I obviously understand where you're coming from, this is an inference that it seems you are making, and personalizing doesn't seem helpful. The position and role of FAC Director, on the other hand, is central to the FAC process. Framing nomination, support and objections has to be done within the FA guidelines, therefore, any well-meaning, diligent participant in the process should have a reasonably clear idea of what those guidelines are. With the admirably "open" and consensus-based WP set-up (which happens to be the main reason for my personal involvement in WP), precedents and interpretation of guidelines play a big part in getting one's bearings. When I see certain articles promoted despite objections that seem reasonable and actionable, for reasons that I don't understand (or aren't even available), or when certain FACs which seem to be highly contentious by the FAC voting activity, are still left for weeks beyond the one-week FAC guideline, I naturally would like to find out why, or to discover how I have misinterpreted the guidelines. I don't want to misdirect my energies (and those of others) by doing work here in a way that is not useful, I would obviously much rather be doing things...right. This leads to the FAC Director role, and how the guidelines are in fact realized... When a renomination that seems to me to basically go against the FAC guidelines (and, really, the spirit of FAC), in that I believe clear, civil, actionable objections in good faith should be addressed in kind during a nomination, and certainly before renomination, and then that renomination comes from a nominator who also happens to be the one person in WP who is charged with essentially managing and arbitrating the entire FAC process, does it make sense not to wonder, not to question? Put another way, how do I object here, if my objections have not been addressed from the first FAC nom, when the person who will ultimately rule on consensus here, as FAC Director, has already formally reviewed those objections, as FAC Director, and happens to be the same person who here, as Nominator, states, "I think all of the previous objections have been addressed." I am confused... --Tsavage 17:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'm losing the rather long point you are trying to make, I was not addressing you! - I am more concerned about Tony being in discomfort and Hasbeen's "avenues for abuse" As I said this is a place for discussing the worth of a page, not the integrity of its author or nominator. Giano | talk 20:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't realize another FAC guideline was, "Speak only when spoken to." In any case, I replied to your post because it directly concerns this article in FAC. I spend time voting on a FAC, and I'd like to see the process followed through properly. You "Support" and then go off about Raul's integrity. The support requirement is: "If you approve of an article, write Support followed by your reasons. Is your reason for support of this FAC your belief in Raul's integrity? Because you haven't said anything else? this is a place for discussing the worth of a page, right? If you're so concerned about FAC, why are you wasting my ("our") time with invalid voting? Or is that another unwritten rule, "Support doesn't really require reasons"...? Jeeze... --Tsavage 21:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm supporting because it's a good article that in my opinion meets all the criteria of a FA. Obviously it's a hornet's nest here so I'll leave you in it to sting away. Giano | talk 22:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• OK. Thanks. --Tsavage 23:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• The developing nature of the wikip project makes suggestions for improvement only possible when opportunities arrise. Without previously knowing a potential conflict of interest might occur, how are we all to address them if not as they show up? I'm sure the FAC boss is a gent, but it would only take one crook to ruin the project seriously enough to question its integrity in a worst-case scenario. I am a bit doom and gloom, but this is a valid point that could do with more than outright dismissal, seemingly because we don't want to hear it... --HasBeen 10:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object, still, sorry. It's not a bad article, but I just don't feel this is among the best that Wikipedia has to offer. I'll just raise a few specific objections. The article suffers from alarming variations of perspective. For instance it does not mention important details such as Beethoven's request that the exposition in the first movement and finale be repeated, while it goes into lengthy detail about whether Beethoven would have given a passage to horns if he had access to instruments capable of it (admittedly it's more substantive than the old "Bach would have written all his harpsichord works for the piano" argument - although surely Beethoven was quite innovative enough to ask his horn players to change instruments mid-movement if it had been vital to him, but isn't it just an example of his solving a fairly mundane problem of orchestration? - the discussion of this minor textual question is considerably longer than the analysis of the second movement), and also makes much of the passing similarity of one theme's melodic shape with the opening of the finale of Mozart's G minor symphony even though the two sound completely different (and Beethoven Op. 2 No. 1 opens with a very similar theme; must we say every second-inversion minor key arpeggio with a downward turn at the end written after 1791 is a similar "tribute"?). There are still some pretty bald statements of opinion: "it stands with 3 and 9 as his most revolutionary compositions": what does revolutionary mean in this context? Unprecedented? Shackle-breaking? Seismically influential? What about the Diabelli Variations, Missa Solemnis, Piano Concerto No. 4 and 5, Grosse Fuge for string quartet, Hammerklavier Sonata, Sonata Op. 110, to give just a few examples which are surely all arguably at least as revolutionary. There is no reference to how the work relates to Beethoven's encroaching deafness (I'm fairly sure he wasn't totally deaf until years later). RobertG ♬ talk 16:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding the issue of horns or bassoons in the first movement, I don't see why this wouldn't be worthy of mention, considering that Karajan and several others have actually used horns instead--it's not just some random guy's idea that he threw onto Wikipedia. Although I personally do not agree with this artistic decision, it's widespread enough to warrant discussion here. And I hardly think it's too lengthy--the fact that it's longer than the analysis of the second movement should mean that the latter needs to be expanded, not vice versa. Also, why is it of importance to mention that the exposition in movements one and four is repeated in the score? This is the case in almost every symphony and other movement in sonata form in Beethoven's time and earlier, and I don't recall hearing it omitted in a performance. EldKatt (Talk) 19:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • To clarify, I was not arguing that the bassoon/horn issue shouldn't be mentioned, nor that anything should be removed from the article (provided it can be properly referenced); this section's relative length is simply an example of the "alarming variations of perspective" I perceive. I agree with you totally about the remedy. I am also in total agreement with your comment lower down - this could be featured one day, but there's too much to do to it for it to be featured this time round. It's not for me to advise our FA director, but I'd be inclined to wait until it has had considerable expansion (which it is my current intention to help with when I get the time to do some research). As an aside, EldKatt, yes, it's a normal feature of contemporary symphonies, but that in itself is worth saying in a featured article - and are you really lucky enough that you cannot remember a performance where the exposition repeat in the fourth movement was omitted?! In my estimation it amounts to a cut, and makes me think the conductor has a plane to catch (is POV OK on this page?), but I think its omission is becoming less common. BTW, I haven't listened to the article's downloadable performance (I don't have the necessary bandwidth at home, nor the necessary equipment elsewhere): does it include both exposition repeats? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I take back my comment on the exposition repeats. And thinking twice, I have of course heard it omitted, at least in the fourth movement--I don't know how I could not have thought about this yesterday. As luck would have it, the recording in the article adheres to both repeats (though not the scherzo repeat, understandably). EldKatt (Talk) 14:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Moving this chunk of discussion from here to the (hard to find) talk page doesn't seem right. It leaves a false picture of this FAC review. Heated arguments, even shouting matches, are business as usual in open sessions at the highest levels of governments. This happens, this is at times the way people work. If it's not actionable on some procedural basis, so be it...let it stand. It IS part of the record, and the whole discussion didn't come out of the blue, it is based on this being a somewhat unique nomination, a renom by the FAC Director. (I didn't revert it, because I can obviously see that a good deal, though far from all of it, is completely off topic, and I'd rather have this comment read than start another skirmish by simply reverting. But it should be here, where it occurred, as part of the record of the main review. This isn't an article, it shouldn't be edited for cosmetic reasons.) --Tsavage 18:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think for the first time, Tsavage and I may be in agreement. Giano | talk 18:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, too. On a slightly different note, Giano, do you think we could agree to differ and be nice to each other? I'm sorry that you were originally offended by my comments on your article. Tony 02:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. There's too much that can be improved. And it will be improved. This can certainly be a featured article at some point, but not yet. I haven't a lot to add to all the other comments. EldKatt (Talk) 19:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Rammstein

Well written article, contains most information you need about this band, I can't find any errors, and I can't really think of anything missing in this article. Written in a good language, and is neutral.

• Oppose - They're one of my favourite bands, but the article unfortunately misses at least one basic criterion for FAC at the moment - no references. Also, I don't regard the prose as particularly brilliant at the moment - it's a comparitively dull read for such a great band. Worldtraveller 23:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Poorly written (2a). What about a few 'fair use' audio clips to illustrate what you say about their style, ahem; 30 seconds is acceptable, as long as you satisfy the conditions (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Guidelines for using sound excerpts). Also check out User:TUF-KAT/Featured Music Project; these guidelines are still work in progress, but might be useful. Tony 00:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Tony & Worldtraveller, the article is badly written; the section "Lyrics and style" being particularly in need of attention. Also, where are the references? "Even though the lyrics are in German, the band has enjoyed success outside of Germany, and with the album Reise, Reise (2004), they became the most successful German-language band of all time" definitely needs a ref. And the quote "I realized it's really important to make music and make it fit with your language, which I didn't do in the past. I came back [to Germany] and said, 'It's time to make music that's really authentic.' I was starting a project called Rammstein to really try to make German music" is not cited either. Several more examples... Mikkerpikker 23:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

This is a marvelous article and deserves FAC status. SVera1NY 02:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. This article is virtually unreferenced except for the Pope's declining health and final days; although they are not, many sections appear highly unsystematic, perhaps because of their sheer length; a section labelled "Others" does not help the reader find anything and seems to contain a collection of factoids that ought to be integrated into the biographical material; and the vast majority of the images in it are copyrighted, added: many tagged as Fair Use but lacking supporting rationale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A more careful count shows that of the 18 images on the page (not counting the coat of arms and the Euro coin) 2 of them are {{nolicense}}, 6 are {{fair use}} with no rationale given, 1 is {{Vatican}} and {{nolicense}} and so may or may not be available, 1 is {{somewebsite}}, and 1 {{Promotional}} but doesn't really meet the requirements for that tag and has no source given anyway. At least one of the images tagged {{PD}} (Image:JPIIassinattem81.jpeg) is dubious; the uploader was asked back in April for source and release information and has not responded. So out of 18 that's 12 with a potential problem. This needs to be addressed quite apart from FA candidacy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The only point I agree with of the above is the general lack of references, but that a lone is a major problem. If this article were better cited, I would support it. - Cuivienen 03:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The images Image:Pjp2c.jpg, Image:JP1meetsJP2.jpg do not have known copyright information.
  2. The image Image:Karol Wojtyla at 12.jpg is tagged as "public domain", but has no indication as to why it is.
  3. The images Image:PalliumJPII.jpg, Image:Pjp2b.jpg, Image:Toronto.jpg, Image:Yad Vashem.jpg, Image:John Paul.jpg have no source information.
  4. The image Image:JPIIassinattem81.jpeg has no source information and no indication as to why it is in the public domain.
  5. The image gallery in "Relations with other religions" doesn't appear to have a point to it and should be removed.

  --Carnildo 09:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I normally would not care too much, but this is pretty blatant. Image:Pope-poland.jpg is an copyrighted Associated Press file photo (check google if you wish), and has a false public domain message. I'm not saying the pictures should be removed, mind you. The easy solution here would be fore wikipedia to register in Vanuatu, but until then, I suppose this would have to be looked into. --sansvoix 00:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object It could definatly use more on the changes he made to Vatican policy, such as his controversial decisions regarding Latin America. The Pope rather brutally clamped down on Liberation Theology. He excommunicated Marxist Bishops (who advocated "radical" things such as equality and land reform) but still supported clergy proping up right-wing dictatorships.--sansvoix 23:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object beacuse of too few inline citations for such an important article. See first and second failed nominations for some previous comments as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It seems to me that these problems have been fixed. It looks like an FA to me. -- Hurricane Ericarchive -- my dropsonde 03:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Melungeon

A well researched and informative article about a little known American population that is of increasing interest to folklorists, geneticists, and those interested in American history of culture. Badagnani 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - No images at all? Surely at least one image can be found to put in this article. - Cuivienen 03:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment - This is an article about an ethnic group. Hardly anyone can agree on who is a real Melungeon, or if such a thing even exists. Furthermore, inserting a photo of a "typical Melungeon" would smack of ethnic stereotyping.- Pokey5945 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment - There are many areas where photos could be inserted: notable authors on Melungeons (some of whom have traceable Melungeon ancestry and the "typical" features/appearance), officers of notable Melungeon organizations, scans of those old articles (or illustrations therein) about Melungeons from 19th century newspapers...some of the editors working here are experts and must have some excellent photos. Badagnani 03:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Imagine if the entry for "Judaism" had a photo of a "typical Jew", or a "famous Jew with typical Jewsih features." Do you see the problem here?Pokey5945 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is cluttered with external links. Please turn those into inline notes. The article also has no images at all. I'm sure that there must be some that will fit the topic.SoothingR 11:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant inline citations and footnotes. Take a look at Bulbasaur or Nightwish if you require any examples. I wish you success on implementing improvements to the article and I look forward to support this article.SoothingR 12:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Clicking on 'go back' will just take you to the point where you clicked the inline ref, so I don't find it all that annoying. This way of referencing also leaves more space for a better explanation of the sources. And yes, you are right in your assumption that this is just another way of stating sources, however..these inline refs have become somewhat the standard on FA. Apart from that, I think they make articles look a whole lot less messy.SoothingR 13:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - The external links should be inline citations. The section on related groups has too many red links. This line doesn't make sense: "Genealogists....have traced the "core" Gibson and Collins families back to Louisa County, Virginia in the early 1700s....The Gibson family can be traced back even further to Charles City County, Virginia in the late 17th century..." --the way it talks about the early 17th century and then says "traced further back to...late 17th Century" makes not sense. Referring to further back should take it back into the 16th Century. There should be photos and/or maps. --- 13:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs) [4] Lupo 14:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Though photos/images aren't necessary for FA status, inline citations are (commonly used are Wikipedia:Footnotes). The lead is very long. In addition, the article is inhibited in readability by the constant external links that exist all over the article. It also seems as if some wikification needs to take place. AndyZ 21:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Most objections were to the lack of inline citations, which I have fixed. Please take another look at the article. I did not write it, but am somewhat familiar with the issues and think it's excellent. A photo was added of a self-identified (by a descendant) of a Melungeon family.--Parkwells (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bricker Amendment

Self nom. My article on a proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. Contains references. Has been stable for a considerable time. No, there aren't photos, but how do you illustrate a legal proposal? PedanticallySpeaking 16:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Somewhat on the short side, but that might be due to the subject matter ;-) Some inline citations would be nice; as far as pictures go, a photo of Bricker, and perhaps some of the other major figures mentioned, would work. Can you get some that aren't fair-use? —Kirill Lokshin 18:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a photo from the Bioguide site. I don't want to add photographs of anyone else, because they inevitably are objected to by other Wikipedians. As for footnotes, I would note that this is not required and I have had several articles receive feature status without them, e.g. Dawson's Creek and Julia Stiles. PedanticallySpeaking 20:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but I think "community standards" have changed since March and May. IJS :) jengod 20:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, FA criteria has changed since May. Read the latest version--you need references and inline citations "where appropriate". Rlevse 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

James Aubrey made featured status in November without footnotes. As you state, the guidelines make them optional. PedanticallySpeaking 15:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Tenative object. Definitely needs inline citations. See featured article Saffron for an example of ones well-used (there's a commented out "how-to" in the notes section). Also, bioguide has a pic of Bricker than you can use since it's a U.S. govt publication: [5]. Otherwise, nicely done. jengod 19:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

See reply to Kirill above. PedanticallySpeaking 20:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. It's worth noting that a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law has a copy of this article in the course materials for a Fall 2005 class in international human rights law.[6]. Congratulations PS! jengod 19:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Jengod. PedanticallySpeaking 20:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Peer review of this article is here; also, some power-googling unearths some conservative blogs with requests to "bring back the Bricker Amendment." Maybe just a paragraph or so acknowledging that? It's not the crux of the article, but it might be interesting. jengod 19:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Right. The peer review suggested something about globalization, but I was never sure how to work that material into this article. PedanticallySpeaking 20:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• weak oppose. The introduction should be comprehensive. (I just edited it so never mind). However, there ought to be considerably more citations. The section on opposition from "liberal groups" concerns me a bit - are all of those groups "liberal?" According to whom, and why? More importantly, can we present what they actually said/did in opposition and what their grounds were to opposition? Kaisershatner 19:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not have the books I used to write this before me. I will see if I can specifics on those groups's opposition. Please give me a few days on this; the library will be closed for several days for the holiday. PedanticallySpeaking 20:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, as far as pics go, Bricker was Governor of Ohio - there ought to be a public domain photo or two of him, official state portraits, etc. That might make a nice addition. I'd be more than willing to help fix it up. Kaisershatner 19:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A photo has been added of Bricker. PedanticallySpeaking 20:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object for the moment. I've copy-edited the lead and the first few sections. Please attend to the following matters throughout:
  • Some of the sentences are on the long side.
  • Some of the information in the lead is repeated verbatim in the next section; can this be avoided, perhaps through rewording, so that, for example, the two court cases don't need to be fully specified for a second time?
  • See my substantive change to the third para: doesn't an amendment need the approval of three-quarters of the state legislatures as well?
  • It's overlinked. In particular, please delink the trivial chronological items (but retain links for dates that contain the day and month). For WP's policy on this, see Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context; for other discussions, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous.
  • Plainer language throughout would be welcome; it's slightly legalistic.
  • Somehow, the wider picture is lacking; can you contextualise this topic in relation to the broader suspicion of the US towards international treaties, including the recent refusal to sign the World Court agreement (if that's the name of it)?
  • Can't you find an image of Bricker? Tony 01:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The last objection was resolved a day before it was made. The expansion of the lead, which repeats material below, was done by others. PedanticallySpeaking 15:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• There's been some good work done on this. I'd like to study the changes and add some material of my own. Hopefully, it'll be back as a FAC soon but for now, I'm withdrawing it as it clearly isn't going to pass. PedanticallySpeaking 16:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hollaback Girl

Second attempt. Let's see what kind of controversy the article can stir this time. —Hollow Wilerding 21:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. ... -Silence 22:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Inactionable. Please be more specific. :) —Hollow Wilerding 22:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. It's too soon to renominate this. It rolled off less than 4 days ago, and even then Raul had given it an extra go. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's never too soon to do anything. I will continue to bring this article back into the nomination process until it is passed. —Hollow Wilerding 23:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Will you? Object, misuse of process. Bishonen | talk 00:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Your objection is unactonable, and therefore will be ignored. —Hollow Wilerding 01:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Your zeal is commendable, Hollow, and you've done a lot of good work on that article. Give the issue some time to rest and then people will take a fresh look. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Enough about the little things, this article has met featured article status. --DrippingInk 01:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object per bad-faith nomination whereby objections unaddressed from the previous two FACs, both of which took place in the last fortnight, may not be mentioned again as the objectors would rightly believe time would be taken to deal with them properly. This is a very poor performance by the nominator, and an attempt to undermine the community's consensus. I move to have Raul654 remove this nomination. Harro5 04:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Please support your objection with valid reasons. Bad faith is a horrible assumption. —Hollow Wilerding

• From the above statements, I hear that the nomination had been failed previously. Please direct me to the previous FAC nom. (The link should have been on the article talk page too). =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment

First FAC nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl old

Second FAC nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl/Archive1

--maclean25 06:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object until the objectors to the two previous recent nominations have confirmed here that their objections have been addressed to their satisfaction. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd like to make this as clear as day: this is a new nomination. Please do not direct me to the old FAC(s), and address your new objections here. It is—currently—easier to read due to the fact that there is almost no socializing going on here, but oh, I guarantee its increase. —Hollow Wilerding 13:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object as well as Oppose: This is the third nomination, and all without addressing the objections raised. While other folks mildly take their articles off and work on them, this one just keeps coming back. With no insult intended for the nominator, I have to say that we really shouldn't see a return to FAC so quickly. There are no policies on waiting and the amount of time necessary to lick wounds and repair the body, but what common sense exists suggests that this is far too soon and far too many. Geogre 13:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Once again, inactionable. Please provide a reason for you objection here. Do not redirect me to the old nomination. —Hollow Wilerding 14:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• The Objection is all previous objections unaddressed. I won't redirect you to the old nominations. After all, it has only been four days, so you should remember them. If previous objections are not overcome, renomination is bad faith. That's not an assumption: it's a demonstration. Geogre 17:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I didn't comment on the previous two FA nominations for this article, but I agree with several of the objections that other users have raised. It's rather odd that after I myself advised Hollow Wilerding to request a peer review for the article again, and outlined some of the problems I felt the article had, she decided to submit it for featured status again anyway. Unfortunately, none of the concerns I expressed on Hollow's talk page have been remedied. The "Chart performance" section could do with trimming, as could the "Music video" section. Yes, you could argue that the synopsis for the video goes into about as much detail as the corresponding section on the Cool (song) article does, but the "Hollaback Girl" video doesn't seem to have as much relation to the song's lyrics as the video for "Cool" does. Image:Camera2.jpg and Image:Hollaback Girl alternative cover.jpg seem to be on the article for decorative purposes only, which does not meet Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. Additionally, while this does not influence my vote in any way, comments such as "It's never too soon to do anything. I will continue to bring this article back into the nomination process until it is passed" demonstrate an extremely poor understanding of the FAC process. FAC operates on consensus being reached and objections being addressed; as demonstrated with the Terri Schiavo fiasco, you can't just resubmit an article again and again and expect one of your attempts to finally break through. I strongly recommend requesting peer review on this article before you even consider submitting it for FAC again. Extraordinary Machine 14:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with Bishonen and Silence. We must respect each other's prior actionable comments, and try as much as possible to address them before renomination. This is why I've been delaying for so long the nominations of my current pet articles Rabindranath Tagore and Saffron for so long ... I don't wan't to burden this system with articles that might just attract undue attention and objections because I wasn't considerate enough to address those concerns by myself beforehand. Nevertheless, you are very brave, and many people have been following this bizarre nomination. Please do not take this as a sign of disrespect of the article ... I have no expertise in this area. Sorry. Saravask 15:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note. For the reasons laid out above, and explicitly ignored by the nominator, I have de-listed this premature re-nomination from WP:FAC. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Extraordinary Machine has provided a worthy objection! Now that's what I want to see so I can address the objections! —Hollow Wilerding 20:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, for two main reasons:

• A number of questionable or non-obvious claims in the article need to be cited:

• "The song has been compared to Toni Basil's 1981 single, "Mickey"; it is also known for its repeated use of the word "shit"."
• "However, a case of writer's block left early collaborations uninspired and unsuccessful." - an NPOV violation as it stands.
• "The song is known for its repeated use of the word "shit", which appears thirty-seven times."
• "Lyrics that could seem to be directed at Love include:"
• "Another notable reference is the musical similarity to Toni Basil's worldwide number-one single, "Mickey""
• "In a line-by-line analysis of the song's lyrics, OC Weekly reviewer Greg Stacy speculated: "Gwen is apparently the captain of the cheerleader squad; she is the girl who 'hollas' the chants, not one of the girls who simply 'hollas' them back"."
• "within six weeks of its release, it had reached the number-one position, making it the fastest-rising single to reach the top in 2005"
• "However, some argue that the song achieved this due to its hip hop–influenced production."
• "Both positions were the highest that a non-R&B/hip hop solo artist had attained in the 2000s."
• "It was the best-selling digital download for the latter three weeks of May 2005, and broke the record for the most downloads sold in one week, totalling over 60,000."
• ""Hollaback Girl" exceeded one million digital downloads for the week ending October 4, 2005, and was the first single to ever accomplish this"

• There seems to be very little discussion of either the musical qualities of the song, or what the song is actually about (cf. Cool (song), which has some four paragraphs on those topics).

I'll also note that renominating this article so soon (and without correcting the outstanding objections from the previous nominations) is in rather poor taste. —Kirill Lokshin 20:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• If I were capable of it, I would cross out the majority of your objections, as almost every single one of them are referenced in the References section. —Hollow Wilerding 20:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Note that I wrote "cited" rather than "referenced". In case I wasn't clear: I would like to see direct citations, using footnotes or an alternate format of your choice, for these points. —Kirill Lokshin 20:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Hollow Wilerding, I see that you have reverted my edit to WP:FAC. Please don't try to railroad the community like this. And please don't revert anybody ever without giving a rationale in the edit summary or on the associated talkpage. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Bishonen is right. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 21:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not railroading a community. How dare you. If I'm not allowed to renominate an article four days after the previous FAC failed, then the Céline Dion article should not have been renominated the day following its nomination. Also, when I want something, I get that something. Now you know. —Hollow Wilerding 22:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

How dare I? I suppose I must simply be very brave. The tone you take isn't heard very often on WP:FAC. Bishonen | talk 22:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I do thank you for ignoring the second half of my above comment, which was expected. Do you care to answer it now? —Hollow Wilerding 23:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No reply? Then I will resubmit the article to the nomination process. —Hollow Wilerding 01:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• I believe his entire comment was a response to your entire comment. It's true that I've never heard anyone on Wikipedia say anything like "when I want something, I get that something". You're an interesting bird.
• While I admire perserverence and hard work to get articles FAd, your specific strategy seems not so much to use your dedication to go to amazing lengths to make the article truly exceptional, but rather to use it to try to exert your will over others, barraging anyone who votes "oppose" (if anyone criticizes a general issue with the article, like "writing quality is poor", you tell them their comment is inactionable until they list specific problems with the writing quality (essentially forcing everyone who objects to the FAC to put in as much work on the article as though they were an editor of that article!), then continue to argue that everyone's oppose votes are invalid even when you don't fix those problems) and repeatedly dismissing comments.
• I agree that both this article and "Celine Dion" should not have been renominated so quickly, and if the system continues to be abused like this, I'd definitely support enforcing a mandatory minimum waiting period between renominations. (I don't mind when terrible articles get nominated for FAC because it brings up interesting new discussions and they typically crash pretty quickly, but the renominations just seems like trying to abuse the system to get an article through on sheer willpower and law of averages rather than on the merits of the article itself.) And before you respond to my entire comment with "inactionable", this advise is for you to improve your chances of getting future articles featured, not for any specific article. :f -Silence 23:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the article still contains no information on the musical structure, other than the statement that it is "primarily beat-driven and features few instruments". More detail is needed on this aspect. Some of the writing isn't up to FA standard either, e.g. "Maxim was not thrilled with the song either". I also tend to agree with the objector above that a spell in peer review might help iron out some of these problems. Leithp (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment "When I want something, I get that something." You mean when you´re snoozing and a dream comes along? In the waking world, being obtuse, belligerent and ignoring consensus actually doesn´t get you much. Marskell 07:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I do get what I want. It just takes time. :P —Hollow Wilerding 01:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

By reverting the removal of Hollaback Girl from WP:FAC yet again, you're spoiling for a block from editing Wikipedia, so please consider starting to behave like an adult. Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates if you haven't already. Did you notice Raul654 approving my de-listing of Hollaback Girl? Not that he needs to, as the overwhelming consensus is already that you're being disruptive. Bishonen | talk 01:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

By failing to respond to the second half of my above comment, I do thank you for ignoring the second half of my above comment, which was expected. Do you care to answer it now? —Hollow Wilerding 23:43, 4 December 2005, you're spoiling for an RFC being filed against you if a block is taken into action. However, I am not surprised that you ignored me, as most Wikipedians resort to this when they are uncertain of how to answer. Do not tempt me with a block when you are the one not providing the answers. That's what I call uncivil behaviour. Due to my other comments made in this article nomination, I will renominate it until it becomes featured. —Hollow Wilerding 21:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have responded on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Bishonen | talk 01:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the second half of the comment to which you refer above is the statement about Céline Dion (that it should not have been renominated quickly) or your statement that "when I want something, I get that something." In relation to Céline Dion, if you look at the renomination, the short interval between the failed nomination and renomination is addressed at length, as it is here. That renomination has also now disappeared from WP:FAC.

Simply renominating the article without addressing previous objections is not going to succeed in wearing the objectors down. You may find it more fruitful to take the article away from WP:FAC for a while to address the objections before bringing it back (and I see some comments on your talk page that indicate that that is what you intend to do). -- ALoan (Talk) 21:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is. —Hollow Wilerding 00:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - was that comment addressed at me? "Yes it is" what? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is what I intend to do. Take a break from Hollaback Girl. Is that a bit clearer now? :) —Hollow Wilerding 20:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

SUPPORT LIKE CRAZY!!! MAKE IT A FEATURED ARTICLE!!! --Winnermario 22:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: under the Music section, I saw: ""Hollaback Girl" features few instruments. It is primarily anthemic and beat-driven. Each time the chorus is sung, the number of instruments increases." Could you add what instruments were used, if even was so small. What influenced the music chosen for this song, since when I heard it, it sounds like something I might have heard from the movie "Drumline." Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 04:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The "When I want something I get it" comment reminds me of Veruca Salt from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. But in the end, she got what she needed instead of what she wanted, just as in the Rolling Stones song. *Dan T.* 13:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Karen Dotrice

One week after requesting peer review, I've received exactly no comment, so I've no clue how this will turn out. Nevertheless, why not try? RadioKirk talk to me 21:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. There are no inline citations and no References, failing criteria 2(c). The lead is a bit too short; while it should be succint, it should contain a bit more information. The "On Matthew Garber" section is simply a quote and should be merged with the Film section. The personal life is very lacking, missing all details from her early life. Years should only be linked to if they either help in the context of the information or have a specific month or date with them. Many of the paragraphs contain only 1 sentence are are lacking. Other sentences are too long and are run-ons, namely That same year, she and Thomasina co-star Matthew Garber were hired to play Jane and Michael, the children of George Banks (David Tomlinson), who gets more than he bargained for when he hires a nanny named Mary Poppins. AndyZ 22:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to note, please, that the talk page references the external links as the article's sources. Also, if you're aware of any information that this article does not contain (that is publicly available), please feel free to point me there. RadioKirk talk to me 01:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You can use external websites as sources but you must still attribute particular statements or sentences to particular websites, see 2c in WP:WIAFA & also Wikipedia:Citing sources Mikkerpikker 17:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to the use of websites; listing it under external links automatically makes the assumption that they are not references, and should be converted to proper reference format in a reference section. AndyZ 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Further note, if I may: The "On Matthew Garber"" section is intentionally separate—here is a co-star whose death in 1977 went virtually unnoticed for nearly 20 years, including by Disney. RadioKirk talk to me 18:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that, "On Matthew Garber" is only one quote. It doesn't matter that Matthew Garber's death went virtually unnoticed (which if that was the reason why it was the separate section that should be the reason should be incorporated somewhat into there). AndyZ 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. No references whatsoever. JoaoRicardo^talk 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object - it's a sad fact that a lot of people don't bother looking at Peer Review, and it's very frustrating when you ask for help there and don't get it. I think the article is lacking any sort of depth, notwithstanding Dotrice is known for only a few films, even these are covered too briefly. Each section consists of barely a paragraph. One little thing about grammar - there are a couple of bits where it says "Dotrice would pair up" or "would star" and these things should be changed to past tense. Suggest read through other featured articles to get an idea of the style and depth of other articles. For an example of a featured article on a person who was famous for basically one event maybe try A. E. J. Collins. Also have a look at Wikipedia:Image description page which explains what is needed in terms of attributing copyright and stating a fair use rationale. Also the references must be stated on the article page, rather than the talk page. Rossrs 08:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Not much more than a CV converted to grammatical sentences. It's hard to believe that the subject's work has never been commented on in reviews or in other forms of criticism. Monicasdude 15:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object. It's not quite ready, it fails all the critrea except maybe 2d and 3b. I suggest the nominator look again at WP:WIAFA Mikkerpikker 16:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Response—Thank you all for your comments. When this is done, I will make the necessary revisions and resubmit the self-nom. I write for radio for a living; writing for print is a different animal... RadioKirk talk to me 18:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The Parafaith War

I found this page to be an excellent description of the novel, with a well-written and accurate plot summary and a discussion of the themes present in the book. I'm really impressed by the work of User:Nerrin in creating and writing it. CronoDAS 00:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Missing a ton of information that would be essential for a FA about a novel, including the publisher (!), sales information, public/critical reactions, etc. There are no references (not even the book itself). Too much of the article is within the "spoiler warning" space. The article is bereft of any context for people who haven't read it. Andrew Levine 01:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object; no references or inline citations, or for that matter, external links. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Theodore Kaczynski

No, needs lots of improvenment, the anarchist section appears to have been original research and the manifesto section was inaccurate, seemed more a reflection of the beliefs of a wikipedia editor than those of Kaczynski and it hasn't been well or properly explained, SqueakBox 17:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)

Self-nomination. I helped make this article what it is today. Back in August, there wasn't a whole lot in the article, and the article contained some very inaccurate facts about the movie. I would love to see the article for this classic animated movie get the featured article treatment. I feel that it definitely deserves it. (Ibaranoff24 05:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC))

• Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 05:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC))
• Comment. I am curious about the images. What type of limit is there for screen captures? and does the limit differ for article size? Also, are screen captures considered fair use only if the image (scene) is talked about? This is not a criticism, just general questions. Forever young 06:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clearly, a lot of work went into the article but there are issues. First, the plot section is too long, and retells the story rather than describing it. Sentences like "Long ago, in the early years of the Second Age, the great Elven-smiths forged Rings of Power — Nine for mortal Men, Seven for the Dwarf-lords, and three for the tall Elf-kings." sound like you're trying to captivate the reader's imagination. That's not the right role for an encyclopedia article. It should be an article about the movie and the focus should not be on the plot itself. The section can be there, but should be shortened and meant as background. A more appropriate tone would be "The film illustrates J.R.R. Tolkien's popular fantasy tale of the quest of a group of hobbits, elves, and men to destroy a magical ring of power before it falls into the hands of evil." As Forever young may have realized, there are also too many fair use screenshots. Use them selectively to illustrate the best parts of the movie. They should be interspersed with the text rather than in a gallery. The images in the production are least likely to be appropriate as fair use and should probably be elminated; Image:RBLorcamera.jpg is not a promo image and others may be mis-tagged. The trivia section should be dissolved and incorporated into other sections. The Reception and Follow-up sections also need to be longer. Superm401 | Talk 08:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Undoubtedly we might have seen a little interest in the whole hobbit franchise over the last, oh, five years now is it? The commercial nature of the subject of this article may quite easily lead to the entry being misconstrued as advertising. By validating this and many, many similar subjects as good practice, we may expose wikip to a direct avenue of abuse by grass-roots marketing campaigns. --HasBeen 09:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Too much plot summary (some of which relates to the novel rather than movie); too many screenshots (which aren't integrated with the text); too much trivia; too little description of the business aspects of the production; too little discussion of the critical reception. Monicasdude 16:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. That gallery of copyrighted images has got to go. Jkelly 18:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  I deleted the screen captures section from the article, and I added a few more items to the "Differences from the book" section. (Ibaranoff24 00:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC))

• Support Object What is the use of the the Cast section? I know that most pages provide a longer cast than the info box, but there is already two links to IMDB, also, most of the names in the box are red, so I don't see the use of it really. The table really seems to just take up space. Er, don't know about the Ralph Bakshi film box, is that really needed, again if people want to see a list of his works they can just click on his name, the table, like the cast one, is quite annoying. The The Lord of the Rings table at the bottom is more appropriate. On the images, the placement could be a lot better in the plot section and in the production section, I don't think you need two images. But apart from that the writing is quite good. Issues addressed.Forever young 03:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  Deleted cast section, fixed Bakshi template, moved the images around. (Ibaranoff24 05:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC))

• Oppose. Not well-enough referenced. Also, one small thing that you could change is the caption "A scene that inspired Peter Jackson". May have inspired would probably be more NPOV. Batmanand 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  Peter Jackson was introduced to Tolkien's novels through this film. "May have inspired" would be changing the facts around. He was inspired by this film, and he ripped off borrowed several scenes in "homage" to the film. (Ibaranoff24 00:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC))

  Has he ever said that? Has anyone who we can verify and cite ever said that? If not, please change to "may". Batmanand 08:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)