Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive of discussions about articles that were promoted to featured status. This archive covers articles discussed in September 2004. The discussions are organized in chronological order. Newer discussions are at the bottom of the page.

Louis XIV of France[edit]

-- Emsworth 18:37, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. James F. (talk) 13:08, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Giano 13:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - but seems rather text-heavy, perhaps another image or two? Etaonish 14:30, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but with two suggestions for improvement. 1) the section on his children stands out a bit, especially since they are already mentioned earlier (in "Death"). Perhaps the table can be moved there as well. 2) a picture of his arms would be a welcome addition to the "style and arms" section. Jeronimo 07:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I nominate this thorough and comprehensive guide to a subject foreign to most of us Yanks. PedanticallySpeaking 20:02, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Having now met most of Emsworth criticism. Objecting on the grounds that cms should be cm seems over critical. GWO 12:01, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. An inexplicable subject clearly explained Giano 13:20, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:46, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support enthusiastically -- I've been attempting to understand the game for years, and now I finally feel as though I do. Jwrosenzweig 21:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 07:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. By way of full disclosure, this was completely rewritten recently by nichalp with substantial comments from me, dmmaus and Lord Emsworth amongst others. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*Object: too many half-true or ambiguous statements. Some examples) ***'Players on the fielding team take turns to be the bowler and to bowl six consecutive balls (an over) at the batting player.' Really? All the players? One over each at a time? Or just the specialist bowlers and allrounders bowling spells of overs?) ***'When both teams have completed their innings, the team with the most runs wins, although games can also be drawn or tied.' But what if it is a three or five day game and each team has 2 innings? And one does not complete their second innings before the end of the last day? ) ***'The more wickets the bowlers manage to take, the fewer runs the opposition will score.' Really? So a bowler with figures of 35:2:126:5 has done more to limit the score than one with figures of 35:16:40:1? 14:39, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

    • Removing resolved objections. Now support. 09:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks. The brief intro (where two of your examples come from) was meant to quite general - it is not the place to explain bowling spells, how the bowling is rotated, etc; and both teams have completed their innings when the second innings is over in a two innnings match. A team may not complete its second innings for many reasons: time may be up (so a draw) or they may win, but again this is not the place to explain. I hope I have dealt with your third point by changing it to read "Generally, the quicker the bowlers manage to take wickets, ..." Does that satisfy you? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Objections. 1. One of the images uses "cms," but just "cm" should be used. Perhaps the creator of the images could be contacted; I believe that they were drawn using MS Word, and can therefore be easily changed.

Modified the image, although the thumbnail used still appears to be the older version. Cached somewhere?? GWO 12:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2. The article does not mention why the Lord Protector banned cricket in England.

Fixed GWO 12:01, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

3. I suggest a different structure, because some sections have just a single subsection, which makes the ToC look awkward. Furthermore, this would help reduce the length of the ToC:

  1. Origin of name
  2. History of cricket
  3. Objective
  4. Players (Note: incorporate "10 Other roles" into this section)
  5. Officials (Note: separate from "4 Players and officials")
  6. The playing field
    1. The pitch (Note: incorporate "5.2 The Wicket" and "5.3 Creases" into this subsection, as those two are only single paragraphs and properly appertain to the pitch itself)
    2. Parts of the field (Note: presently called "Field divisions")
    3. Field placements
  7. Match structure
  8. Play of the game
    1. The toss
    2. Batting
    3. Bowling (Note: incorporate "8 Dismissal of a batsman" into this section)
    4. Fielding
    5. Wicket-keeping
  9. International structure of cricket
  10. Forms of cricket (Note: incorporate "13 Variances in international cricket" into this section)

Same for the rest.

I've restructured the article substantially, using some of your suggestions and some of my own. GWO 12:01, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll see what other suggestions I can make later on. -- Emsworth 20:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Object - No ==References== section. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. The TOC is also overwhelming. I suggest converting many of the subheads to ; like so
--mav 03:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Would it suffice if some of the external links were renamed as References? I know the TOC is large, but the page is also quite large and I'm not sure which headings you think should be removed. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not unless there were really used as references. --mav
  • Object. As someone wholly unfamiliar with cricket, I find the order of presentation somewhat confusing. Some fine details are presented before the big picture is complete. The reader gets a long way down in the article before it becomes apparent that one guy is hurling a ball at another, and that the latter should try to hit it with a bat. The reader gets even further down before it becomes apparent that the batsmem run back and forth between the wickets. --Doradus 20:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Also object. I would certainly have to agree with the above. I am in a similar position, and while I am not expecting perfect understanding after reading the article and never having seen the game, the article does cry out for a general introduction to the gameplay. Without it the more detailed description is incomprehensible. - Taxman 22:45, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks - I think this comment was made in Peer review but wasn't dealt with before the article was proposed here. I've added a brief introductory paragraph in the header. Does this deal with your objections? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's a great start. That's just what I'm looking for. I think you could trim even more details from that, and briefly mention what "out" is, and what "runs" are. However, I'm still going to object, as described below... --Doradus 14:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Perhaps I can clarify my objection with a thought experiment: Suppose I know nothing of Cricket and want to get the jist of how a game is played. So I start to read the article, and find that it's launching into the history of the game, and I don't really care about that. No problem: I take a look at the table of contents for the article, and where do I click? Well, in the current structure, I might click on Play of the Game, but being section 10, it requires a lot of the previous ones in order to be intelligle. For instance, one of the first sentences I encounter is "If the bowling is slow, and the opposing wicket keeper is standing close to the stumps, the batsman will usually have their back foot behind the crease in order to prevent being out stumped." Huh?? At this point, I probably give up.
The sections themselves look like they have been through a blender. Why do we have Players in section 3, separate from Player roles in section 9? Why is Objective in section 2, separate from the Play of the Game way down in section 10? I think we're trying to give the jist early, before the details, but (a) it's not working, and (b) we should say so explicitly, with sections roughly like these (but with better names):
  1. Introduction and History
  2. Gameplay Overview (eg. bowler throws ball at batsman; batsman runs between wickets; etc.)
  3. Gameplay Details (eg. field dimensions, 8 ways to retire a batsman, where the batsman typically stands, etc.)
  4. Variations
  5. Organizations
  6. Related articles and references
Sorry to be the only objection in a sea of support. --Doradus 14:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Again, thanks for that: no need to apologise! The article was written by people who know the subject well, and it can be difficult to put oneself in the position of starting from scratch: your objections are precisely the sort of thing we need to know. The subject is laden with terminology, so it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Given that the article as it stands is pretty much an agreed position, I'll leave it alone for a bit and see if a consensus emerges. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Further objections: The article fails to cover a few points: forfieture of innings, alternating innings/ follow-on, lost ball, colour of the ball, Test v. ODI strategy (pace of scoring, etc.). -- Emsworth 14:59, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Do you consider these items sufficiently egregious to prevent this from becomming a Featured Article? --Doradus 15:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I've added a brief note on forfeiture, declaration and following on to the captain section. Colour of the ball should be apparent from cricket ball, which is referred to. I believe the Test cricket and ODI articles refer to strategy, as does batting (cricket). Someone may need to add lost ball somewhere. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • A lot of those things are quite complex in their own right (particularly strategy!!) and I think are better addressed as linked-to secondary articles, which already exist. The page is already a long one. --dmmaus 09:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have made some structural changes, pertaining to the objections made above. All changes are mentioned in the Talk:Cricket page. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]] 19:53, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Galveston Hurricane of 1900[edit]

Self-nomination (mostly). I think I've addressed the few complaints it got while on Peer Review. I'd probably give it another round on Peer Review if the anniversary of the storm wasn't approaching on September 8. -- Cyrius| 06:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I'll second this. I've read the fascinating book Isaac's Storm and this article covers the topic well. I'd quibble with the article title. I realize that this happened before we started naming hurricanes, so there is no definite name, but wouldn't just "Galveston Hurricane" be better? PedanticallySpeaking 19:45, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • As far as I know, no one refers to it as the "Galveston Hurricane". There's been a lot of unnamed hurricanes to hit Galveston (including the powerful 1915 storm), so some sort of qualifier is necessary. "Great Galveston Hurricane" and variations using the year are common. -- Cyrius| 00:03, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Comprehensive, well written. I would however, prefer the title of 'Galveston Hurricane of 1900' as being more neutral and descriptive, unless the current one is clearly the more popular one. - Taxman 12:59, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • It isn't. It's actually about a factor of three less popular (by Google test) than your sugggestion (which is roughly as popular as '1900 Galveston Hurricane'). Enough that I'll probably move it, but not enough that I was going to bother for my own purposes. -- Cyrius| 14:38, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Extremely well-written. • Benc • 15:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - a very nice piece of work. Denni 16:59, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)
  • Support - Extremely well-written. Frecklefoot | Talk 18:21, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article --Zerbey 18:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article looks good to me, though I would try to write full-sentence captions for it (see Wikipedia:Captions). -- ke4roh 18:58, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd try, but I don't know what to write for them. -- Cyrius| 00:23, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Done. I wanted to mention the destruction in the first one and bring in the bit about people being trapped in the second. I don't think it's any less accurate now. I thought about swapping the photos as well, but the first image is so good, with the church in the background, that I decided to leave them where they were. -- 10:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • An article I'd intended to expand for a very long time -- I mentioned it to Cyrius in the hopes he'd write a few paragraphs and help get me started. To my mild shame (and his great credit) he's done an exemplary job to which I can add nothing but my support for featuring it. Bravo, Cyrius! Jwrosenzweig 22:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Even better than it was while on PR. Great work! --mav 03:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 07:08, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Coronation Street[edit]

Aside from the gratuitous use of italics, an excellent and comprehensive account. I never thought I'd read such a long article about a soap opera. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 04:21, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Entertaining and informative, especially for those of us on the other side of the pond. Gregb 04:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Speaking of which, could there be something about the programme in other countries? For instance, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, on whose network it has long been the most popular daytime show, have recently moved it into primetime. Just had another thought - how about the straight-to-video spin-offs, such as the Russell T. Davies-penned Viva Las Vegas! I'm afraid I know next to nothing about the programme (can't stand it, sorry!) so I can't add such info myself! Otherwise, support. Angmering 09:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I went ahead and added that. I made sure to mention the airing of episodes in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (and the lack of airing in America). If anyone can add more, please do so. Mike H 16:41, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
I never saw the one-offs but that would be very important to note. For example, they tracked down Neville Buswell in America and asked him to do a cameo as Ray Langton for the Las Vegas special. Mike H 18:24, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I have added a paragraph on this myself, which hopefully those with more knowledge will be able to add to! Angmering 20:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. However, there's two problems with the "Most Controversial Storylines" section - it displays strangely in my browser (Firefox), and some of the writing could do with a little work (particularly towards the end, where there's about five dotpoints in a row beginning with "In *year*..."). That said, it's such an excellent article I'm supporting anyway. Ambi 09:19, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I figured someone else could add to those. I wanted to but I haven't watched Corrie on a regular basis since we lost the ability to receive the episodes in America via satellite in 2000. Mike H 16:48, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, although I'm worried about the purported Fair Use status of the images. Granada are quite protective of Corrie, as its their major cash cow. GWO 16:51, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The material was released for the consumption of the American market. From what I understand, I was allowed to get those but someone in Britain would not. Mike H 16:54, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. FWIW, at least in the USA the chief issue for "fair use" is whether the material used diverts the monopolist's market to the copier. Since many in the USA are still unaware of the series, and they are unlikely to substitute for watching it, we have some latitude. Smerdis of Tlön 18:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - No ==References== section. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. The lead section could also be expanded a bit. --mav 03:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I didn't write a whole lot of this article, so can you tell me what needs to be cited? Mike H 03:32, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • Everything in the article must have some basis in another source. One need not list all the sources, but only those that have provided important information for the article. -- Emsworth 13:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I know the show summaries and such come from...watching the show. I can cite things from the controversial storylines, and Deirdre/Ken and Charles/Diana ratings thing from the 40 Years on Corrie book. Mike H 17:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Iraqi resistance[edit]

This was listed out of order by User:Colinrorr. This should eventually be a featured article nominee, both for eloquent prose and relevance to current events.

  • Support. I like how it rejects the view of "the resistance" as a singular entity, unlike most journalists on the topic. 04:00, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, the best resource I have found anywhere on the resistance. --Alxt 05:43, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - heaps of info! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fascinating article. Mostly tallies with what I've read about previously - but in a very coherent and less scattered fashion than in the media. Here definitive groupings are pinned down and set out. zoney talk 18:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Covers pretty much everything. --Zerbey 22:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Qualified support. I have two concerns though: firstly there were some rather dodgy unattributed or incoherent parts, which I've moved to the talk page. I think what's left is very good, and feature-worthy, but if the parts I removed were restored without being cleaned up, that would be a Bad Thing. I also worry a little about how well the article is going to be watched; given that this is an area subject to a lot of change, the page could go downhill very quickly. Markalexander100 09:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Self-nomination. GWO 15:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Picture needs a caption. Move the first paragraph of the "retirement" section to the end of the previous section, retitle "Retirement" as "In popular culture" or something; put the section in chronological order. Gdr 17:48, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
    • Fixed GWO 21:58, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Elf | Talk 00:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Gentgeen 07:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Roche limit[edit]

This article really takes an abstract concept and makes it concrete with some mind-bending examples and thought-experiments. Hats off to User:Bryan Derksen --Doradus 13:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The commentary on this article fails to note that when Weisstein's equation is quoted, the negative sign before the second term in the numerator has become positive at Wikipedia. Probably it is best to do it all over or consult Chandrasekhar's "Ellipsoidal Figures of Equilibrium." User:pdn

  • Support - wow, I should go away for a week more often! -- ALoan (Talk) 14:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) Object - it is good, and I have had a further tweak myself, but it seems a bit short for a featured article. At the very least, it needs a diagram or two. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - not very clear discussion, especially in the intro. It took me reading the whole article to decipher which clauses in the first sentance go with which concepts. An inline explanation of tidal forces is needed, or else the concept doesn't make any sense. Also too short, there's got to be more to say about it. - Taxman 15:23, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok. I don't exactly understand the "decipering" objection, since the first sentence seems clear enough to me, but perhaps it is confusing to the lay person. Anyway, I agree the article could use a diagram, and perhaps some sections. --Doradus 18:14, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Don't worry, the added dashes make what I noted more clear. But the explanation of tidal forces needs to be worked in more cohesively now. The one sentance notes the term tidal forces, then the next notes what appears to be the definition (but maybe not exactly, as it is not made explicit) of the term tidal forces. Needs to be combined for clarity. I didn't want to add incorrect physics by reworking it myself. - Taxman 18:34, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, primarily on the basis of length. It will be the Roche limit which, a few million years hence, may make Earth a ringed planet. I'm also concerned that the Roche formula appears so early in the article. This is quite enough to scare away the casual reader who has no mathematics or physics background. Denni 01:56, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC) Support enthusiastically. I applaud the effort which has gone into creating this first-rate physics article. Wonderful illustrations, Theresa!! Denni 18:15, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)
    • I agree. The formula appears early on as if from nowhere. I would like to see an explanation of where the formula comes from. (Presumably the gravitational forces and tidels forces are equated plus a bit of algebra) As an aside I am happy to draw a diagram if someone cares to explain what they want drawn. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott Sig.gif]] 12:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I've moved the formula down the page into the second section. The article is now split into two halfs, with the first half being sutable for the casual reader and the second half with the "scary" equations. Theresa Knott 01:46, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • If you need suggestions for a diagram: Google is your friend ;-) -- Chris 73 Talk 14:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • OK well I could draw something similar to some of those. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott Sig.gif]] 15:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Also see [1], [2], [3] and [4] for some ideas in context. The text of these is also quite good - perhaps worth checking whether the article covers the same points. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • OK I've uploaded Image:Roche limit (two spheres).PNG which is basically an adaptation of the diagram found here I haven't actually put it in the article yet because it needs an explanation and it's late (When I'm tired I make even more mistakes than usual) Feel free to add it in for me, otherwise I'll do it myself later. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott Sig.gif]] 23:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) Done Theresa Knott 20:00, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • That image explains the theory very well, but do I ask too much if I want an image of satellite approaching, stretched by tidal forces until it disintegrates, like this or this. [[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 10:52, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • Yep I spotted that image too and intend to add another similar one to the article as well. In fact that whole web page is fascinating and it's well worth incoorporating some of the ideas from it into our article. I'll try and do some work on it this evening, if I get time :-( Theresa Knott 14:29, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
              • Ive done the additional images. Theresa Knott 01:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
                • Great. Thank you. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:23, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Holy smokes. Linking the article from here was the best thing that ever happened to it! --Doradus 15:51, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There seem to have been 3 objections, at least two of which have been properly answered. I assume that that will get it approved, with the time limit being up within the next 24 hours. It's a worthy article, and I'm not going to kill it this late, so—

  • Neutral. The derivation at the end is a fine idea, but is much too sketchy to be held up as an example. See the talk page. Dandrake 18:00, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC) Support. It's fixed, so far as I can see, and there was still time to change my vote. Great article. Dandrake 07:40, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wuzzeb and I independently fixed the equations. It is now a more detailed step by step explanation based on the gravitational and the tidal force. I also removed the image that went with the old equations, since the new equations need an updated image. I could do it, but Theresa's images have a nicer feel. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:56, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • I fixed the image and reuploaded it. Wuzzeb 03:44, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can we hold off on this article for a few more days until we get the problems with the derivation sorted out? We shouldn't feature an article with incorrect mathematics, yet I don't think it'll take too long to sort it. (I'll get it right eventually) Theresa Knott 00:50, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) <sauf London accent>sorted</accent>. As far as I can see - all objections have now been addressed. Theresa Knott 08:41, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I've done a few final tweaks and checks: looks good to me. -- The Anome 20:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • (not a vote) Two more points: According to the external link, the formula we have is the easy one, and there is a second, more rigorous approach. Could we work this in, too (not necessarily the full derivation, just the different asumptions and the equation)? Second: A list of examples would be nice, e.. what is the roche limit of the moon to the earth, earth to the sun, etc. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:04, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC) Support -- Chris 73 Talk 17:08, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • The Earth-Moon d apporx. 9,500 km which is only around 3,122 km above the surface. The Sun-Earth d approx. 556, 689 km, which is actually less than the radius of the sun! A better comparison would be the roche limit for different comets, as seen on this page [5]. Wuzzeb 00:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I just added a significant chunk of text, second approach with different assumptions (although not completely derived), and a table with example results. Please check my text for accuracy. Chris 73 Talk 01:23, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
        • Also added an animation. Not sure to where exactly the satellite disintegrates, though. Chris 73 Talk 03:35, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
          • Ironically, I have to object now. The animations are a nice idea, but I think they detract from the article. First, the rigid body version is incorrect. The analysis computes where a rigid object would be lifted from the surface of a rigid body, not where the rigid body itself would disintegrate. Second, animations don't work on printouts. Third--and this is just a personal opinion--they are about as visually appealing as the <BLINK> tag. --Doradus 15:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • I agree as well. The pictures in the top section give the idea, and the animation doesn't really add anything. As well, the animation shows the body crashing into the planet, when sometimes the body will still orbit the planet, just not in one lump. As soon as you see the animation, it is pretty jaring since the style is different, blue sun instead of yellow, etc. Wuzzeb 21:25, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Still and all, Wikipedia (though being drive space) is not paper. We should not constrain ourselves to still images when it comes to demonstrating a point. While the animated graphics may leave something to be desired in some eyes, I find far more positive than negative to say about them. Denni 18:15, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)
    • Ok, then what remains objectively is that the rigid body one is incorrect, and that both of them show the body colliding with the planet instead of orbiting it. But I see nothing unclear, that the animations make clear. --Doradus 19:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - both still and animated pictures show an incorrect distortion away from a prolate spheroid shape. As is, they are deceptive. With the new version of the still pictures some other changes I can now support the nomination. Noren 06:49, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Hi Noren - you can sign your name by typing four tildes ~~~~. I've changed the still image, and adapted you explanation from the talk page as a caption. Let me know what you think. Theresa Knott (The token star) 23:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I finally went ahead and axed the animation. It didn't really contain any information not already in the other diagrams. That plus the other problems listed above makes me think the article is better without it. --Doradus 03:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article has undergone a lot of growing pains recently. I don't know the normal procedure for this kind of thing, but it seems reasonable to remove it as a featured article candidate for the time being, and possibly re-nominate it some time in the future. Does anyone feel that it should be accepted at this time? --Doradus 17:00, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Growing pains? The growth was in response to the objections. The whole point of doing all the extra work was to get the article in shape for featured status. I believe that the article is now in good shape, the objections have largely been addressed, and so it should not be removed from this page. I am happy to support the nomination for featured status. Theresa Knott (The token star) 20:38, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but the article has increased in size by a factor of four since this hurricane of editing started. There is more new text than old. That's growing pains. I think we all need some perpective on the article before we're qualified to decide if it's in good shape. I'd like to have some time to forget about it a bit and then re-read it in a week or two before we find our freshly-mined gem on display for the world to see. However, this is not an objection. I'll abstain. --Doradus 18:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I support. Great article. Good topic, good info, well-explained. The kind of thing we need more of. Alteripse 22:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support. The collaboration and content shine. Congratulations. Ancheta Wis 15:42, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Object, until somewhere in the non-technical section there's some explaination of the magic phrase "tidal force" the lay user won't understand. -- Kop 00:28, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Golden age of arcade games[edit]

I don't know if I can call this a self-nomination, since several people worked on and improved it since I started it. Interesting article and subject, with supporting graphics (actually, more are available if deemed necessary). Frecklefoot | Talk 20:40, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Recently expanded and modified this article a great deal. Take another look if you haven't already. Frecklefoot | Talk 20:05, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Great article, took me a while to find anything it didn't cover. - Taxman 13:25, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • The technology section is intermixed with the only discussion of many of the most popular games of the era. That seems a little awkward. Maybe a separate section discussing the most popular games would be better. Leave the technology section to cover only the games the specifically impacted the development of the tecnology.
    • The discussion of the games should include Q-Bert, missed in the current article, and devote a bit more attention to the Pac-Man (and Ms. Pac-Man) phenomenon. The stat on the number of quarters played in those two games is some ridiculous number that would really help with the impact and interest of the article.
    • Was the golden age of arcade games affected by the Video game crash of 1983?
      • Added a short mention of this, but the consenses is, it impacted the home video game market more than arcade games. Arcade games weren't effected very much at all. Frecklefoot | Talk
{The above few suggestions were written by Taxman, not me.)
As regards whether the Golden age was affected by the crash, I remember this point to have been included when I last contributed to the article. However, the relevant sentences have since been removed. Ropers 06:51, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I put the info back in, though I always thought the crash affected home video games and not arcade games very much.Frecklefoot | Talk 07:10, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This is probably a self-nomination as I've put a lot of work into the article, but so have other people, and I think it's turned out really good. - Brian Kendig 14:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ridge Route[edit]

Another self-nomination that has been expanded since its original nomination, withdrawn over a disagreement over another subject. Photos are from Caltrans and are used as public domain material per their own terms of use. More photos of the road as it appears today are coming courtesy of Avnative who lives at the route's southern tip and just finished driving it specifically to photograph it for this article. - Lucky 6.9 00:59, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. . . Avnative's actual living location is not the southern tip. He lives in an undisclosed, secure location in the Antelope Valley in an otherwise unremarkable structure in the manner of Dick Cheney, though! --avnative 00:00, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. zoney | talk 10:35, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Wow, this is really impressive compared to what it was! Definitely support! zoney talk 13:58, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Witholding support until the Beale's Cut/Swede's Cut situation is checked out (please see Talk:Ridge Route). I'd also like my pictures reviewed by User:Lucky 6.9 (and I'd also appreciate having zoney take a look see as well). Once these issues are resolved, I'd say we have an outstanding article and will support. --avnative 13:56, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, almost there I think. The article claims - "was one of the largest and most daunting feats of road engineering ever attempted up to that time". That is a large claim that either needs to be substantiated or removed. Further, there is next to no information on the engineering feat itself. What made it large?, or especially - larger than other road projects like railroads over mountains? There is one picture and short explanation of Beale's cut, with a vague reference to there being other cuts. In summary, expansion of the engineering project itself and the contruction of the route would be in order. - Taxman 14:25, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
Taxman, after doing some reading of Scott's excellent book at the library, I made copies of some pertinent pages of it. The "was one of the largest and most daunting feats of road engineering ever attempted up to that time" quotation in the article actually reads on p. 243, paragraph 1 of Scott's book in this way: "On one hand the Ridge Route was declared one of the most remarkable feats of highway engineering on the continent, and on the other it was said to potentially be the most dangerous road in the world bar none!" The citation number in the book, 366, leads the reader to the following source: "All Aboard for Ridge Route - But Watch Your Step!" Touring Topics November 1919, p.11. Touring Topics is the former name of the member magazine of the Automobile Club of Southern California, now referred to as Westways. If the sentence under discussion in the article is changed to reflect that - stating "According the Automobile Club of Southern California, the Ridge Route was one of the largest and most daunting feats of road engineering ever attempted up to that time" I think we have a solution at hand.

On "what made it large? or especially - larger than other road projects like railroads over mountains?": I don't think Lucky and I are trying to say the project was large - I think instead we're trying to get across the notion that the construction was a remarkable engineering feat similar to other engineering feats as noted in the current edit of History of California.

To that end, here's a quote from Scott's book on p. 77 (last two sentences): "The San Francisco Chronicle reported: 'One of the most remarkable engineering feats accomplished by the State Highway Commission(sic). It is Southern California's Magnum Opus in mountain highway construction.'" The citation, number 197 in Scott's book, is for "The Great Short Cut over Tehachapi Mountains," California Highway Bulletin, July 1, 1916, p. 2. My solution is to answer Taxman's question under discussion to say "The San Francisco Chronicle was reported to say in a 1916 edition of the California Highway Bulletin that the Ridge Route was "one of the most remarkable engineering feats accomplished by the State Highway Commission. It is Southern California's Magnus Opus in mountain highway construction."

Soooo. . . do you like my solution for wording the article? I think I've met your objections. Let's work on getting the wording agreeable to all concerned here, alright? (smile) --avnative 23:09, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
I like the additions very much. But now you've got even more detailed information in the above discussion that is not in the article. Also citing the statements is good. Once some more of the above references are in the references section, simply put (Pool 1997, p197) or some such. I will try to do that myself, but I may not have a chance until as late as tomorrow. - Taxman 14:35, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Consider it done. Please check the text once again and see if you like it now! --avnative 00:36, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Fixed the mix-up regarding Swede's Cut and Beale's Cut. They are different cuts. The ruggedness of the mountain range, the sheer length of a highway across the ridge and the level of engineering technology of the time are what had deemed the task to be impossible and led to the discussion of splitting California at the mountains. I'll see what I can do to clarify that. - Lucky 6.9 17:35, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I've just clarified the reasons why the task of building the road seemed impossible. Hope it's OK now. - Lucky 6.9 17:46, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Good start, but I was looking for more along that same path. It's clear, I'd just like more material. Do you have a source for the statement "such a road had never been attempted" or "was considered (by whom?) to be the greatest feat of road engineering to date"? I know, sources are tough, but good ones are what make articles great. Also, what made the cuts, tunnel, and bridge "major"? How big were they, in comparison to other bridges and tunnels done in the US or elsewhere? How many miles of cuts, tons of rock removed, etc.? Railroad tunnels through the Rocky Mountains were commonplace years before the Ridge Route was made, why was this considered special, and who thought it was impossible? - Taxman 20:57, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
        • I think a Westways Automobile Club of Southern California article from their archives or perhaps something from KCET public television, Los Angeles - perhaps from Huell Howser's staff or Huell himself - would cure this. A good USC history professor wouldn't hurt, either. In any case, I believe Taxman's concerns would be able to be met. It might be useful to qualify the claim some more, and state that "the road had never been attempted" over these particular mountains and "was considered" by California state government road authorities (Sacramento) "to be the greatest feat of road engineering to date."
        • I think Taxman misses a critical point: in that time period considering the technology available (horses and blades with steam shovels) getting these items to the work site - even today an isolated place - was a tremendous effort, comparable to the building of the Central Pacific Railroad building its roadbed over the Sierra Nevada Mountains. They didn't build things quickly with those now-antiquated tools compared to today. We need to consider that in the story, and recognize the decision to build the road (with a 50 year state bond) was a big deal. Let's also consider the fact that before the Ridge Route was built, one either went along the coast along the general path of US Highway 101, or traveled up the San Gabriel Mountain range's canyons to the Antelope Valley and through Tehachapi Pass to get to the San Joaquin Valley from Los Angeles. Either route took an extra day to do this - which at the time of the early 1900's in using early day automobiles, was killing commerce and driving up transportation costs for Californians. Hope my take on history here is useful to this discussion.
          • No, that's my point. If it is comparable to the building of the Central Pacific Railroad, which was successfully completed 50 years before the Ridge Route, why in the world would the Ridge route be considered impossible? I guess we could just end it with saying the California Road commission thought it impossible... Is there any evidence for who it was that thought it impossible? In any case, because of the above, I still take issue with "was considered to be the greatest feat of road engineering to date" - by whom? It had already been done 50 years before, albeit for a railroad. I do like what's being added very much though. Just have issues with a few overly broad, unsupported statements still - Taxman 16:22, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
        • Again, Taxman's concerns should be able to be met by consulting the above sources, and even Caltrans might be able to come to the rescue regarding specific amounts of rock removed, etc. etc. They well could have some old records - they have the Pasadena Freeway construction records and photos from the late 1930's for example - I've seen 'em! --avnative 00:00, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Man, that's something I'd like to see! In the meantime, I've expanded that section in question even more. - Lucky 6.9 04:00, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, buddy! I found a treasure trove of info on the early history and pre-history on from the Scott book! I've expanded that section tremendously. Off to add some of Avnative's new photos! - Lucky 6.9 04:04, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I stayed up until two in the morning tweaking this article, adding pictures, etc. I don't know how much clearer I can emphasize the scope of the project. I used all the online info from the Harrison Scott book. - Lucky 6.9 16:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Further clarification: The construction of the road was deemed impossible by the engineering standards of the day which in turn led to the discussion regarding the division of the state. I've outlined that in the article. - Lucky 6.9 18:15, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • As commented above, that is odd considering such a similar engineering project was completed 50 yrs before for the railroads including tunnels through rock more solid than sandstone if I'm not mistaken. - Taxman 16:44, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellent article, but the photos that originate from the state of California should be labelled (on the photo pages) as { {PD-CAGov} }. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Fair use implies these are copyrighted, and may restrict others from using the photos. These are public domain photos. Ydorb 20:18, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ah, thanks for the tip. I've tagged the Caltrans photos, but I'm claiming fair use on the speed limit sign photo given its age. Got that one at - Lucky 6.9 22:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Again, whew! I found a smidgen more info regarding the difficulty of building a highway as compared to a railroad. I just don't know how much clearer I can make it. You have to see those mountains to get an idea of how rugged they are. I think they just dynamited through to build 99, but that probably wasn't an option for the original roadway. - Lucky 6.9 19:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I spent some time reading old LA Times articles about this. I added these to the sources section when I saw facts metioned in the article. A few points: 1. Almost every article makes a very big deal about how the whole route has no grade greater than 6%. It's even written on the map I uploaded. The wikipedia article says the Ridge Route required grades over 30%. 2. The comment about "adding as much as a day to the trip" is misleading. I saw one article that said something about how a loaded truck that required two days to make the trip to Bakersfield, could now do it in one. Apparently the alternate route had some steep grades that drastically slowed heavily loaded trucks. For passenger cars, it saved several hours. There should be a mileage measure of the new shorter distance LA to Bakersfield via the Ridge Route compared to the old way. 3. The postcard image has three lanes. The Wiki article says "Mostly bypassed by 1933 with the coming of the three-lane "Alternate Ridge Route". Is the postcard of the alternate ridge route or the original. 4. The "speed limit strictly enforced" seems questionable. The LA Times had an article about speed records on the LA-Bakersfield run. One guy did a round trip in 7 hours. The best averaged 70 mph one-way! 5. The article, overall, could use some reorganization. I'd suggest the following based on the observation that its history ran through an arc. The Need (Why was it proposed? Who supported it? Who opposed it?) The Construction (What challenges did it pose? How long did it take?) The Features (Similar to current section, but it should also include Notable Stops section). The Demise (What superseeded it? Why? How did the alternate Ridge Route come about?) The Remains (same as the Today section). Ydorb 21:46, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Very thoughtful points. 1. Those steeper grades were found going south from about Owl Garage into Castaic, and especially going north from Ft. Tejon to Grapevine (the town). Check out Deadman's Curve in the Grapevine mountain grade and see what the grade was for it there. 2. You made our point - commercial trucks could save a day's travel by taking the Ridge Route. True, for passenger cars the time savings was not as great. I read the mileage measures you refer to on and will try to get those inserted into the text ASAP. 3. I believe the postcard is of the Alternate Ridge Route - the road which later became US 99. 4. You're right about the "speed demons!" My dad has told me about them. . . but he also remembers hearing law enforcement cracking down as fast as they could to prevent unsafe driving. A losing battle some days, others not. The reorganization proposal and outline seems good to me. Good considered thought on your part. I would support such a reorganization of text for the article. --avnative 23:44, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • I misunderstood a line in the Harrison Scott description regarding the steepness of the grades. Frankly, I thought thirty percent was way too high, especially for cars with vacuum- or gravity-fed fuel systems. I've fixed it. Info regarding enforcement of the speed limit, time it took to skirt the mountains and such was posted online. I can't find any mention of the supporting groups beyond that of the Auto Club. The need was apparent because of the talk of divding the state and the cost of transportation. As far as supersecedence and demise are concerned, the alternate route and US 99 pretty much did it in since it was straighter and faster. Good point regarding the postcard. That's certainly the alternate. - Lucky 6.9 21:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Added Avnative's excellent 1916 quote about the scope of the project. - Lucky 6.9 03:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Nice work, everyone. I believe we have the single most comprehensive article on this subject anywhere on the internet! - Lucky 6.9 04:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Casablanca (movie)[edit]

Self-nom. I think it's fairly complete, but I'll try to correct any problems. Markalexander100 07:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, a quick look shows it rather complete. --Gamingboy 14:52, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Definitely support: a bloody good (and very comprehensive) article about one of my all-time favorite films. — OwenBlacker 23:45, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Comprehensive article, good layout and a balanced point of view MarkS 13:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Comprehensive and highly readable. GWO 16:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written article, covers all bases. Zerbey 17:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Filiocht 11:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Not just another popular subject: a model for Wikipedia movie entries. Wetman 00:53, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Mpolo 19:22, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Mary II of England[edit]

Yes, it is short, but Mary II was not, in reality, the ruler of the realm; just about everything was done by her husband. -- Emsworth 19:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, but I think a few details should be changed. Her husband was not "the stadtholder", since he formally was only stadtholder of 5 of the 7 provinces of the Netherlands (although these provinces included the most important one, Holland). I would not call him a "Dutch Prince" either, since the Netherlands had no royal lineage at the time, and the principality of Orange is in fact in France. The stadtholdership became inheritable during his reign, though. I'll leave it to you to include these minor points or not. Jeronimo 07:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Addressed. -- Emsworth 20:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 16:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Zerbey 17:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Mpolo 19:56, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Samuel Beckett[edit]

Again a partial self-nom, although a lot of people have contributed to this. I suspect there may be a problem with the photo, but otherwise I think it's quite complete. Filiocht 11:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • FWIW, Waiting for Godot has some pictures of the play that could be added. Can we get a portrait from the publisher's website, and use it under fair use? Markalexander100 01:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The Beckett estate are very jealous of their rights and like to charge for everything. I'll use a Godot image for now. Thanks. Filiocht 07:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Image changed now. Filiocht 10:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't know much about him, or the area, but it looks really comprehensive and well put together. zoney talk 13:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Markalexander100 08:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Kiand 15:35, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Djegan 21:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. CGorman 18:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Infinite monkey theorem[edit]

This article has a little bit of everything: Popular depiction, formal math, pop culture references, anecdotes and trivia. It exhausts the topic's possibilities without descending into inanities. Pretty humourous too. -- Deepak 23:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • That a great percentage of the 'infinite number' of monkeys chose to defecate on the keyboard rather than type anything is reason enough for this self-effacing article to find feature status. This myth is long overdue puncturing. Denni 01:23, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:30, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose: great story, off the wall, fantastic topic, obviously people have done a lot of good work in research and attempts to copyedit, but the prose doesn't flow that well. For instance:
Subsequent restatements by other people have replaced the National Library not only with the British Museum but also with the Library of Congress; a popular retelling says that the monkeys would eventually type Shakespeare's plays.
There need not be infinitely many monkeys; a single monkey who executes infinitely many keystrokes suffices.
This seems disconnected. In fact, there are many sentences that seem that way!
There are also no references. The monkey simulator was reported by various newspapers and has online references at and I'll be more than happy to support once these issues have been resolved, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Done --Deepak 14:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • OpposeNeutral: there is still room for improvement pedantic, well beyond the Pedantic usage note junk. Ejrrjs 14:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • What stuff in the article is pedantic? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've added to the pedantic stuff I've identified some suggestions to improve the article
# The Pedantic usage note, by its own confession. Rename it Proper usage of the term infinite or whatever. Instead of to the mathematician use in technical terms or technically since the mathematical fact is certainly known to anyone with a college degree on science or engineering, or aware of the dictionary definition of infinite. On the other hand, a few more words on *why* a single monkey suffices might be interesting
  1. The disgression on dactylography. If the word does not belong to proper English usage, just drop it and do not perpetute the translator's mistake.
# The whole paragraph on Huxley's debate. If it is not true, just say it and move forward. Or is it just a space filler?
I think the new format helps
  1. Gian-Carlo Rota's quote of Whitehead. It is not one of Whitehead famous remarks [6] [7], its meaning is obscure and adds nothing to the subject matter. Drop that sentence.
Ejrrjs 15:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have now changed the title of the usage-note section to usage note. I think the usage note contains useful information for anyone who wants to learn mathematical terminology. I find some charm in the quote of Rota, who quotes Whitehead, and I think it would be unfortunate if it were deleted. (That text on probability that Rota died without finishing was sold in a draft form by MIT's Copy Technology Center; it was required reading for students in the course on probability that Rota taught every year. Quite possibly it's still sold there in that form; I'll check. Birkhauser Boston has asked another professor to try to put it into a form to be finally published more generally than by the Copy Technology Center, so maybe it will be seen on some day.) Michael Hardy 21:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Seriously, what did Whitehead mean? Is that a well known quote in some philosophy or math circles? Ejrrjs 22:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Could someone check the reference to Borel's 1909 book? I've

seen the English translation of the second edition; could someone check the original 1909 French one? (Maybe I'll do this at some point soon if I can.) Michael Hardy 23:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support- but maybe there should be more discussion of the probability of such events occuring. BrokenSegue 01:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, if only for this brilliant, brilliant sentence: "not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five pages consisting largely of the letter S, they started by attacking the keyboard with a stone, and continued by urinating and defecating on it." [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 22:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • That was taken almost verbatim from the Times newspaper. Pretty funny though! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, interesting and reasonably well written. On a side note, Michael, you don't mess around do you. Not only did you check the english translation, but you want to check the original French too? It does make sense, so maybe we could ask someone on the French wikipedia to look for it? - Taxman 03:02, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article. Cyopardi 13:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a serious theory? I thought it was something DNA invented! Zerbey 19:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The bellman 03:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Mpolo 12:19, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support --Phil | Talk 13:36, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Attila the Hun[edit]

Self-nomination; I and others have done a great deal of work to bring this article out of its previous stubbiness. —No-One Jones (m) 15:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 15:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I like it, but it needs more of a lead section that summarizes the important points about him and the image needs a better caption and source info. Also, as noted on the talk page, the manner of his death is too authoritatively written given the age and reliability of the sources, especially given a footnote describes a different method that is not explained in the text. Anyway it's great to have a former collaboration of the week nomination be nearly featured quality. - Taxman 16:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
    See the talk page for the latter objection. —No-One Jones (m) 16:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    All it needs is the information you wrote on the talk page about who made the claims and which is more reliable. A great article should cite every important fact by source, not state them as fact. - Taxman 19:00, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
    Done. —No-One Jones (m) 19:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Ok, but now I just don't understand your citation. The text says Priscus is the source for the conventional account, but the footnote says Marcellinus. Which is it? And now there is no mention of the conflicting account that had been in the footnote before, which even if not true may be worth noting if it was a widely accepted rumor. - Taxman 22:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
    My mistake; I forgot to remove the initial footnote reference when moving the alternate explanation up into a body paragraph, where it is now (at the end of #Invasion of Italy and death). —No-One Jones (m) 00:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Looks good, now the image caption as source info are the biggest issues. - Taxman 13:32, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • object. lead section too short. image needs to be framed, not thumbed --Jiang 18:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Check again. —No-One Jones (m) 19:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    good job. --Jiang
    The lead section makes the claim that it was Europe's largest empire. Is that generally accepted as true? For all history? Also the link to saga is to the disambig page so it is not clear what meaning you have in mind, and it should be explained a bit in the sentence anyway. Finally, the link to a section is problematic. If someone changes that section name, the link breaks. It is better to create an article, even if it is a stub at 'Migrations Period', or whatever is the correct article title. - Taxman 22:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
    Fixed; disambiguated "saga," noted that his the largest empire at the time (which it was), and took out the problematic link, which wasn't entirely necessary anyway. —No-One Jones (m) 00:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Object. The description of Attila's European history is very well done, but the article lacks historical context: the Huns were not just "a group of nomads living to the east of the Volga River in separate tribes". 1) How about a sections on origins: migrations of Asian population to the West, Xiong Nu connections, place of Attila in the Hun dynastic line. 2) Isn't the depiction of Attila as a Caucasian (photo) very debatable? Even the contemporary description by Priscus seems to be in contradiction. PHG 21:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    This is an article about the life of Attila; the history of the Huns belongs in their article (which I'll get to eventually. . .), though a short summary of it would be useful, yes, and I'll add one.
    All that is known about his place in the dynastic line is in there: he was Rua's nephew, and beyond that sayeth no source that I know of.
    The depiction is indeed debatable, however, as far as I know there are no first-hand portraits of him, so one guess is as good as another; some depictions even include horns.
    —No-One Jones (m) 22:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, this is good stuff. Two things: his birthyear is estimated as 406. What is this estimate based on? Also, it is mentioned that "names "Attila" and "Ildikó" remain popular to this day". It is not very clear that Ildikó (Hungarian for Hilda, IIRC) is the name of his last wife, and not the Hungarian or Turkish form of Attila. Jeronimo 07:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I actually don't know where the estimate comes from, so I took it out. The inclarity has also been corrected. —No-One Jones (m) 12:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. +sj+ 20:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, new images are great. Nice work. - Taxman 04:28, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fantastic article! Zerbey 16:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work! Securiger 12:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Though I did add a couple of small quotes. Wetman 01:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Simon A. 09:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anne, Queen of Great Britain[edit]

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

  • Support. Zerbey 16:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. ---Rednblu 17:07, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Object on only one grounds. I thought the beginning of "Early life" was unnecessarily dense. I worked out a suggestion that I put on Talk:Anne of Great Britain; I am sure you can devise some fix that is even better. It seems to me that the key for clarity in this "Early life" section is to pull key features of the "succession problem" into one paragraph. ---Rednblu 21:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Addressed. -- Emsworth 12:30, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Mpolo 19:12, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Fanny Blankers-Koen[edit]

Self-nomination. I nominated this article before (see [8]) , when it was only rejected because of the lack of a (decent) image. I now added one which I think is fair use, but I'm not at all sure about this. Please have a look. Jeronimo 17:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. I could not stop reading. Denni 01:17, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with Denni. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, on the grounds that the three footers at the bottom are ill defined and too bulky. Convert them into categories. The relation among the women are too minimal. --Jiang 02:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • These footers have been added to many articles already, and I think they add interesting information to the article. The relation between the women is similar to that of the countries of a particular continent, clubs of the MLB and several other topics that have similar footers. I could make them less "bulky" by giving them a smaller font size, just like f.e. the country templates. Would that be sufficient? Jeronimo 06:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It's a tricky one. I like the information they give to the article, but they do look kinda bulky. Not sure how you'd fix this, maybe the reduced font will work. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • That would help, but I still believe the listing would be better served with a category. It would only be just another click away. Countries of a particular continent often share similar cultures and have to deal with each other more frequently. These women won in different years and could have never met each other. What does a category fail to accomplish? --Jiang 07:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
* 1) I don't like categories. For example, I could put Fanny Blankers-Koen in: athletes, track and field athletes, female athletes, Dutch athletes, Olympians, Olympic medallist, Olympic 100 m champion, died in 2004, lived in Amsterdam, and so on and so on. While this may be ridiculous, I've seen several of such category schemes develop. But that's another topic. 2) If your complaint is that such footer templates shouldn't exist because there's no relation, I think most of these can be removed. Really, what do Belgium and Bulgaria (Europe template), Canada and Turkey (NATO) or Uruguay and the British Virgin Islands (Americas) have in common? It's not much more (or less) than Fanny Blankers-Koen and Marion Jones. 3) I agree that having three of these templates makes it a bit ugly, yes. So, I'll remove these templates from the article, since I'd rather see the article being featured than having the article with the footer buth without featured status. Jeronimo 21:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Other bad templates existing certainly does not constitute some sort of excuse for these bad templates. I've put these bad templates on WP:TFD; I suggest you do the same for those bad templates - David Gerard 21:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not doing anything with these templates save from removing them from this article (already done). The whole topic is confusing. Reading the article on article series boxes, it seems that these footers ARE appropriate here. I can answer all four questions with "yes". However, I don't want to be involved in a debate about these or other boxes and categories, just in a debate about this article. There are no boxes in it now, so I'd like to continue with other issues with the article (if any). Jeronimo 06:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • 1, 3, and 4 are all "no". Is there guarantee that these aren't coming back? --Jiang 02:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 15:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object while those footer boxes are templates. As per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, they're all natural categories. I realise this will require the article to be pending here while it's dealt with on WP:TFD - David Gerard 21:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The objections of Jiang and David Gerard have been resolved several days ago, and I've taken the liberty of striking out their objections. Jeronimo 06:49, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Henry Moore[edit]

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

  • Support. With the first graphic, I knew who I was going to be reading about. While this work needs a little editorial attention WRT punctuation, and while "Knife Edge - Two Piece" needs Photoshopping to straighten it out, this is a sound story on a seminal 20th century sculptor. Denni 01:12, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
  • Support. Ta bu shi da yu 07:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Filiocht 15:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It would be great if someone knowledgable could clear up some of those red links. Cyopardi 17:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (William M. Connolley 21:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)).

Rondane National Park[edit]

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

  • A comment, as I know anons can't vote. It really needs copyediting by a native English speaker. There are a few points where it reads rather awkwardly at present. -- 08:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I've had a partial attempt. Much more needed before it's Featured quality though. -- 09:08, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I would have to agree with the above. every awkard part I knew of is fixed. - Taxman 15:51, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - the above concerns have been addressed. --mav 00:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: try clicking on "Hide" for the contents page... the images overlap the table. Not sure if this is something that can be resolved! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:40, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I thought I had solved this with <nowiki>
      ]] 08:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, now that the contents page is fixed. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I wanted to Support, but the first sentence in the biology section needs some work. Most important what? Also, what support is there that the reindeer are the most important anything in the park? Needs to be fixed for grammar and cited for factual support. Then I support - Taxman 16:24, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have tried to address this, and also inserted a quote from DirNat's material. [[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 13:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I like the attribution, but I removed the sentence "Wild reindeer are particularly important in Rondane." because the DirNat quote says the reverse, and thus seems sufficient. Now if you have some specific evidence that the ecosystem of Rondane requires the reindeer for some reason, then the above sentence or similar can go back in, with attirbution of course. - Taxman 12:17, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

The Long and Winding Road[edit]

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

  • Support: Same reason as for the other Beatles article. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 08:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but same as before - can we make sure there's no copyright violations? Zerbey 17:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Same primary reason (tertiary references) as other Beatles song articles. Other nitpicks: I don't think any article that needs to use the word "arguably" in the lead is a FAC. The Naked album cover should not be bigger than the original Let It Be cover; in fact I don't know why we need album covers in a song article. The article itself would be crisper if it stuck to the song rather than the whole Get Back/LIB project. Jgm 18:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • All objections have been resolved for this article. Half the quotes are from a newspaper linked in the references, and the others either have their source directly mentioned in the text (Macdonald's quote, and McCartney's interview with the Evening Standard) or are in the book I just added to the references. I'll try to get to work on the other nomination tomorrow. Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • See the "A Day in the Life" nomination for my response. Better to have some references than none. I don't write anything which is contradicted by another source unless it's a sufficiently major urban legend. The article does not even begin to cover the Get Back project. Details are mentioned where necessary to provide context. If you're referring to the court case, McCartney specifically named the song as one of six reasons for dissolving the Beatles (it's in the article). The word "arguably" is used because some would disagree with the assessment. If you disagree with my opinion, can you provide a better word to replace it with? Johnleemk | Talk 08:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I also think the word "arguable" and its derivatives are a little over-used in the article (in the lead and the image of the single sleeve). It's not a show-stopper, but maybe it should be rephrased. Also, I added some wiki links to music theory articles in the Lyrics and melody section. - Karl Ward 14:34, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The awkward sentences have been rephrased, and I reworded the caption a little to make it clearer. I withdraw my objection. - Karl Ward 17:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Maybe we need a List of words not permitted in featured articles? ;-) Filiocht 08:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. 00:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. +sj+ 20:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

George II of Great Britain[edit]

This article may seem a little short, but I think it is adequate. George II was not as significant a monarch as, say, his successor. Just about every political decision in his reign (except the war with Spain) is attributable to his ministers. -- Emsworth 22:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. You do excellent work Emsworth! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 09:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent as always. Zerbey 16:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow, you really do write exceptionally well about our monarchy, Emsworth! OwenBlacker 23:55, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. My taste for these royals changes every time one of them ends up the subject of an Emsworth-flavored article. +sj+ 20:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Charles II of England[edit]

Not as politically important as his father, but still very interesting. -- Emsworth 20:05, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. James F. (talk) 22:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't know why, but I've always liked this guy. Maybe I just like the word restoration. ;-) func(talk) 23:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. When I become King of England, I want to be just like him. Smerdis of Tlön 17:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. One of our more eccentric monarchs :-) Zerbey 16:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I really do hate to say it, as it's a fantastic article, but oppose for now — it doesn't feel right that there's absolutely no mention of the very good recent BBC docu series (is it out on DVD yet, btw?). Though I think, politically, he was pretty important, given he was the first monarch to follow the Commonwealth. — OwenBlacker 23:53, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. -- Emsworth 20:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Helicobacter pylori[edit]

Captivating pictures, interesting article. Chadloder 21:54, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. However, a brief glance at this page shows that the popularity of the subject counts more than the thoroughness and quality of its treatment. Wetman 22:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, although I agree, the Popularity is very much in question.--Gamingboy 22:27, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Cag pathogenicity island? cagA? Tell us what they are, and I'll support. Markalexander100 05:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 16:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Regrettably, I can't tell you if the facts are correct or not, but the writing style is pretty good and the pictures are certainly interesting. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Useless fact for the day acquired. Zerbey 17:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: this is an encyclopadia, not Pop Stars and this is a really good article. Filiocht 09:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A little short, but a good article. Gentgeen 23:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I even like its brevity. +sj+ 20:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Abbey Theatre[edit]

Self-nom. This is the Abbey's centenary year. Filiocht 08:57, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support wholeheartedly. Superb work! zoney talk 09:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support 100%. A nitpick, but could you add the publisher of the books you referenced? Good work though! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Done. Filiocht 09:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Good work, excellent article. Ta bu shi da yu 14:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 15:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Kiand 15:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Oh so very much. Rory 15:32, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. There are a lot of red links, though. func(talk) 15:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I aim to kill most of these over the next week ot two: two done this morning, Filiocht 09:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Its the Abbey's centenary year, and the article is well written and highly informative. --CGorman 21:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Zerbey 17:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James II of England[edit]

-- Emsworth 01:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A Day in the Life[edit]

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

See also WP:PR listing.
  • Support: informative, interesting, decent length, has references. My only comment is: why is it that anything that's Beatles related always seems to be such high quality work? :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 07:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. An excellent article. (Could use another picture though) Cyopardi 18:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 08:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but, is the sound bite and picture used with permission? 16:59, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Overall this is very close but: 1. I have some concerns with the many extended quotes without attribution. 2. I have some concerns with some of the references cited; several are fan sites which also contain quotes and stories, some of dubious veracity. There is plenty of published material from the principals; we shouldn't need to resort to third-tier websites for details. 3. The Clear Channel thing is a cancer, it has got to go or at the very least be rewritten and moved to someplace less prominent. Jgm 18:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, I am interested enough in this topic to have taken the initiative to edit the article to address my own concerns (as well as a general tightening, sectioning, and cleanup). I now think it's at FA quality and would vote to support, however, it's perhaps now different enough from the version that was supported by others that it should be re-listed, sent back to peer review, or the prior supporters should indicate continued support or lack thereof, or whatever is consitent with policy or precedent on articles that are significantly edited during FA candidacy. Jgm 15:31, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Hm...that might be a good idea, as although I can't put my finger on it, there just seems to be something wrong with the overall tone of the prose. Just my opinion, though, and a not very well-substantiated one, since I can't find anything wrong in specific. Incidentally, what happened to the mention of Lennon's "sugar plum fairy" counting? Just curious, not really important or anything. By the way, I just happen to be listening to the song right now. Funny coincidence. Johnleemk | Talk 15:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The quotes are all obtained from the references — I thought that was obvious? The huge majority of quotes, if not all, are from a site which itself has references (The Beatles Ultimate Experience, which seems to be considered the most credible site relating to the Beatles on the internet, next to their official site and Amazon), or a page which was nothing more than reproduction of a 1967 AFP story (Ottawa Beatles Site). I understand that the sites are fan sites, but I always go over Google looking for other sources to corroborate the anecdotes mentioned. has provided a bibliography here. Going to the principal sources would be good, but I don't have the bling bling to buy them — books are rather expensive in Malaysia. As for the Clear Channel thing, this thing's been passed around as a chain letter like crap. A good deal of people have heard about it, so removing it is the last thing we want to do, as it could leave the wrong impression that the song was banned instead of just being listed as a song not recommended for airplay. Johnleemk | Talk 08:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I completely understand that your resources are limited, but I really don't think we want Wikipedia articles to be regurgitations of mostly-unreferenced websites, and I don't think an article put together this way should be a FA without being thoroghly checked against primary sources. Case in point: there are a dozen websites, including AMG that will tell you that the name of the band Black Sabbath was taken from the title of "an occult novel by Dennis Wheatley". The only problem is that it's not true: there is in fact no such novel and published interviews with the principals give an entirely different story. But the Wheatley version is on the web somehow and has spread to most sites that deal with the subject. The point is that we want to be better than fansites that uncritically parrot other websites. Looking at some principal sources just now, I can find at least two instances where the current article differs from what is documented (not to mention the 15-bar vs. 24-bar difference recently corrected). Again, I understand you don't have access to all the primary sources: that's the beauty of the collaborative approach: somebody will, and in the meantime it's best not to use tertiary sources that may or may not get properly fact-checked. I know I am in a minority here, but rather than simply complain, I will try to update this article to reflect the primary sources I have at hand. Jgm 01:23, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • The difference is that while the rumours may be widespread, some minority will have a different story. Surely the Black Sabbath story isn't so predominant that every site on the web dealing with the subject parrots it? The sites I got most of the information from do provide references from published books, and unless you really think they twisted those words, I don't see what's wrong. If there's a website on the internet that has spread stories of this sort, I haven't found it — yet. These sites don't parrot other websites, because much of the information they have is unique, so it's either from their references or fabricated from whole cloth. Interestingly, of all the pages on Google about "A Day in the Life", Wikipedia and our mirrors are the only ones who named the gap in the song as 15 bars long. Could be a starting point for research on whether our original version was correct and the others are wrong, or vice-versa. I appreciate the effort to add references, btw. Johnleemk | Talk 09:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: Very well-written and informative. Frecklefoot | Talk 19:00, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. An interesting and well written article. I certainly don't think that the use of (suitable) fan sites as references is a problem. It's likely a very large amount of the information on Wikipedia is from such sources and, if carefully chosen and cross-checked, that's just fine. (Of course, if other sources are available they will always be helpful too) -- sannse (talk) 14:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Can I take it that the Evans who counted the bars is the same as the wikified Mal Evans who set off the alarm clock (can one trigger an alarm clock?) and the equally wikified Mal Evans who played 1.5 pianos? If so, can the full name be given first and linked and the other two occurences be delinked? Assuming this sorted, Support new version. Filiocht 15:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I also tidied the jumbled up sentences in the last section, which were quite inappropriate for the "Controvery" section. Johnleemk | Talk 08:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Johnny Cash[edit]

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

  • Object for now. The picture is fair use. Is there a public domain picture available? Also, it seems the legacy section could use a little work. This is a very influential figure in the history of country (and to a certain extent rock and roll) music. It seems to me more could be said about his influence on music and culture. - Satori 21:59, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC) Support. The new legacy section is very well done, I retract my objections. - Satori 18:53, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
The supposedly public domain image
    • The original image this article had was Image:JCASH.jpg, which according to its image page is public domain. However, this file was uploaded by a user currently under a hard ban, so I doubt that it is actually public domain. I figured it would be safer to replace it with a fair use picture than to risk infringing a copyright. Also, I can add some notes on his influence on popular music if that's what folks want. - Karl Ward 23:05, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I have fleshed out the Legacy section with quotes and more info on his popular music influence. - Karl Ward 00:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I have uploaded an image from a government source (the Arkansas Department of Corrections). It's linked into the Johnny Cash article in the Flesh and Blood section, next to the comments about his prison shows. Let me know what you think. I'd still prefer to have the San Quentin album cover as the head of the article. Not only is it a great picture, but it also manages to touch on several points at once (his massive commercial success in the 1960s, his famous prison records, and his Man In Black image). - Karl Ward 00:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Full disclosure : I wrote several early drafts of this, much of which remain after Karl Ward put a lot of meat on the bones GWO 16:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Just a note: images from U.S. state governments are NOT public domain, only the federal government. Don't know how this impacts the article; personally, I support even if it has fair use images. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:52, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Good point, I didn't know that about state government copyrights. I'll unlink the image from the article and send them a request for permission to use the image. - Karl Ward 16:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, provided the image saga is worked out. Ambi 08:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Suzanne Lenglen[edit]

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

James I of England[edit]

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

  • Support, with one qualification. In the second sentence of the section "Conflict with Parliament", you write "It voted four subsides to the King". Should that be "subsidies" instead of "subsides"? Otherwise, excellent work. - Karl Ward 03:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 03:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - Emsworth is one of the best writers on here regarding the British history. He also referred to the Scottish Parliament as being "milquetoasty", and you gotta love that... and Karl, I copyedited while reading through, and noticed that one (and fixed it as well). ugen64 03:22, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • Tragedy that the word had to leave the article :-). -- Emsworth 14:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Also, should the first sentence read "was the first Sovereign to reign in the three realms simultaneously"? Just a minor quibble/question. - Karl Ward 03:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • You are correct; done. -- Emsworth 14:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: it seems to be going through a major reedit. Maybe I'll wait a bit and see. I need to know about James I however, so I'd like to support if possible. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) I support. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:08, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I added a bit and hope I didn't mess anything up. --mav 10:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Excellent article again by His Lordship, but there's one internal contradiction. The lead section tells us that "James was a somewhat popular monarch,", while the "Legacy" section writes that "James found himself unpopular with many of his English subjects". Even though the latter refers only to his popularity in England, I still think this needs to be sorted out. You have my support once this minor issue is resolved. Jeronimo 14:10, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes; the merging of English and Scottish popularity levels does seem confusing. Done. -- Emsworth 14:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support! Zerbey 17:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


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

  • Object - Two sentences does not make a lead section and there are way too many stub sections (overuse of the Main article set-up). The TOC is also huge for an article this size. In short, the article needs more fleshing out. --mav 21:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Aren't articles to be 'fleshed out' only if it exceeds 30 kb? Also made some major structural changes. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]] 20:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Overuse of the Main article set-up is most apparent in the culture section. Keep is a couple summary paragraphs and leave the details in the main Culture of India article. There are also POV issues with the map caption. --Jiang 22:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Addressed the lead-in and TOC issue, also made some changes to the Culture section. Seeking further opinion on the culture section. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]] 19:56, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • My objection over the map caption is over the statement "Refer to [[Kashmir#Map_Issues|Kashmir Map Issues]] for a discussion regarding Indian, [[Pakistan]]i and [[China|Chinese]] claims". A quick glance at Kashmir#Map_Issues will show that the explanation is not NPOV and will not suffice. It also doesn't belong in the External links section. Therefore, this article should not feature that one so prominently. The culture section still needs to be converted into the a couple summary paragraphs. The bolded headings need to be removed completely and the cultural links made within the text, not as see also listings.--Jiang 04:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Made several structural changes in the culture, sport and religion sections.' Please check if you still have any objections. I guaged the section size based on the Belgium article (a FA). As far as the map is concerned, what is mentioned in the caption is a fact, not a POV. While the linked article may be a POV, it shouldn't be a major objection as the focus currently is of the India page not Kashmir. I have also made some minor heading changes in the Kashmir page. Will see to Kashmir later nichalp 20:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • Culture section now greatly improved. However, popping a link to the external links section of another page is bad form. Consider making a footnote on this page instead? Or will I be reverted if I decide to remove the link myself? --Jiang 01:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I have delinked the Map issues in Kashmir under a seperate heading free from external links. I will consider making a footnote tomorrow. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]] 20:08, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • I made the edits to resolve my own objections over the map captions but they keep getting reverted by Rrjanbiah who calls them "terrorist". As long as he keeps reverting for such reasons without attempt to achieve NPOV, I cannot drop my objections. --Jiang 21:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • You are a chinese POV pusher. You shouldn't be allowed to vote here. You keep on vandalising the article quoting CIA map which no one ever agreed, even encylopedia Britannica. You always wanted to push wrong map of India to the WikiUsers.--Rrjanbiah 05:03, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Uh, the CIA map is no longer being used in the article. And "Chinese POV pusher"? Apart from sounding funny, that's a totally stupid accusation. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • First, Rrjanbaih, please be civilized here - calling good users vandals and POV pushers because you disagree with them can only result badly for you. Second, I have edited the caption to a compromise version - I hope both of you find it acceptable. →Raul654 05:16, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
            • Why don't you follow your own advice? If he is a friend of you doesn't mean that he is good user. It's a known fact that he is a chinese POV pusher and great vandal. As your compromised version suggests that you don't know about the issue and so can only result badly for you. --Rrjanbiah 05:26, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
              • Mate, calm down! Jiang is a worthy contributor to Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • Please take a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If there's something wrong with mine or Raul654's edits, then please explain on the talk page what is specifically unacceptable about them. Making personal attacks does not do the trick as I nor anyone else other than you cannot easily see a "chinese POV" in my edits. Perhaps you can make yourself clearer? --Jiang 05:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • support with new map. --Jiang 00:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object:
    • Many sections are rather fragmented, and appear to be mostly a summation of facts.
      • Could you be more specific? [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]]
        • Specifically: economy, geography (which fails to mention the major cities in the country) and demographics could use some editing. Jeronimo 22:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • Most populous cities are mentioned in demographics. Also added some data to demographics. What is missing in economy? [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]]
    • The Indian States and Territories-footer looks weird in the middle of an article, and results in ugly layout. Please replace this by a normal table or list.
      • The {India} template saves valuable space, both in terms of real estate and page size (<30kb). If this is an unaccepted wikipolicy, I will certainally remove the template. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]]
        • I don't think space-saving is the most important issue here. It looks plain ugly, and the footers seem to be more in place at the bottom of a page. Jeronimo 22:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • Made necessary changes. Please review. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]] 20:08, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • This article lacks photographs. Even a few "corny" Indian subjects such as the Taj Mahal would qualify for a picture in the article.
      • Added the Taj photo. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]]
      • PRC China was a featured article. It too lacks photographs. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]] 19:45, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
        • I didn't review these articles, and I would have objected against them if I had. It shouldn't be that hard to find one or two pictures of India. Jeronimo 22:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I find an article about India without even mentioning the (arguably) most famous Indian, Mahatma Gandhi a bit dubious.
      • Now mentioned. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]] 20:44, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Could we have some books as further reading/references?
      • I have mentioned one, I'll try and scout around for some more. However this doesn't seem to be a major criteria for rejection as both Belgium and China (earlier FAs) lack comprehensive references. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]]
        • Again, the fact that other articles "have gotten away with it" doesn't mean I can't object to it here. This is not a major point though, but I personally prefer to have at least one or two written references. Books do not tend to change or disappear, like webpages, and often contain more and more reliable (or better traceable) information than webpages. Jeronimo 22:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • China is not a featured article. People's Republic of China is. --Jiang 01:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • One book is mentioned. As for more refereces, I have put up a bulletin on the talk page asking for a few more. This is now out of my hands. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]]
    • Jeronimo 13:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Re-summarizing my objections (some resolved), because this is getting messy: 1) Picture added is nice (more would be great), but location is a bit strange, since the economy section doesn't discuss tourism at all. 2) I'll await your search for further references. 3) The subdivision section is much better now, I like the reference map. However, on my screen the two images overlap with one corner. I'm not sure this can be solved easily. 4) The economy is section is very brief, and for example fails to mention that - despite being one of the largest economies in the world - India's per capita income is rather low. Most of the other mentioned topics could do with some more text. 5) Similarly, geography section is mostly a summary of names. It might - for example - tell something about the fact that India is on its own tectonic plate. 6) The last paragraph of the history section fails to mention Pakistan, even though this country is related with to of the actions described. The "society and religion" section should probably be merged with the demographics and culture sections. Religion is already mentioned in the former, and the rest fits well with the latter. Jeronimo 21:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • 1)I know the pic is in a strange location, but I'm still searching for an apt pics+location. 2)I can't find real decent print references (India in general) to qualify here. Hope for wikipedians to read the bulletin on the India Talk page and contribute. 3)I'm not sure what 2nd image you mention of. Is it a multicoloured state image? I removed that long back. 4) tackled per capita income 5)tectonic plate would have to do more with South Asia, I don't support mentioning it here. 6)Pakistan mentioned (although... 1 war was fought against China. The nuclear explosions were carried out not because of Pak, but China.) 7)I would personally prefer to stick with religion and society else it would make the culture section too large. 8) Although I would like to add more info on the page to address your objections, the page size is 29.5 kb. Since I do like being a perfectionist, I would hate it going above 30k. I also don't think current matter can be excided from the page as a compensatory measure. 20:16, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • The 30KB border is not a holy limit. Please do not withhold information from the page because of that limit! Not combining semi-duplicate section is also strange, I don't think there's any problem with the culture section getting too large. I'll do this myself when I have time. As for the economy and geography sections: my suggestions were just that, nothing more. However, I still think these sections are way too short, contain too little information, and are written in a "fact by fact" style. Jeronimo 06:45, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • I'll try and rework the above and add it in two days. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]] 20:48, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
        • The CIA map and the states of India map overlap for me (Mozilla browser, no idea what skin I use). Markalexander100 07:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • This, I think is a Mozilla specific case. Some users too have mentioned this bug in Talk:Cricket.
  • Weak support - recent changes have greatly improved the article but Jeronimo does have some good points. --mav
  • Addressed some of Jeronimo's objections [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]] 19:30, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, once the references section is cleaned up. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support now. My objections have been addressed (some by myself). Jeronimo 17:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I support this article for August 15th Featured article. August 15th is the Indian Independence day. --kunjan1029 22:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, that's the purview of the selected anniversaries, and it's already covered. →Raul654 05:41, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Zion National Park[edit]

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

  • Support. Wow, nice pictures, nice sections, brilliant geology table. Good stuff. func(talk) 00:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object temporarily. Agree with preceding, but I just spent about half an hour fixing links and spelling and I just barely started. Needs more copyediting and checking of links. Elf | Talk 01:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) Support now; I did more edits, too. Not an objection, but my opinion: I don't care for the use of "media" rather than ":Image" for the "(photo)" links--I have no way of finding out more about the photo from the page that comes up, and I think that's useful info to see. Elf | Talk 16:43, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree about the media vs :image issue and changed it back. The only problem (and the reason why I changed it in the first place) is that [[image: and [[media: are the only way to get the page it is linked from listed in the File links section on the image description page. Oh well. Thanks again for all the great edits! --mav
    • Fair enough - I'll let you finish and then I'll do another copyedit pass. --mav 01:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Copyedit done. Thanks for the feedback! --mav 03:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support if you can make the captions to the pictures a bit more lively! Good work mav. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I added more to the captions. --mav 10:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Most of those are good captions, only a few need to be full sentences. Could you fix this? I'd really like to support this article! It's my only nit. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. One issue: you use both BC and CE in the article, which is inconsistent. I could change it myself, but I note your preference (CE) is different from mine (AD), so I'll let you choose. Jeronimo 09:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I avoid AD with extreme prejudice. --mav 10:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 08:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, great information, but strangely no links to or much mention of some of the other National parks in Utah, especially Bryce, but also Canyonlands, Capital Reef, and Arches. Do those have similar or related geology? - Taxman 16:16, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Great idea! I'll add that info later. IIRC Canyonlands and Arches have some of the same formations. Oh, and I've already mentioned Bryce and the Grand Canyon. --mav 23:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, only in the history section, and Bryce wasn't linked :) - Taxman 05:09, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph 175[edit]

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

  • Object - lead section is too long, first image needs to be explained what it is! I have no idea what I'm looking at, and the image itself has no explanation of what it's meant to be. Otherwise this is an excellent collaboration! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Captioned the photo better; I'll have to think about how I might better handle the lead section. Is there anything in particular you think could be appropriately dropped from the lead section? -- Jmabel 09:48, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • The lead section seems to try to give the whole history of the law, when really this could go into it's own section. That's my impression, anyway. Just give a single leading paragraph with a brief explanation of what Paragraph 175 is and why it's important/signficiant and incorporate the rest of the text into the article body. Don't drop this info, in case that's what you were thinking of doing!!!! It's really very good. If you could do that I'll strike all my objections and strongly support this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, I've sectioned out an "historical overview". What do you think now? -- Jmabel 19:53, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Generally lead sections on de. are painfully long. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:59, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
    • Actually, that didn't mostly come from de. What I had done was generally to preserve the earlier, short English-language article as a lead section. As I say, I've now broken it up. -- Jmabel 22:04, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Given that it's entirely based on German law, perhaps some actual quotes as well as the translations would be in order? James F. (talk) 09:43, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Sorry, this was meant to be "Support; however, given that [...]". James F. (talk) 22:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC))
    • I'm not sure what you mean by "actual quotes"; quotes from what? Please clarify. -- Jmabel 09:48, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • As in, quotes of the German, rather than just translations. James F. (talk) 10:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • The section "Texts of the various versions of Paragraph 175" begins by saying "For the original German language texts of the statutes, as well as quotations from earlier sodomy statutes, see the equivalent German-language wikipedia article." So they are one link away. Others (before the FAC nomination) already criticized the article for containing too many German words and I've been trying to meet that objection by limiting those to the ones on which important legal points depend. I think this is a case where the article can't please everyone. -- Jmabel 19:33, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
        • I have no idea how this works if James F. won't respond to this. I've pinged his talk page twice asking for response, but haven't gotten any. -- Jmabel 23:21, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, I think it's quite good. Everyking 12:10, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, subject to a little streamlining of the lead. Denni 17:51, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
  • Support. I found this article fascinating, never having heard of it before. I think there are many who would be surprised that there was legal and social opposition to this type of law as far back as the 1890s. func(talk) 19:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -Seth Mahoney 18:39, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Quadell (talk) 20:16, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems well researched and thorough. Cyopardi 15:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Surport. tooto 17:16, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC), looks like a good artical
  • Support. ~ FriedMilk 07:08, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. d 07:54, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

George Fox[edit]

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

  • Acquiesce — Good article. --Blade Hirato 04:27, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. • Benc • 06:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Informative, but I have some reservations.
Frequently, the prose seems rather old-fashioned, presumably a residue or its origin in the 1914 Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia - for example 'he had begun to regard their conduct, in particular the drinking of healths, with dismay', and 'He brooded particularly on the temptation of Christ'.
The caption on the Oliver Cromwell image should be changed. The bit about being a dictator is POV, but more importantly not relevant to this article. It would be better if the caption said something about how Cromwell had met Fox and came close to finding a kindred spirit - possibly removig persecution of Quakers. -- Solipsist 07:15, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • (Support, if I'm allowed.) Thanks to Quadell for picking up on this page only two hours after my expansion spree. Solipsist has some good points and I will try to de-POV it a bit. My biggest worry is making sure that all of Fox's beliefs are labelled as such, rather than being presented as fact. The residual S-H text does have such phrases as "professing the same faith in the spirituality of true religion", which read oddly. --AlexG 11:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC) No longer. AlexG 12:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, good writeup. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Very good, but one issue: shouldn't the quotations give citations? -- Jmabel 10:24, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
How specific a citation is needed? That is, is it OK to say somewhere "most quotations from Fox's journal", or does each need a chapter/page reference? (I'll try to track down where the Ellwood and Penn remarks come from, other than "the S-H Encyclopedia" :-) .) --AlexG 12:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've added some in-text references now. Most are to the 1908 etext, which helpfully already has anchors at useful places. Journal editions do vary in inclusion and order of material, so I think this is reasonable for readers wanting context. I've also put in references to Quaker Faith and Practice, as well as the Marsh book. While Marsh is pretty rare, it's still the work I used to help write those bits. AlexG 19:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work! Zerbey 17:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'd like to see perhaps a section on his writings- I admit I only skimmed quickly, so if I missed it, I apologize (too much homework), but he does have a substantial body of work out there, that didn't really seem to be extensively mentioned. Lyellin 02:54, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
I've now added to the "Death and legacy" section some more about the journal and letters, and given a few tweaks elsewhere. AlexG 15:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

George I of Great Britain[edit]

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

  • Support. James F. (talk) 04:14, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. PedanticallySpeaking 18:01, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ta bu shi da yu 08:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Maybe Emsworth needs nominated for some kind of award for all his excellent work on documenting the monarchy? :-) --Zerbey 17:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Deus Ex 17:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exploding whale[edit]

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

  • Oppose. A good topic for Weird World News, but neither the topic nor the tone strike me as appropriate for a featured article. The writing is inconsistent and the whole article needs significant tightening up. Denni 23:06, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
  • Regrettably, there's nothing I can do about the topic itself. The tone, however, I'd like to resolve if you don't think it's too good. What in particular about the tone of the article do you have an issue with? - Ta bu shi da yu 16:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Denni, could you address my query about the problems with the article's tone? I realise you don't like the article topic, but I'd still appreciate a response. After all, if I can't get a more specific objection about the tone then it's not exactly an actionable objection, is it?
Note: I've also left a similar message on Denni's talk page. Also, Denni wrote the following on my talk page:
Sorry, Ta bu shi da yu, my vote remains to oppose. This story strikes me as one which is most appreciated by the rubberneck crowd - I can see nothing in it to enlighten, elicidate, or instruct. It is entirely sensationalist, and though it may teach a minor moral lesson about sticking explosives in without considering where the results may fall, it is first and foremost an off-color joke, and nothing near a featured article. Denni☯ 00:21, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)
Ta bu shi da yu 02:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Please note that User:Denni has not replied on this page (actually he did, but I didn't notice because he managed to somehow duplicate this nomination) (I'm an idiot.) so I'll include what he wrote on my user talk page:
My objection is not with the concept. It is with, as I have already said, the topic and the tone. I oppose the topic because it consists of only two events, hardly a common occurrence, and in the two cases, the cause of explosion was completely different. Second, I find the writing style flippant and irrelevant. For example, Paul Linnman's quote is foolish, and the fact that the blast scared away scavenging birds is (a) no surprise to anyone, and (b) an utter irrelevancy.
This is a fun story, and it is exactly the kind of article I like to see appear in Wikipedia to ease the tedium of charged politico-economico-cultural articles. But I cannot bring myself to see it as having any value as a feature article. Sorry.
Denni☯ 03:12, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
I replied:
I'm sorry, but you're wrong about the Paul Linnman quote as being irrelevant. Had you actually viewed the footage, you would have noted that it is a highly significant part of his news footage. You may believe it was foolish, but I'm quoting him as straight out factual (and might I note interesting) material for the story. Just because you deem it foolish does not stop it from being relevant. Secondly, the fact that the birds were scared away is relevant because "they [Oregon Highway Division] believed that the use of dynamite would cause an explosion that would disintegrate the whale into pieces that were small enough for scavengers to clear up", which clearly did not happen. This fact is pointed out to show clearly that their theory was incorrect. Obviously you are wrong about it being obvious to everyone, because it certainly wasn't obvious to the Oregon State Highway Division! So also you can see it's not irrelevant to the story: on the contrary it's highly relevant.
And finally, your objection to the article topic is not actionable or valid as a reason for objecting to the article (as has been pointed out several times by various people (among them being Meelar, who wrote "Neither support nor oppose, but note that we should not be biased against an article because of its topic; specifically, that's pretty far from actionable."). Please also note the top of the Featured Article candidates page says "If nothing can be done to "fix" the objected-to matter, the objection may be ignored", which we'll have to do with your objection to topic in this case. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ta bu shi da yu 03:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The writing style is non-encyclopedic, specifically the lead section is not a proper overview, but instead a narrative continuation with the next section. The first sentence in the paragraph starting with "While this story was widely known..." needs some restructuring for clarity. Does the Usenet bit have anything to do with Dave Barry and his video? Finally the Taiwan section seems out of place and the title of the section doesn't properly introduce the idea the way the article is currently structured. - Taxman 03:03, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've modified the lead section, the paragraph in question and with a modified lead section hopefully this makes the Taiwan connection more clear. Would you suggest modifying anything else? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:23, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Nice work taking care of those. Only thing I see now is the noting that exploding whales are a "popular" or "favourite" theme of authors seems a major exaggeration. Perhaps you could say the idea has been covered by a number of authors. Three certainly does not a popular theme make. - Taxman 12:15, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • After further review, I still object on a number of grounds. I see more non-encyclopedic writing. But primarily that it simply fails to reach the bar set in Wikipedia:What is a featured article. Specifically it is still very short, and being not a truly important topic nor notable beyond its humor, I'm not sure much more can be written about it. With that, the guidelines say a short article should be "excellent", and I find nothing compelling about the writing in this article. Much of it seems to be an attempt to pass off a humorous incident into an encyclopedia, which should only become featured if indeed excellently written. - Taxman 15:58, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • Again, which bits are non-encyclopedic? Also, may I point you to heavy metal umlaut? This is not a globally important issue by any means, yet it still got to featured article status. Also, it's an actual event and not just an attempt at trying to pass off a humour incident into an article. It's also documenting a well-known Internet meme, so it could be argued that the article is very informative for those who want to find out more about this meme.
        For the record, I also disagree that this is a "short" article. I did a test, and printed Heavy Metal Umlaut. That came to 3 A4 pages. Then I printed Laika, another front page featured article. This came to just over 4 pages long. Milgram experiment came to 4 pages long. The exploding whale page prints to 3 pages.
        • Many articles became featured that would not make it now simply because more and better articles are nominated. That doesn't affect the standards current articles should be held to. Two of the three you mention happen to be very well written and important. If the article were not an attempt to pass off humor (which it is funny btw), then it would have been titled something like 'disposal of beached whales'. Or instead, as you mentioned, an acceptable point is that it is covering an popular(?) internet meme. If so, then I think that section should be expanded if it is/was truly widespread, with something like a quick and dirty estimate of how many usenet posts discussed it, etc. I shouldn't think that would be hard to run. With that, I would withdraw my objection. Also, one word which seemed un-encyclopedic to me--bastardized, is in fact used entirely correctly. - Taxman 18:55, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
          • I wouldn't be placing this under "disposal of beached whales" because it doesn't cover all methods of disposing of beached whales. It is only referring to incidents where whales have exploded. However, I have attempted to clarify the newsgroup discussions part of the article and reference the earliest mention of the exploding whale in the alt.folklore.urban FAQ and snope's query about whether it was real. It's quite hard to get google to give accurate search statistics on how many times exploding whales are mentioned, because "blow up" and "exploding" and "explosion" are all mentioned in the messages and it doesn't give accurate numbers of articles that were posted. For instance, if I type in "oregon whale" into Google groups search [9] then I get 463 entries. If I type in "exploding whale" then I get 245 [10]. The most significant reason it's important to alt.folklore.urban is because it's in the FAQ I would posit. - Ta bu shi da yu
      • Note that the Wikipedia:What is a featured article says
"Some people feel that every featured article should have a certain length, and if not enough can be said about the article's subject to reach that length, it should in most cases be merged into another article. However excellent short articles are also accepted."
Also, it says that it must be:
  • comprehensive, factually accurate, and well-written. Please read Great Writing and The Perfect Article to see how high the bar can be set. - check
  • Accurate: support facts with specifics and external citations (beware vague justifications such as "some people say") - check
  • Well-written: compelling, even "brilliant" prose--the former name for featured articles. - I hope so!
  • Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and accuracy (no ongoing edit wars). - check
  • Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet. - I think it's pretty good
  • Include a lead section which is brief but sufficient to summarize the entire topic (see Wikipedia:Lead section). - this was fixed
  • Include images (pictures, maps and diagrams, with good captions) where appropriate. Please be sure of the images' copyright status. - check
  • Include headings (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)) and have a substantial, but not overwhelming, table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section). - check!
  • Comply with the standards set by any relevant WikiProjects, as well as those in the style manual. - check - Ta bu shi da yu 07:38, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Neither support nor oppose, but note that we should not be biased against an article because of its topic; specifically, that's pretty far from actionable. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:54, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
    • Sure topic can matter. If the topic is Taxman's bikeshed, it will be summarily deleted, no matter how well written or researched. So a non encyclopedic topic could fail to meet the featured article standard just the same. I'm not saying that this article is entirely non-encyclopedic, but I don't believe that topic cannot affect whether an article becomes featured. - Taxman 15:58, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • Taxman's bikeshed would be deleted because it would be an inappropriate subject for an article. The principle is that any valid article can, if good enough, be a featured article. Markalexander100 02:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Its fun and its well enough written (William M. Connolley 22:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
  • Support, well written. The topic is fine. siroχo 20:28, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A well-written article about an unsual subject, exactly what Wikipedia is best at. --Zerbey 02:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Article topic should not preclude Featured status. Lyellin 15:00, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support --Phil | Talk 16:15, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - the introduction needs some work. The prose is pretty bad. →Raul654 20:19, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • What in particular is no good about the introduction? It seems to introduce it well and it summarises what the article is talkign about quite accurately. I'm happy to incorporate suggestions though! Also, with the prose, could you let me know which parts/sentences aren't very good? I'd really like to fix this up and address your objections! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • It took me several times re-reading to figure out exactly why I didn't like it. The two issues I have with the introduction are the (1) the layout of the first sentence. I think the best way (and by far the most common) is to have the article name as the first word or words in an article (excepting for articles such as A, An, or The) - so I would rephrase it to start with "Exploding whale..." or or "Exploding whales..." or "An exploding whale" or "The exploding whale" or something along those lines. I'm not quite sure how to make it work for this article, though. (2) My second objection is that the first paragraph lacks any kind importance. News-format introductions really should tell you why should care, and I don't think this does. There's a tendancy to read it and say "So what?" which is something to be avoided in our featured articles. →Raul654 08:31, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
        • OK, now I understand. I've modified the intro to make it more news worthy and bold the exploding whale phrase, as most good articles have done. Is this OK? Could you check it for me and let me know if you can see any more ways of resolving this? - Ta bu shi da yu 20:32, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • There has been some improvement (the addition of the Dave Barry fame reference at least gives some idea of why the reader should care). But the first sentence is still very cluckly, and the importance is still weak. →Raul654 21:32, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
            • I agree. I've modified the first sentence to say "Two exploding whale incidents have so far been documented worldwide." What do you think? Actually, I'm going to take this to the talk page... - Ta bu shi da yu 04:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (weakly). I'm a little torn - I like the article but it is not quite the best writing. I've made a couple of changes, but for example the Slashdot paragraph at the end of the Oregon section is still rather ragged. I'm slightly troubled by the quality of the TV captured picture at the top. Also questions remain; if decomposition caused the Taiwan whale to explode, why don't more corpses do so - or was there a pecularity due to the transportation. However, on balance, the article's good points outweigh the bad, and it would be better than many alternatives for the front page, so I will support. -- Solipsist 21:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • With regards to the first image, no better image exists. The footage, even on the KATU Channel 2 website, is pretty awful. I can't say why more corpses don't explode, only perhaps mention that most whales are transported through the centre of town... we really don't have any more information than the news reports of the day. Unsure what you mean by the slashdot paragraph at the end of the Oregon section... could you clarify? BTW, I appreciate your efforts at cleanup! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I can see that it is not easy to get a better image, it is just that the grey and over-compressed picture is a bit of a turn off. I suspect someone could do a better screen grab from the video file. It might also be better to focus on the explosion than the whale - the image on the Katu web site is better.
WRT slashdot paragraph - it is just a question of emphasis. Wikipedia suffers from being called the 'encyclopedia that slashdot built'. Whilst the discussion about the story's history in the Miami Herald and on alt.folklore.urban is not irrelevant, it is more about the story's influence in culture rather than the event itself. Also "The story was confirmed..." it doesn't need confirming at this point, we've just discussed it as fact. So perhaps the last two paras should be moved to a later section on cultural influences, prefaced by a comment that for several years the story was thought to be an urban legend until someone did the work to relocate the original news story. I'm also not sure that the discussion about Peter van der Linden and Snopes adds much at all - it hints that there is some kind of priority dispute regarding who talked about it first on the internet - that might be relevant to the individuals, but doesn't seem particularly relevant here. - Solipsist 08:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
OK, pretty good idea. I've added a section called "Popular culture" "Urban legend status" to the "Oregon" section, and clarified the sentence that seemed like there was some sort of priority dispute regarding who talked about it first on the Internet. Also modified the first sentence to make it clear that many people believed it to be an urban legend, though it isn't. Is this OK now? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Completely support. This article is great. -Seth Mahoney 07:12, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Kizor 14:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object Support (-- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 09:05, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)): Needs a bit more wikification, gas, carcass, theme, transported and decomposing were not wikified in the lead section. I linked those words however the article needs to be wikified throughout.
    Furthermore Image:PDcapture1.jpg should be updated with a capture from the original video as opposed to some internet stream, Ta bu shi da yu said that no better image exists, this is untrue - KATU Channel 2 no doubt has the original in their archives and someone could contact them for a better screengrab. If these things are fixed i will withdraw my objections. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:14, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
    • I've done the next best thing and included a better picture from the KATU website. Is this OK? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:06, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, I don't believe it's untrue. The only footage they have on their website is a just as grainy as the other footage you see. I have no way of contacting them myself, however. Perhaps someone else can? The other thing is, don't we risk overwikifying the page? - Ta bu shi da yu 19:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • That was the point, that is their website footage which is made from the original tapes which they still have.
        And i do not think that my additions are overwikifications. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:12, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
        • OK, fair enough on the overwikifications. With the screen grab, all I'm saying is that I'm not sure how to contact KATU to get a better picture. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:27, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Are you sure that we are allowed to use this image at all? Here is a notice from KATU 2's webiste: "This site contains copyrighted material of Fisher Communications, Inc. (KATU TV) which may not be copied, distributed or re-used in any way without KATU TV's prior written consent." -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:22, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've come across some bad grammar in the article for example "The whale that exploded in Taiwan happened due to a natural build-up of internal gases during transportation". This doesn't really mean anything because it says that the whale happened as opposed to the explosion happened, i've changed this to something better however others might want to look over the rest of the article. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:22, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
    • Look (this might seem a mite defensive), are you saying the whole article is riddled with bad grammar based on one fairly awful caption I added late one night? - Ta bu shi da yu 20:39, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I mearly suggested that it it be looked over, i've found some other examples e.g. "In November 1970 a 45-foot (approx. 14 metre), eight-ton gray whale beached itself near Florence, Oregon and died." i think it would be more natural to say "In November 1970 a 45-foot (approx. 14 metre), eight-ton gray whale died as a resault of beaching itself near Florence, Oregon.". The current version mearly states that he beatched himself and died but not that he died as a resault of beatching, if that was not the case and the two events were completely unrelated and it was mearly a coincidence that he died at that time then the current version should be kept, however in the much likelier case that he died as a resault of beaching the paragraph should make that clear.
        Furthermore it would be even better to use "In November 1970 a 45-foot (approx. 14 metre), eight-ton gray whale died as a resault of beaching itself at [beach name here] near Florence, Oregon." some beaches have names and this one could. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:10, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
        • Look, no offense, but that made perfect grammatical sense, and in fact was very clear that the whale beached itself and then died. Sure, your sentence is better, but this did not make the other sentence bad grammar. It merely makes your sentence better. It is extremely obvious that the sentence implied that the whale died as the result of beaching itself, any reader would understand this. I'll take your change on board, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • What i actually meant to say is that it was a bit vague, the grammar was correct (i confused the two at the time). -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 09:05, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
          • Actually, I think the original sentence is better. Since, presumably, no-one carried out a post-mortem on the whale it is just an assumption that it died because it beached itself. It's a natural assumption, but that's all the more reason why readers should be allowed to draw the natural conclusion themselves rather than have us spell it out in wordier form. Markalexander100 02:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I've listed more of these on Talk:Exploding whale#Rewordings, elaborations and grammar improvements. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 09:50, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
  • Object. I suggest we keep it for April 1st though, it would be perfect for the main page at that time - and only at that time. Treat my vote as support on that day. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:54, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • What? April 1st is for fictional news, this actually happened. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:04, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
    • Ummm... that's not really a valid objection you know. What specifically do you object to? Also, April the 1st is for fictional things, this really happened. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Invalid objection, IMO. This page is for nominating featured articles, not articles to feature on the main page. Johnleemk | Talk 07:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

  • My objection is not with the concept. It is with, as I have already said, the topic and the tone. I oppose the topic because it consists of only two events, hardly a common occurrence, and in the two cases, the cause of explosion was completely different. Second, I find the writing style flippant and irrelevant. For example, Paul Linnman's quote is foolish, and the fact that the blast scared away scavenging birds is (a) no surprise to anyone, and (b) an utter irrelevancy.
  • This is a fun story, and it is exactly the kind of article I like to see appear in Wikipedia to ease the tedium of charged politico-economico-cultural articles. But I cannot bring myself to see it as having any value as a feature article. Sorry.

Denni 03:12, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

  • Ta bu shi da yu jumps to the conclusion that I "somehow" duplicated this page. He is wrong. It was already duplicated when I dropped by to answer yet another insistent question. If you want to jump to conclusions, Ta bu shi da yu, then I guess it's your skipping rope, but I for one am getting more than a little tired of your trying to twist my arm into a support vote. I have no problem with persistence for a good cause, but when it starts to edge into rudeness, I have to ask you to back off. Wikipedia is not Weekly World News, which would be a good repository for this story (yes, I can be rude too.) It certainly cannot hold a candle to the great majority of articles which have been featured, and many articles which have not. I have nothing more to say on this matter, and my vote remains unchanged.
  • Gah! Denni is totally correct. Please accept my total complete and unreserved apologies for saying you caused this! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • P.S. This does not change my opinion that he is wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Seems to me that the objections mostly lead towards a listing on VfD. Not, I hasten to add that I'm suggesting this coruse of action, but either the article belongs here or it doesn't. There can be no category of (non-list) article that belongs but can never be featured, surely?. If one accepts that the article is valid, it seems well enough written, nicely structured, and well researched with good references. It makes more sense to me that having the Simpsons in the Beat generation article, for example. Not the sort of thing I'm ever going to write myself, but I enjoyed reading it and Wikipedia needs a lot of stuff that falls outside my sphere of interest, or yours, gentle reader. Filiocht 14:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - I liked it the last time around, but, thanks to everyone's input, it is even better now. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Markalexander100 05:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Karl Dönitz[edit]

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

  • Support. However, I'd replace the book covers with photos because of the copyrights. GeneralPatton 07:51, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, great work, very informative and well laid out! Good use of references. Decent length.- Ta bu shi da yu 07:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I might just note that Jeronimo Supports this! It may not be obvious... - Ta bu shi da yu 12:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) Object. A good article, which I would support if the images had source information. Also (not part of my ojbection) I would like to see some information on his personal life (wife, children, etc.). Jeronimo 09:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Done. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:26, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain, on similar ground as Jeronimo. At the moment at least half of the article is describing the submarine warfare instead of Donitz contribution to it. I'd like to read more about his ideas, tactics and strategies (unless targeting merchant shippings, inventing wolfpack strategy and distrusting Enigma is *ALL* that can be said here?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • As most other high commanders during wartime, Doenitz really lived for his work. Didn't have that much of a personal life. GeneralPatton 11:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I am not asking for his personal life, but more about his work. But the article is nicely expanding, I will likely cross my abstain vote soon if the progress keeps up. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fascinating. I knew that German naval encryption was stronger than in other branchs, but I didn't realize there was one guy behind that descision. Donitz's story seems worth featuring. func(talk) 20:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor objections at the moment: says nothing about the loss of his sons as written about here and i feel that more could be said about his role in using the more secure version of the enigma. Change to support once something is written about that, quite a good article. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:39, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Charles I of England[edit]

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

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

James Joyce[edit]

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

  • support. Bit late for it to be on Bloomsday, unfortunately... Kiand 18:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Reads well, comprehensive, ordered, nicely formatted, images, full reference section and external links. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 20:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. • Benc • 20:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good stuff. Markalexander100 09:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Here's to Aloysius. Support. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:38, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very infomative! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:14, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Objection: According to the Manual of Style, headings should not include grammatical articles and other superfluous words. "The writing of Finnegans Wake" and "The style and structure of Finnegans Wake"—both already subsections of "Finnegans Wake"—could become merely "Writing" and "Style and structure." The same goes for the second section of "Ulysses." Furthermore, "Joyce's legacy" could become just "Legacy." -- Emsworth 01:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • For the record, I've fixed those objections. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Just a quick comment (not an objection): the references section is subdivided. Is this really necessary? Why not mix all of the references together, in alphabetical order, as a scholary publication might do?-- Emsworth
  • Object. There appears to be a lack of information about his other published works, and on the talk page someone noted that his biography could be fleshed out (no pun intended) considerably. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I raised that objection on the talk page and then fleshed it out in the article. While Joyce published a number of works, it is the two last novels on which his reputation really rests. It would be possible to add sections on Dubliners and the portrait and on his poetry, but I cvan already hear the howls about the page being overly long. Filiocht 07:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I have tried to address the other works objection. I think the page contains enough bio. Filiocht 08:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Good job, no more objections from me. I fully support - as I said above already (doh!) - Ta bu shi da yu 13:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area[edit]

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

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

Parliament of the United Kingdom[edit]

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

  • Support. Bmills 13:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 14:17, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. func(talk) 20:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Very informative and well written.
  • Support Deus Ex 21:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Well written, coherent
  • Object for now. There is no external links section (I'd expect at least a parliament homepage?). I'd also like to see a link to the lists of PMs past and present, on or off-Wiki, or at the very least a section on famour PMs. The article is also a bit long (38kb now), perhaps some sections should be moved to a separate artucles? The existing sections are very informative and well written, and I will likely support this after my concerns are adressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • With the progress being made I change my objection to abstain for now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • There is an external link to the UK parliment homepage! As for an article being too long, I personally do not think that is a valid objection, if the subject matter requires the space. I'd hate to see any sections removed from this candidate. Filiocht 12:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes; there is indeed an external link. As far as the length: the topic is an important one, and requires an great amount of space. Actually, I did not go into as much detail about ceremonies, procedure and constitutional theory as I would have liked, for I foresaw such an objection. -- Emsworth 20:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Please do go into said detail, either here or in a sub-article. Personally I find the length objection ridiculous, but each are entitled to their own opinion. But certainly if you have good info add it somewhere. - Taxman 03:24, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
        • Length objections are not ridiculous since we are an encyclopedia project not a book project. That said, I don't think the current article size is too large (given the topic) but if it does get significantly longer then, and only then, should there be an effort to summarize longer sections and move the more detailed text to daughter articles. See wikipedia:summary style. In fact I think that the lead section is woafully short for an article this size and therefore object until that is fixed. Otherwise this is a good article. --mav 05:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • Expanded intro to two paragraphs.
  • Support. Zerbey 08:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support; some suggestions though: 1) add some more subsections, especially in the long history section. This makes it easier to find a particular topic within the page. 2) Another picture or two would be nice, perhaps a painting or photo from inside the House of Commons or Lords? Jeronimo 07:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very thorough article, but I have two minor issues. One, I found the lead very clunky. Could some of the content there be moved elsewhere? And two, the article needs materials on the qualifications of members, e.g. age, citizenship, not being bankrupt or insane, etc. I also think a mention of how peers couldn't be members in the Commons or vote would be useful. The Tony Benn case over sitting in the Commons and the right to disclaim a peerage should be mentioned. (If this material is covered elsewhere, then ignore me; I only read the nominated article). PedanticallySpeaking 18:15, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. A lot of good material, but I agree the lead section needs still a bit more work. Especially hard to understand is the second paragraph. Is the sovereign the one with the ultimate power or not. One sentance seems to say one thing, the next another. For ex, what does 'parliamentary sovereignty' even mean in the lead section, that parliament has the final say or the queen has the final say over parliament? Also, no mention of the greater concept of parliament, such as parliamentary procedure in general. Nor any mention of whether the UK parliament was the first parliament and how it relates to others. - Taxman 16:38, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, the point of the second paragraph was that the extent of parliamentary sovereignty (shorthand for the sovereignty of the Queen-in-Parliament) is unclear. But, it appears that the paragraph itself became unclear; so now, detailed discussion is reserved for the main portion of the article. Procedure should not be discussed in detail; each House has its own separate procedures, which are discussed in the separate articles on the chambers. The concept of Parliament is covered in Parliament. The relationship with other Parliaments has been noted (but briefly); all this is also covered in Parliament. -- Emsworth 01:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Good fixes. I'm not asking for procedure to be covered in detail, just discussed summarily (such as what it is, importance, and other basics) and linked to. It is a prominent feature of the UK (and any other) Parliament is it not? Besides, there is no way to know from this article that those aritcles discuss the procedure. The concept of parliament may be in that article, but there was not a single link in this article to that one. There are also some terms in the intro that would only be known to someone familiar with the british system, such as sovereign, and peerage. Those need a quick inline definition. Also, what does "Queen-in-Parliament" mean? Is that just the queen when she's sitting in Parliament? Finally, the term "supreme" in the first sentence is a bit self aggrandizing, and could stand to be replaced with a different word such as ultimate, final, authoritative, etc., or phrase meaning similar. - Taxman 15:49, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
        • Okay, done. As to the Queen-in-Parliament: the Queen need not be physically present in either Chamber; rather, the term refers to the Queen acting on the advice and with the consent of Parliament (as opposed to, for example, the Queen-in-Council, or the Queen acting with the advice [but not necessarily the consent] of the Privy Council). -- Emsworth 20:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Supreme in that context refers to the fact that no other law making body can overturn its legislation. Maybe they be a should be a short note or something to explain that, because it isn't obvious what it means (added note). Deus Ex 17:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mark Latham[edit]

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

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

Mor lam[edit]

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

  • Support. All topics covered nicely, with sound samples. My only "complaint" is that the screenshot images are low quality. Jeronimo 10:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll see what I can do with the screenshots: it may just be part of the VCD experience though. Markalexander100 07:41, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written, and it's about a topic few Wikipedians will already know a lot about. Quadell (talk) 03:26, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting, well written and a great example of a wikipedia article that's out of the ordinary. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. What Ta bu shi da yu said. Ambi 08:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, for all of the above reasons. func(talk) 19:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CPU cache[edit]

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

  • Nice article. I do not object, but for me to support I'd like a more concise lead-section (redistribute superfluous information into another section(s)) - ensuring the leadsection appropriately conveys the concept to a layman; a more aesthetic image in the lead section; and better paragraphing. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 10:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Tell me how to fix that image and I'll do it. Iain McClatchie 18:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - if lead section were reduced to 3 paragraphs. --d 00:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - cool article! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - some of it seems wordy and technical, but it's still a very good article with great information. -- KneeLess 07:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The technical bit is deliberate. If things seem wordy, just let me know, and I'll take another whack at it. Overall, I think the article needs a good hard round of criticism before it's ready for prime-time. Iain McClatchie 18:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Under "More hierarchies" the article reads "This section should be rewritten." Presumably it should be, or the notice removed. Dan Gardner 17:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I've got quite a bit to do in that section, but other commitments... you know. I'm hoping to fix this bit in a month or so. Iain McClatchie 18:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I skimmed it and it looks good, but Dan Gardner makes a valid point - any little to-do notes need to be taken out of the article. Generally speaking, meta data doesn't belong in the article. →Raul654 04:44, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - no references. --mav 00:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree, certainly there are more and better standard references in the field than the two external links in the article now. Lack of solid references means the material could have been made up out of thin air, and thus unreliable. In addition the lead section needs to be reworked to carry all the most important information about the subject in a clear way. The simple fact of why cache is faster is never noted. - Taxman 16:48, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Okay, so you want to repeat the introduction from Cache? -- Iain McClatchie 15:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


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

  • Object: I find the liberally sprinkled quotations a little undigested into the main body of the article. Bmills 11:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fascinating, well-written article. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The quotations didn't bother me. I learned a lot. Plus it involved two topics I knew a bit about (Greece and Buddhism), but covered a topic I wasn't very familiar with. Lots of nice images. Quadell (talk) 03:30, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, if I may. To accommodate the comment by Bmills above, several of the quotations have been incorporated in the text. PHG 06:24, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Still needs to be worked on. GeneralPatton 07:15, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Point taken. Please check improved version with a better integration of the quotations within the narrative flow.PHG 12:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky[edit]

An interesting article, and an interesting man. Stumbled across it while looking at Linguistics. Leads into all sorts of other interesting articles too. -Jal 10:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • What a strange duck. Good article; interesting topic; support. -Litefantastic 11:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Page has had some edit warring problems in the past, though. • Benc • 12:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Has had some trouble in the past but i think its turned out well. O'Dubhghaill 17:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (William M. Connolley 20:59, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC))
  • Support as long as this doesn't go on the main page. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 03:37, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
    • Because...? Markalexander100 05:09, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Because we’ll end up with a savage revert war if it gets on the main page. People like Chomsky always have that affect. GeneralPatton 05:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Oh please. That's not a very good reason at all. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:07, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Not an objection (yet) - can I get a license on that picture? →Raul654 03:45, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Arguably the greatest biography on Wikipedia, regardless of one's personal opinion of Chomsky --Cyopardi 15:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Satori 15:59, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:37, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Meelar is right, of course. Support and Protect, this article looks finished to me. AdmN 16:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It’s not our policy to call an article “finished”. The whole concept of wiki is that they’re constantly evolving and hopefully improving. GeneralPatton 18:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I was being facetious. :) AdmN 18:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 17:49, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, it’s a good, well written look at the man. GeneralPatton 18:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. My congratulations to the writers, and a big hug abrazo sudamericano for each. This page very nicely covers a very complex set of human balances, competitions, and trade offs. Someone should specifically label the current version in the Description with a label something like "FEATURED ARTICLE VERSION--Start here" and resave this page to the History queue before this page, with its coming notoriety, enters the looming "Tunnel of Edit Wars." That is, the Bush Administration Disinformation Squad (BADS) has not found this page yet. ---Rednblu 20:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - Very weak lead section, overwhelming TOC, and no references section (see wikipedia:Cite your sources). --mav 21:28, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Sadly changing my vote: there are clearly still content issues to be sorted out. Support, subject to references.I've reworked the lead. The TOC is only about a third of a page printed out, which is hardly overwhelming for a 12-page article. Since we're here, I disagree that this article should not go on the main page: we feature articles because we want more people to read them, and putting them on the main page is a good way to do that. If silliness breaks out we can revert and protect as usual, but since there's plenty more which could be written about him I would hope that it would encourage positive contributions. (And there are no other "people like Chomsky" ;-) ). Markalexander100 06:05, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, with references. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:07, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, although I am afraid that it would be a revert war. -- KneeLess 07:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see more on criticisms of Chomsky as a linguist by people like Del Hymes, but support, nonetheless. Bmills 14:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support LegCircus 20:41, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Denni 00:54, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)
  • Support --Zerbey 02:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lord Chancellor[edit]

-- Emsworth 19:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Strong support. I've looked at this article in the past and have found it excellent. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Also strongly support. Interesting and well researched. A good example of a high-quality Wikipedia article! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 13:21, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Brilliant and thorough article Cyopardi 16:45, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Emsworth edited this? No brainer :) --Zerbey 02:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Du Fu[edit]

Self-nom. One of the world's great poets. Markalexander100 07:18, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. --Shibboleth 19:42, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, brilliant article. --Alxt 19:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • "Tu Fu" is more common: [11] --Jiang 21:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • This objection is unactionable. If we moved the article to Tu Fu, others may well object that Wade-Giles is not "standard" enough. The googlefight is a dead heat: a 7% difference in usage doesn't amount to a clear victory for "Tu Fu", and there are counterarguments in favor of "Du Fu". Anyway, it's a really minor point, because there is a redirect. This well-written article shouldn't be held up over petty romanization disputes. --Shibboleth 21:47, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't object. I'm just noting a fact. Don't expect the article to stay where it is on that argument alone though. --Jiang 03:04, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • "Tu" may be minimally more common on the Internet (although searching for each term individually gives "about 10,500" for each, and not all the hits for "Tu Fu" or "Du Fu" refer to our man); but "Du" is more common in current sinological (is that a word?) work, and the balance is shifting towards "Du". Markalexander100 04:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to include information about his calligraphy? Since handwriting is so valued in Chinese culture I think it might be appropriate. I do not object to this article, in fact I like it a lot, I just think it could be a bit more complete. -Eudyptes 02:49 29 Aug 2004
    • I'm fairly sure that we know nothing about his own calligraphy, even in copies. I've added a sample of someone else's calligraphy of one of his poems, but I think that's all we can do. Markalexander100 04:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Good, then. Thanks. Eudyptes 15:41 29 Aug 2004 UTC
  • Object - Nice article, but it needs a ==References== section. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. --mav
    • I've renamed "Further reading" as "References"- I hope that helps. Markalexander100 03:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Were each of those listed items used as references? --mav
        • Yes. I've always used "Further reading" as a synonym for "References", firstly because I wouldn't direct readers to something I haven't read, and secondly because "References" usually translates as "don't bother to read". But I'll use the latter if it's preferred. Markalexander100 05:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • "Further reading" would have been a useful category at Wikipedia. I used it when I arrived but was told not to. Wetman 05:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great name! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 16:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Pedro 19:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Marlowe 19:32, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Objection: The paragraphs of the lead section are rather short (especially the first); they should either be extended or merged together. There are several short paragraphs in the article itself, as well (seven with one or two sentences each). -- Emsworth 00:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The first paragraph of the lead is short for a very good reason: it allows readers who don't want to wade through all the Gongbus and Shaolins (which are boring but necessary) to skip them and start on the real article. The other paragraphs of the lead are three and two sentences respectively, but the last sentence of the two sentence paragraph is a long one. And as for the short paragraphs in the article: well, sometimes paragraphs are short. I've expanded a couple slightly, but the others contain as much information on the topic as is known. Extending those paragraphs would make the article worse by conflating unrelated information or by introducing useless verbiage. And there's nothing in the MoS against short paras. Markalexander100 00:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: good article on a really important figure. What more can you ask? Bmills 13:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)