Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2004

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

Use of poison gas in World War I[edit]

For a long time this article was just a handful of tables, now.... The comprehensive efforts by User:Gsl are impressive and IMO deserve recognition. 00:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. I've been reading a lot of the WWI articles lately, and they're all damn good. Someone seems to be editing them the way I edit Beatles song articles or Emsworth edits British government articles. Johnleemk | Talk 05:28, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - David Gerard 18:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 12:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - This article has been very useful in my research for chemical warfare. -- ClockworkSoul 19:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support but someone should go through the table of gases used, which was obviously taken from a contemporary source and uses teminology that is now antiquated. We have an article on Hydrogen Sulphide which is there under its old name of 'Sulphuretted Hydrogen', for example. Dbiv 19:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It appears that they're legitimate red links, and some of those substances are rarely seen today. There's something really perverse in conventions that allow one substance to have ten different names, before we get to variations like sulphur/sulfur. iMeowbot~Mw 08:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, and support. The article is consistent with (but much more complete than) books sitting around here that were written at the time. iMeowbot~Mw 08:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Gdr 13:04, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well-written. utcursch 06:36, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • "Support". yes well written and informative.

Bahá'í Faith[edit]

Hey, I think this article is very comprehensive and well done. I just stumbled upon it. What do you think? (Nominated by Dmcdevit. →Raul654 07:25, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC))

  • Support. I have read this article before, and the only reason I didn't nominate it then was because I had just joined Wikipedia and did not yet know about Featured articles. Extremely well-written and comprehensive. RyanGerbil10 08:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Insufficient references. Johnleemk | Talk 08:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support now, good work, though I cannot vouch for the material personally. Object, agree with John Lee, references are critical, and this has none. Also the intro mentions it is the second most widespread of the "independent religions". What makes it more independant than any other religion? - Taxman 12:42, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Ok that seems all taken care of. Only thing I see left is alot of orphan paragraphs, of just one sentence or so. It makes the text flow poorly in spots. Some more should either be expanded or merged with nearby paragraphs.- Taxman 00:29, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • Combined 5 sets of 2 paragraphs into 1 paragraph, where I thought the paragraphs were linked enough. There are still a couple short paragraphs, but I feel they are warrented. - Navidazizi 5:20, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Taxman, for the answer to your question, please see the talk page. i think the related articles are still incomplete, not sure if that is reason enough not to include as a featured article though... - --Cyprus2k1 13:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • My point was more that the article needs to make that clear, not the talk page. The talk page is one editor claiming it is independent, not a verifiable source. - Taxman
      • BBC - --Cyprus2k1 17:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Great, that is an improvement. Why not format that BBC source and others that were legitimately used as proper references as in the featured article criteria? Specifically, Wikipedia:Cite sources shows how to properly format external links used as sources. And also, related articles do not affect the ability of this one to be a featured article. This article stands on its own merits. - Taxman 02:24, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The article looks great and is not polemical like articles on the other religions. PMLF 23:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I have added references to the article, including the one for the "second most widespread religion." 01:07, 29 Dec 2004 Navidazizi
    • That is an impressive amount of references to be added. Can you confirm that those sources were used to confirm the material in the article and substantially agree with what is there? - Taxman 21:05, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
      • Of the 13 references, 5 are for citations from the Bahá'í writings used in the article, 1 backs up the socio-economic development projects that the Bahá'ís are involved in, another is in reference to the relationship to the UN, 3 (including the one by the BBC) are for general Bahá'í information, 1 on the history of the Bahá'í Faith, and 2 are ex-Bahá'í websites which are included in reference to the NPOV statements that are in the main text of the article. I think that accounts for most things in the article. -- - Navidazizi 23:06, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
        • Very nice work. Thank you. - Taxman 00:29, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
          • Added a couple more history references, one from a non-Baha'i source (E.G. Browne) -- - Navidazizi 5:20, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. great--ZayZayEM 05:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


A Ta bu shi da yu Christmas special :-) As my work uses this in their product (I won't say who they are) I've put together this article on Btrieve. It's fully featured and has undergone peer review. I also asked a few others on IRC to give it the once over and I tried to take their suggestions on board. Any feedback or suggestions on peer review I've tried to resolve or incorporate into the story and I've given it a good copyedit. I've also cut down the size somewhat and had to make a subpage Architecture of Btrieve, so I've used summary form on that section. I'm hoping this is now good enough to be a featured article! However, as always, any further feedback I will attempt to address. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. That's an excellent treatment of a confusing history. iMeowbot~Mw 13:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support An well-written article; nicely organized yet doesn't suffer from overuse of technical jargon for such a technically-oriented subject. Nice diagrams as well. Bumm13 14:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice. This article's come a long way. CXI 14:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, I helped copyedit this and I think it's a great article. Rhobite 19:20, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 01:37, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Author helped my Internet terrorist organization.
  • Support. Author helped my mother become cancer-free. --Node 00:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, very good. Neutralitytalk 17:46, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, there is something missing from the article I can't put my finger on (an X factor) that I would not support being on the main page, but is otherwise good as an FA. -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 06:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Equal Protection Clause[edit]

This is a self-nomination. I believe it is complete, accurate and well-written. More importantly, though, I think it an enormously important subject. Of course, I am more than willing to change whatever reasonably needs to be changed. Hydriotaphia 05:11, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm sure people will want a 'references' section. I only have nits so far, such as I don't think I should have to read photo captions to learn about Bingham--doesn't have to be lengthy, but his role should probably be introduced, and fleshed out a bit in the actual article (i.e. captions should explain what is depicted, and its relevance, if not self-evident, but shouldn't be expected to add to the article itself). And he doesn't seem to have an article--highly recommend creating one and linking to it. Does seem to have very nicely relevant photos (esp. time-wise), and walks the reader through the relevant cases (both major and minor), and how they built on cases before, and affected cases after, quite smoothly. Oh, "rump" goes to a disamb page--if rump state (or rump Parliament, which seems a bigger stretch) can't be worked to cover this usage, you might want to create a new article (tho, how to avoid it being a dic def, I'm not sure :/ ). These are all probably 'nice to haves', not grounds to oppose. Nice job by the way--just checked the history--pretty good expansion for less than one week's worth of work. Niteowlneils 06:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I think I've dealt with your objections. Please tell me if there's something else that you see as a problem. Thanks for your comments. Hydriotaphia 19:17, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • Looks good. I changed the "See also" header to "References", as that seems to be more accurate (and See also is usually used to refer to other Wikipedia articles). Definitely support (I really should have said that the first time--as I said my comments weren't intended as objections). Niteowlneils 02:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Changing the section title is entirely innapropriate if the works listed were not actually used to confirm or add the material in the article. References are important for a reason and not just to be able to check the box and say you have them. Now if they were properly used, I apologize, but nothing in the above conversation reflects that. - Taxman 05:27, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't say I had all of those sources actually in front of me as I was writing the article, but I have read 10/12 of the sources mentioned, with the 2 others—the Kotz and the Morris books—having been praised highly by others of the sources. I can't speak for Niteowlneils, but I'm guessing he just figured "references" meant references for the readers. That, at least, was what I had supposed, just because if they were meant to be sources, they would be called "sources." It may be, though, that "references" are a sort of term of art on Wikipedia, and "references" means what in other contexts would be called "sources." Taxman, could you direct me to whatever resource can clear this up for all of us? Thanks—and thanks for your comments. If we get this references/sources thing all squared away, do you think you could support this article? Best regards, Hydriotaphia 05:38, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • There needs to be a clear differentiation between those resources that have been used to confirm or supply material in the article (Usually done in a 'References' section, ideally with inline citations; but also done as footnotes to cite specific facts to sources), and those that have not (they can be put in a 'Further reading' or similar). There is no hard and fast consensus as to the names of those, partly because different people perceive them differently and even different academic disciplines use them differently. But what I have given you is what the featured article criteria use. See the top of the page for that link. In any case the important thing is that the differentiation I have noted is clear. - Taxman 06:31, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
        • OK, I hope I've taken care of your (totally valid) concerns with the footnotes I've added. Tell me what you think. Hydriotaphia 07:50, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
          • Sorry to be difficult, but it still seems unclear if the sources listed were actually consulted. Each note just says "See Example book". We are still in the exact same situation where that seems to refer me to a source for more information without telling me explicitly the fact in this article is taken from that source. For ex, the material and source in note #1 "For details on the rationale for, and ratification of, the Fourteenth Amendment, see..." does not seem to directly support either the sentence the note superscript is attached to - "These laws severely restricted...", or the whole paragraph for that matter. A more typical footnote simply lists the author's last name and other proper source information if the bit was actually taken from that source. - Taxman 23:11, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
            • Yes, all of them were consulted! In legal citations, some of whose form I've chosen to use here, the direction "see" means that the book, article, etc. cited clearly supports the footnoted proposition(s). When I footnoted a sentence, the footnote supports the facts in the paragraph, and often the whole section, footnoted; I did it this way to avoid visual clutter (and lots and lots of ibids.!). But I encourage you to change the wording of the footnotes so that, to your mind, they more clearly show that the sources have been consulted. Thanks again for your comments. Best, Hydriotaphia 18:40, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
              • Nope, thats fine. I simply didn't know "see" has that significance. Great work then. However what about note 1 not really matching up with the sentence/paragraph it is by? Or am I just off base on that? - Taxman 00:14, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks well researched, covers everything I can think about the topic. Though I am curious as to the relation between the clause and affirmative action and that debate. Something could stand to be said about that. - Taxman 00:14, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Darn it, Taxman, I hoped no one would notice that there was nothing about affirmative action. :) You're quite right, the article isn't quite complete without something on Af Act. I'm sort of busy right now, but in the next few days I'll try to add something on that important subject. Best. Hydriotaphia 01:02, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, I've added a section on affirmative action, with footnotes. I believe the article is now complete. Hydriotaphia 22:15, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I hope someone will critique the affirmative action section that I've added. I must admit that I strongly favor affirmative action, and hence I fear that the section may not be NPOV. Hydriotaphia 00:39, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I believe I have assuaged my own concerns in this matter. But I am certainly open to suggestions (and edits, of course!). Hydriotaphia 09:09, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I've decided that superscript footnotes are really inappropriate in Wikipedia-land, because they mess with line spacing and hence obscure paragraph structure. So what I'm going to do is keep the footnotes, but make them into regular script. I hope this doesn't anger anyone. Hydriotaphia 19:21, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, looks good. --SPUI 02:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Qualified support. Needs articles, at least stubs, about the cases cited, and the collegiate admissions process. I don't have time, at least this week, to write any of the former and am unqualified to write the latter. Aside from that, looks like a featured article to me. Rlquall 02:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Hi, Rlquall, thank you for your qualified support. May I ask, though, what you mean by your reference to the collegiate admisions process? Do you want more links to articles about the process, or more on how the Clause affects that process? (See also the message I left on your talk page.) Best, Hydriotaphia 09:06, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Article looks reasonably complete, although as with any featured article on an important subject, some future tweaking can be expected. Edeans 03:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Well done. COGDEN 03:34, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This should definitely be a featured article in my view. It's well written, well-researched, important and interesting. The only small point I'd add is that, personally, I like to see inline references (I like lots of ibids and op cits), but I know other editors don't like them, and they do break up the text. I can see there's been a discussion about references already, so I won't add to it. I strongly support this nomination. Slim 02:10, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

First Crusade[edit]

This is a semi-self nomination - over the past few months, myself, User:Stbalbach, User:Wetman, and many others have been working on this page after an anonymous professor complained about its accuracy. It has grown into a very complete and detailed page with a large set of related articles, and we think it is worthy of being featured. Adam Bishop 09:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, looks very nice. Good work! --fvw* 09:25, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
  • I actually just noticed this earlier today and was rather impressed, particularly by the efficient use of summary style and the nicely detailed subarticles. Support. Everyking 10:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd support even more if it had some more pictures or maps. Geoff/Gsl 10:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor object. Cruddy lead section. Small instances of unimaginative (i.e. starting each individual crusade section with a mini-paragraph along the lines of "The Princes' Crusade is also known as the Barons' Crusade") and writing perhaps more suited to an essay (i.e. To understand why the crusade was so popular, it is helpful to understand..) Apart from that, excellent article. Ambi 10:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Ambi, I've made some edits that hopefully address what you've mentioned. Thanks for the feedback, it is helpful.--Stbalbach 08:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I can't find any problems now with the rest of the article, but I'd still like to see an improved lead section. Ambi 07:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Can you elaborate what "improved" means? Stbalbach 12:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Giano 23:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Mackensen (talk) 06:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC). More pictures would be nice, but you've all clearly put a lot of time into it.
  • Object. A well written article, but such article definetly needs a map attached to be a useful - and thus, featured - article. A picture would be nice but is not necessary, I feel however that a map is crucial here. When a map is added, consider my vote as a support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Nathanlarson32767 18:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Same as Ambi above, and sorry but the improvements so far are not sufficient. The lead section currently implies, as best I can parse the language, that Christians are conquering territory outside Europe "for the first time", a statement that is just flat wrong - the Byzantine Empire certainly made some non-European conquests in its history after officially adopting Christianity. Lots of excellence in the details, though, and the potential for a featured article is there. --Michael Snow 23:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for the same reasons as Michael Snow. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 05:54, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Everyking made edits to address this, please clarify the exact source of objection. --Stbalbach 07:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I quickly scanned the article (I'll look in more detail soon) but the lead section still needs fixing. It can be two paragraphs you know :-) I think that it needs to do more active summarising of the article as there is a lot of detail in the article. Given the size of the article, surely more very brief summary text can go in there? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The lead section is not an article summary. Per the "Guide to writing better articles": The lead section is the section before the first headline. It is shown above the table of contents (for pages with more than three headlines). It should establish significances, large implications and why we should care. The purpose of the lead section is to provide context, significance and large overview and, basically, like peeling an onion, draw the reader in to want to read more. Indeed, this is such a large complex subject, the main body of the article contains a summary, with further detail broken out in sub-articles. Also, this article is broken off the larger Crusades body article, which contains the higher-level views about the Crusades in general. --Stbalbach 02:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Reconsidered what you said, and added additional material to the lead for your review.--Stbalbach 03:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I edited the lead paragraph down a little bit again, I hope that's alright. I'm not sure how big of a summary everyone is expecting...Adam Bishop 00:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Hampton Roads[edit]

I think this one is good. --Gamingboy 20:47, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support This is a good topic of broad interest. I will be glad to help address concerns which may be raised to help improve it. Vaoverland 22:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've uploaded a few public domain color paintings for use in the article. Check the talk page for details. Use them where you feel they would be best. One of them would probably look good as a replacement for the first picture in the article. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 02:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs battlebox. Neutrality/talk 05:56, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • I added a battlebox, but it's not complete. Can someone fix/finish it? --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 14:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Battlebox is now complete and includes a newly created campaignbox. Done and done. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 17:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Support.
Comment: I don't think this is grounds for an objection. Not every article about a battle needs a battlebox. Gdr 01:46, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
Of course it's a valid objection. See featured article criteria: "A featured article should...Comply with the standards set by any relevant WikiProjects." User:Neutralitytalk 03:19, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
But where in Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles does it say that every article about a battle needs a battlebox? Gdr 09:05, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
  • Support Sayeth 19:54, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • the article has been spruced up by several contributors, with a public domain map from the Library of Virginia and 2 color paintings (also PD) added. The companion articles on USS Monitor and CSS Virginia (aka Merrimack or Merrimac) have also been improved. Suggestions for improvement folks? Vaoverland 23:14, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I just put the article in the proper category names (and noticed that all the civil war battles are in the wrong categories...) --Brian0918 05:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC
  • Support. Jacob1207 01:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Niteowlneils 05:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: The objections I had earlier have been addressed, and I've wanted to support it all along. Geogre 14:02, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth[edit]

Self-nom. I have worked on this article for the past few months, and I believe it has now reached a stage we may consider it for FA. I intend to develop subarticles from its sections in the future, but for now I think the article is around optimal content lenght. Yes, it is a bit larger then 32kb but I am not sure what could be removed *now*. Anyway I'd love to hear your comments on what can be improved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral: This is very interesting and may well be featured article material; but frankly I lost the plot half way through, I think it needs a good copy edit, preferably by someone with knowledge of the subject, the many Polish, or eastern European terms and names seem to have an erratic application of the definite article. The page does also seem to be quite heavy work, especially trying to remember who the "Kresy", the "Sejm" and the "szlachta" and their assorted friends and enemies are. To be fair, the terms are explained in the article, but perhaps more user friendly terms could be used throughout for the benefit of the less retentive like myself. Perhaps it should be referred to Wikipedia:Peer review rather than here. Giano 18:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Could you expand on the erratic application? I'd be happy to fix any inconsistencies and such regarding the names and such. As far as examples you mention: the term Kresy is explained two times (first and second time it is used in the article); same with Sejm and szlachta (I improved the sentence they first are used in, it was: ....with its uniquely powerful Sejm parliament dominated by szlchta nobles..., now is: Its extremly powerful parliament (known as the Sejm) dominated by dominated by nobles (known as the szlachta).... As far as I know, there are no other English translations of those words. Kresy is a geographical name, referning to Sejm as the parliament would be as erroneus as for US Senat or Congress, and szlachta are as distinct from 'nobles' as are for example Russian boyars, again meriting its own word. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • e.g. the term "szlachta" sometimes has a "the", sometimes not; perhaps sometimes a "the" is not required but often it reads as thought it is, this is a very monor quibble,easily sorted. The article is improving all the time. A time on Wikipedia:Peer reviewwould be very beneficial Giano 09:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The English isn't very good. I did what I could to help, fixed some typos and improved some grammar at points, but it needs more work. Not an objection, though. Everyking 23:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I am sorry about the English. It is not my strongest point as I am not a native speaker. I am afraid there is little more I can do about that complain - hopefully you can do more. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I've proofread it - how is it now? - David Gerard 15:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Very interesting subject and article. However, I'm not certain that it is up to FA status yet, on account of the points raised above, with which I concur. I would refer to peer review. Jacob1207 16:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I've done a proofreading - how is it now? - David Gerard 15:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • excellent. support - Xed 00:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Andris 10:56, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support.--Emax 14:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. ('though still anxiously) - Halibutt 08:51, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but only after a copyedit. I've done a few sections. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - this is good and interesting. I copyedited it, are there others who could check it over? - David Gerard 15:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lesch-Nyhan syndrome[edit]

self nom - yes i posted it again and i think its ready, and in addition the article is no more difficult to read than Asperger syndrome which is already a current featured article. --Larsie 20:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. jengod 22:28, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, as before. Geogre 23:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Filiocht 08:31, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Minor objections: 1) the symptoms in the Description section are somewhat repetitive. (i.e, self-mutilation mentioned in several different places). This section could use a careful copyedit for structure and flow -- basically well written, but doesn't seem quite as coherent as the rest of the article. 2) The division into male and female sections may be unnecessary, as some of the discussion under female seems to apply more to Genetics than the description of the disease itself. (I'll leave that judgment call to the experts though). Good work! Catherine\talk 21:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • ok so i've fixed the repetitive references to self mutilation in that section, and in addition i think that the two seperate sections for male and female are relevant as it does affect both sexes in different ways and so then requires different sections. --Larsie 16:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Did some more copyediting on this myself -- there was still quite a lot of overlap. Catherine\talk 08:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This has smoothed out nicely and shows a lot of dedication by Larsie and the power of collaborative editing. Well researched. Good job all. - Taxman 04:32, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. I found a lot that needed copyediting. Someone please revise the second sentence in the last paragraph under "In males". It appears to be either meaningless, incorrect, or both. BTW, if anyone wanted more pictures ... we're better off not seeing them.Sfahey 04:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Good. That has been corrected. However, a subsequent overhaul has confused the sections. The section "In males" begins with a one-sentence paragraph-subsection, and follows with several subsections which refer not just to males but to LNS in general. I believe the article would best be served by eliminating the "In males" heading, since it is already understood to be virtually entirely a disease of males, and calling the "In females" section "LNS in females". Even the "PC Police" would not object to this. I will make this change now. LNS experts: feel free to alter this set-up.Sfahey 15:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment and suggestion. I think the recent edits have reduced the considerable repetition of content, it is now better organized, with a better flow. I particularly like the introduction of the subsections in the description section. Concerning these, however, I have a suggestion. The description section begins by saying "LNS is mainly characterized by three major hallmarks: neurologic dysfunction, cognitive and behavioral disturbances, as well as uric acid overproduction (hyperuricemia)." This is followed by three subsections describing these hallmarks titled: "Overproduction of uric acid", "Nervous system impairment" and "Self-injuring behavior". I would like to see the order the hallmarks are given in the opening sentence and the order of the subsection titles be the same. I would also like a better match between the descriptions for the hallmarks used in both.

Gold Standard[edit]

Just yesterday a professor I know have highly commented on this article. I read it today, fixed lead a little, added many ilinks - and now I think it can becoem featured. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note: this should be at the top of the page, but I seem to be unable to put it there. Something is messed up with the page engine I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I fixed it. :-) Anyway, for now, object. Good article, but no references. Support. Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Added my gold standard references, will do the "central banking" referneces and "coinage" references later (which will be shorter). Will do format clean up and alphabetization later. Stirling Newberry 01:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiki timing problem resulted in few minutes of delays in saving my references section on that page. Is it better now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: the following text needs fixing:
Typically under a gold standard, the physical transport of gold becomes cumbersome for popular use, and so bank notes (also known as demand notes or paper money). They may be either issued privately or by government) circulate and are convertible into physical gold on demand. Paul August 23:57, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
I think it is fixed now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ok, you've edited the above so that It now reads:
Typically under a gold standard, the physical transport of gold becomes cumbersome for popular use, and so bank notes (also known as demand notes or simply paper money) are extensively used. They may be either issued privately or by government) circulate and are convertible into physical gold on demand.
You've made the first phrase into a sentence, but the second is still a problem. Perhaps it should read something like:
Typically under a gold standard, the physical transport of gold becomes cumbersome for popular use, and so bank notes circulate and are convertible into physical gold on demand. Such notes, also known as demand notes or simply paper money, may be either issued privately or by government.
I've removed the original paragraph and written one on the use of paper money and certificates in a hard money environment. Stirling Newberry 02:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Also I have just noticed the talk page makes some suggestions regarding this passage which perhaps should be considered. Paul August 13:59, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
I like your version, so I changed the lead to fit yours. Feel free to fix similar things yourself, I may not be around over the next few days :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment, excellent article but a small quibble. Can we have the references changed to cite your sources format? - 03:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Edeans 04:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Filiocht 12:41, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Giano 11:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not so fast Needs more fine tuning, I think. Good article though.
    • Needs more fine tuning is hardly actionable. Please elaborate. Filiocht 08:39, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
      • Some teeny-weeny minor edits on formatting. Wasn't referring to content.
  • Support Kevin Rector 19:14, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Pet skunk[edit]

Self-nom. I nominate this article for:

  • Well-rounded coverage of skunk care.
  • Logical organization and concise, smooth-flowing prose.
  • Good use of images to illustrate points.
  • Careful citation of sources.
  • Explanation of different points of view where there is controversy.

Nathanlarson32767 01:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Support I love this. It's interesting and well-written with lots of information I didn't know previously and it kept me reading through to the end. I would maybe suggest a little bit more factual information on how skunks came to be pets, because the article is a little too focused on skunk care, but that's a minor point, and I accept that skunk care is the major issue. I would also be interested to see something about how and when the scent glands are removed, and why that has to be done i.e. something about skunk smells, because there are lots of countries that have no skunks and lots of Wikiedia readers who've never smelled one. I love the photographs too. Another point: is Skunky Delight a commercial product? If so, would it make sense to name a few other commercial products (rivals) if they exist? Slim 01:39, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article, I agree it kept my interest till the very end. Could probably stand to have someone proofread and correct minor errors. Perhaps cleanup a bit of the formatting. But thats mostly minor stuff. Alkivar 07:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. (1) TOC and headers need to be streamlined a lot (some sections are tiny) and changed ("Declawing (not recommended)" and use of links). (2) Hate to say it but it's Americocentric - I know they're native to the US but what about them being taken to other countries? (3) some images seem to cause some ugly layout problems. (4) Lead is too short. Interesting article though. violet/riga (t) 11:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) Support violet/riga (t) 09:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, following Nathanlarson32767's improvements. Object. I concur with all of violetriga's comments. The lead section needs serious expansion, images cause some layout problems, article is Americentric (if they're not kept as pets anywhere else, this needs to be noted), and some organization of sections could use some use (some are very short, making the article somewhat choppy). Also, article focuses almost entirely on caring for skunks. However, I'd like to see more comparing and contrasting them to other pets, like cats and dogs. Article does have a good deal of info however, and I found it pretty interesting. Jacob1207 21:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Skunks don't have a whole lot in common with dogs and cats[1]. It would be like comparing a monkey to one of those animals. Nathanlarson32767 18:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I have fixed the layout problems at the top. OvenFresh 01:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Content has been streamlined and layout problems fixed. Nathanlarson32767 09:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - the table setting out legality in each US state, and the list of links to the relevant state legislation, is overwhelming: the table could usefully be redone as a double column (so 25 lines, not 50) and/or the links to the state laws could be incorporated into the table, avoiding up to another 50 lines, like this:
| Arkansas || Illegal || Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Code of Regulations 15.18.
It may even be better to spin this out to a separate page (say, Legality of pet skunks in each US state, and summarise that article here. The list of other references is also extensive, which is good, but part of the art of good references is to pick out the best references. The article seems to refer to virtually any news story or web page that refers to pet skunks: were all of these used as references to write the page? Are, in fact, some just external links, or could some be removed? Finally, there are no paper references - are there none? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Right, everything listed as a reference corresponds to a footnote in the article. There is one paper reference listed there, "Comprehensive Guide to Raising a Pet Skunk." I agree the table needs work. Thanks for volunteering, Ta bu shi da yu..Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 05:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. That's a good point. I might do that myself! I like the article though. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, once the table issues are sorted out. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - links to state stautes should be in the table, not massed at the bottom. And all the images aren't tagged with a copyright template. Are the GFDL, PD, what? [[User:Neutrality|talk]] 07:09, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christmas

Hip hop music[edit]

I nominated this awhile back, and it did not succeed. The only outstanding objection was that the section on hip hip (sic) outside the US was not well-integrated enough. I have addressed this, and the content is now spread to various sections here and there. Tuf-Kat 08:57, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Support, looks good. although I would like to see a bit more wikification to the article (How can you have hip hop without a single link to MC ;). Alkivar 00:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support, I like the improvements. Do love that "hip hip" music, TK....  ;) [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 01:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Heh, he -- it's twice the hip with none of the hop. Tuf-Kat
Support, did some further wikification. I'd take it as it is, but could we also get some relevant external links? Also, maybe a list (or a link to a list) of significant magazines covering hip-hop? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:33, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Some magazine stuff added to the end, will try and scrounge up some links tomorrow. Tuf-Kat 09:30, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
External links now present. Tuf-Kat
Comment. Isn't "hip hop" not the original term for the genre? I recall it being referred to as rap only and hip hop not coming into use until the late 80's or 90's or something. It's fine to use the current common term most of the time, but the article shouldn't ignore that it wasn't always that way. - Taxman 03:11, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think there was really a chronological division in use, precisely. Rapping is an activity which is one of the four aspects of hip hop the cultural movement, and one of two basic aspects of hip hop the style of music. "Rap" and "hip hop" are often used interchangeably, but they're not the same thing -- it is probable that in the late 80s and early 90s, relatively few people knew or cared about the distinction, whereas its become much more well-known now and so people are more aware of the terminology. I'll see if I can make the lead be more clear on this. Tuf-Kat 03:25, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Ok time to school you folks. "hip-hop" is based on 4 elements: MC's / DJ's / Graffiti Artists / Breakdancers. When you hear the term "hip-hop" it refers in actuality to the culture of all 4 elements. The music is and has always been referred to as "rap". Do some research into the subject and you'll see i'm right. As points of reference in film "Scratch" for DJ history, "Style Wars" for Graf history, "The Freshest Kids" for Breakdance History, and I still havent found a really good movie with a history of the MC culture yet. This being said the category is in fact improperly named. HOWEVER, I read the title more as Hip hop (music) which should have information on both MC's and DJ's, and think that Hip hop (culture) should contain the other elements. Alkivar 06:18, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand. Do you disagree with the first paragraph of hip hop music? Or the title? Or neither? Which category is improperly named? Tuf-Kat
The title, it should be Hip-hop (music). The hyphenation is arguable, however i find its use is largely hyphenated. Alkivar 01:40, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't object too strongly to either change, but I think it's not worth the effort to change the standard now. That would make hundreds of links redirected, which would be unfortunate. I always remove the hyphen when I edit an article, just to try and keep everything the same, and I think many others do the same. I agree the hyphenation is arguable, but I tend to think it is usually not hyphenated. Tuf-Kat
  • Object. Not bad, but needs some work. 1) Being an article about music, we definitely need sound samples. 2) The "Censorship issues" section includes a "Media" section unrelated to censoring. 3) There are many vague terms and claims throughout the article, particularly when describing non-US hip hop. Especially the term "mainstream" gives me little information. If you make such claims about popularity, try to illustrate it by record sales, number of #1 hits or so. Such claims are also verifiable. I realise this is not possible to do in all cases, but it certainly can be improved. 4) The article is still a bit US-oriented. E.g. "went platinum nine times in the United States alone.", and parts on hip hop outside the US tend to start with "Outside of the United States,". Still, it's much better than before. 5) Senegalese mbalax is mentioned twice in the same way within two paragraphs. 6) I miss a section about styles influenced by hip hop. A bit is mentioned in "Alternative hip hop", but there are (and have been) dance bands with rappers, rock bands with rappers, etc. Jeronimo 08:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • 1 and 2 are addressed. 3) I have added some more objective data regarding US performers. I have long searched for a database that gives non-US chart data, but have never found such a thing. I think Billboard is an exception, and this info is not normally available to industry outsiders. 4) I don't know what's wrong with "went platinum in the United States alone" -- it's precisely accurate given that there is no source on sales data from outside the US. I have also removed some of the "outside of the United States". I don't agree that this is too US-centric -- approximately one fifth of the article specifically deals with non-American hip hop, which seems appropriate to me given that the first half of hip hop's existence was virtually entirely American and that, even now, popular recorded hip hop is mostly American in the vast majority of the world (i.e. outside of France, Germany, Tanzania, etc, American hip hop is the only kind with more than an underground fanbase); what acclaim non-American hip hop has reached has largely been in the last couple years, and thus there is little scholarship or documentation on the subject. 5) I either accidentally fixed this paragraph while doing something else, or can't find it. 6) There is no section on it, precisely, but there is abundant information about hip hop's influence on rock, metal, pop, techno, jazz and soul. I don't think a section devoted to it would be very appropriate, as these things have nothing in common and are better placed in their historical context. Tuf-Kat 18:40, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
1) & 2) are fixed; will look at the rest later. Jeronimo 08:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3) This is already better (and good enough). If you find more keep on adding it. 4) I still feel the article is slightly US-oriented (not US-centric or US-biased), but we apparently disagree here, so just ignore this. 5) "International spread" and "The 1990s". 6) I disagree. A lot of this information may be found here and there, but there needs to be a section that collects everything. There is a section "Roots of hip-hop" - why should there not be a section "influence on other music styles/genres"? I also have a new objection: 7) There is nothing section on hip hop culture, or on how hip hop has influenced (popular) culture. I'm thinking about clothing and language mostly, but there may be other things (such as the currently rather meagre "Media" section, which might be integrated). Jeronimo 12:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5 addressed. I added a section on "social impact" which contains within it stuff about fashion and slang, as well as the censorship section and a section which details hip hop's effect on other genres. Tuf-Kat 19:04, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Support, thanks for fixing my objections. One final suggestion: perhaps you could move the tiny "Media" section to the new "Social Impact" section. Jeronimo 07:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Hyacinth 00:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Government of Maryland[edit]

Self nomination. I believe that this article covers all of the major aspects of Maryland's government and goes into an appropriate amount of depth on the several topics covered. It could provide a helpful model for articles on the governments of other states (or provinces, etc). Jacob1207 01:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. If featured, then please just Maryland. --ThomasK 05:45, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you are objecting against? Please comment on the quality of Government of Maryland, if you want to nominate Maryland go right ahead, but it is of lesser quality for sure. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:57, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • I object against the featuring of the aricle Government of Maryland. There should be no goverment featured on the main page. --ThomasK 04:12, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • We're not voting on whether this article should be showcased on the main page. I guess it can be somewhat confusing, but only certain featured articles are shown on the main page (and the selection is done by others). I suggest you read What is a featured article to see exactly what it is that is to be decided here. Also, see above on this page, which says:
If you oppose a nomination, write "Object" followed by the reason for your objection. All objections must give a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed (featured articles, despite being featured, may be marked so as not to be showcased on the Main Page).
Respectufully, Jacob1207 05:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • If noone has issues with this articles comprehensitivity, I support. Well written & structured.--ZayZayEM 13:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This is about as complete as you could get. I support, with the disclaimer that I started the article and have done some additional work on it. (Jacob has done the lion's share, and deserves most of the credit.) Isomorphic 23:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tuf-Kat 03:20, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. No discussion of the state constitution and its amendments. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 03:57, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • The constitution itself is discussed in Maryland Constitution, which is linked to at several points in the article. Government of Maryland does mentions throughout the powers granted to various officials and bodies and the requirements for the offices, all of which come from the constitution (which is implied, even if not explicit in every instance). Additionally, Government of Maryland also mentions: (1) when the constitution was modified to create the Lt. Governor position; (2) when the constitution first created the Board of Public works; (3) when the constitution was amended to create the Court of Special Appeals; and (4) the several times when the constitution was amended to change the way counties function. The third item of which I just added. What other such changes can be made to improve the article? Jacob1207 05:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I have added such a section (and rewritten the intro section). Please take a look and see if this addresses your concern. Jacob1207 02:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Solid info on a non-whiz-bang topic.--Pharos 06:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Object. The lead is too short: specifically, it needs information on what makes the government of Maryland different from that of other states. At the moment, the lead essentially says "Maryland is like every other state", which is not very informative and hardly encourages people to read on. I'd suggest two possibilities: either mention some of the most notable distinguishing features, or identify a pattern/reason for the differences (e.g. Maryland's legislature has a particularly powerful role, reflecting the historical influence of the agrarian section). As an additional objection, there is no References section. Mark1 05:00, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comparing and contrasting the Maryland government with those of other states is an excellent idea. I have made numerous changes in response, and I think they improve the already comprehensive article. However, I do not think that that information is best put into the intro section. There are far too many differences to include usefully in the intro and it seems to me that any sort of statement to the effect of "the Maryland government has similarities to and differences to other state governments" is not at all useful either, due to it being completely obvious (after all, there is no Every state government in the United States article). If there is some way the intro can usefully be expanded (to include anything) without being clumsy, I am all for it. Jacob1207 16:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Concerning the references section: I don't think it is necessary to have a separate "References" section as all of the information in the article (and much, much more) can be found in the various links. The Maryland Manual is a publication put out by the MD gov't every 2 years and was the most important source for the article, which links to it. Of course, if a separate references section would add something of value, I'd be all for adding it. But I don't think it is necessary to have a "References" section just to say it's there if it's not adding anything. Jacob1207 16:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It is adding something. As noted below. - Taxman 21:18, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • You might want to start by putting something more explanatory in place of saying that the government "like the rest of the 50 states, is republican in nature". Republican redirects to the very general article Republic, so as a non-US reader, I'm left mystified. Are all the states non-monarchies (I knew that), or are they all non-Democratic (I for sure didn't know that)... ?--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 12:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support The article seems to be well-written, with lots of logically placed links, and doesn't force the reader into too much detail in any one area. Other than perhaps including ranking comparisons or such, I agree that any detailed comparison to other states' governments would be diverging too much from the topic. Just trying to compare with what I know of Virginia and several other states tells me that such comparisons would be quickly become lengthy and varied. I speculate that there are substantial differences between the governments of all 50 states. Such details are way too much information for a single state article such as this one. Bottom Line: Good writing on a subject of limited interest. Good and prompt response to fac critics and suggestions. I'd love to see the writer(s) do the same quality job on Government of Virginia. <gr> Vaoverland 10:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Object. Not enough and/or ambiguous references. It does need to list explicitly what sources were used as references and which were not. Otherwise it is ambiguous, and there may be one real reference or four, and the reader cannot be sure which one. Wikipedia:Cite sources tells how to cite external links used as references. Additionally are you saying there are no print references for this topic? I find that hard to believe. The article needs more references if possible; 3 or 4 is pretty minimal for a featured article. Whatever is the most reliable information on a topic and is used to add or confirm material in an article can be formatted as a reference. - Taxman 21:18, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have (I think) corrected the problem. I have both added many more references to the page but also reorganized that whole section to indicate which are true references and which are only links for further information. Please take a look at this and see if it addresses your concern. If not, please provide further information on what you think would improve the article in this (or any) regard. Jacob1207 15:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is great, except they are not formatted properly as per the above link. Otherwise the article looks well written, though I admit not being able to finish reading the whole thing. - Taxman 17:12, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Inchon[edit]

Self Nomination (Neutrality orginally started the page for Dannys Contest but I added much of the content). I believe the article contains a lot of information about a significant battle in the Korean War. It was refered to peer review and only two coments were made, both of which I adressed. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 20:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Support: A well written, concise account. Giano 13:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 18:23, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. (1) Needs a thorough copyedit. Check spelling (e.g. "Koreann"); some things don't match Wikipedia style conventions, e.g. "0630 hours" for "06:30"; initialisms given but never used; abbreviations not expanded, e.g. "Lt." for "Lieutenant"; mispunctuation (mostly hyphens for dashes) etc etc. (2) Under "combatants" the article lists United Nations and also United States. Wasn't the latter a member of the former? Does the list of nations in the box represent an exhaustive list of troops present? The text could explain. (3) Two weeks is not several weeks. (4) No explanation of the military background to the assault, i.e. South Korean and UN forces trapped at Pusan. (5) Why the October 1 date for the end of the battle? Does the battle of Seoul deserve its own article or do you plan to include it here? (6) There ought to be eyewitness accounts that can be quoted. (7) The lead paragraph ought to note who was involved. (8) Was Kim Il Sung really the North Korean commander in the battle? We have (or should have) a principle of naming the most junior officer who was in tactical command of all the forces in a battle. (I understand that it might be hard to work out who this was in the NKPA, but in that case you might just write "unknown" and leave it to a later researcher to find out). Gdr 15:06, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
    • I'll try to respond to some more of your criticisms later...I have more work than expected. First off, I agree having a someone below Kim Il Sung would be nice but from what I've read Sung was actively part of strategic decision making, so instead of leaving it entriely blank I added him to the list. Second, not many nations were part of the invasion (I added Canada today and mentioned its role) since the ugliest part of the war hadn't begun. Finally, the Battle of Seoul idea was considered in peer review. I posted some discussion on a split but got no feedback. I included that information in the Aftermath heading as to seperate it from the actual invasion. More discussion in the coming days (hoepefully :). [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]]
    • To Wolfman: Not so. There were four battles of Seoul in the Korean War. Here we're obviously talking about the one in September 1950 that immediately followed the battle of Inchon. To BrokenSegue: (1) I think it makes sense to split the battle of Seoul to a new page. If you feel that the two battles belong together, then the page ought to have a title that indicates the wider scope, perhaps Operation Chromite. (2) You removed the list of nations from the infobox but didn't put them anywhere else. A definitive list needs to go somewhere. (3) Someone removed the useful map showing where the landings took place and replaced it with two maps of Korea. Please restore the map of the landings (if copyright permits) and remove one of the maps of Korea. Gdr 14:41, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
      • it seems a large number of changes have occured in the last 24 hours that removed some content. I didn't remove the list of nations, Neutrality did. I'm going to put the list back in now and I'm pritty sure the image of the battle arrows is not a copyvio so I'll put that back too. As too splitting, I'm against it, I'd rather change the article to Operation Chromite. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]]
  • Support once thoroughly vetted. -Joseph (Talk) 21:30, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
  • Support, but do something about that map of Korea, because it doesn't clearly show me where Incheon is. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support.Object. It is difficult to find information on battle before and battle after. It should be added to the battlebox and to lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm going to make a campaign box which will include the war timeline and put the article into perspective. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]]
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

John Bull (locomotive)[edit]

The oldest operable steam locomotive in the world (now approaching 175 years old, it was built in 1831) is still on public display at the Smithsonian Institution. With so few examples of early 19th century railroad technology, this piece of equipment is worthy of note. (self-nom; slambo 20:05, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC))

  • Not bad. Can the lead be trimmed? Most lead sections usually aren't longer than two (or at the most) three paragraphs. Support.Johnleemk | Talk 20:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I'll shorten it a little... slambo 20:45, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC); I've removed some of the extra detail from the intro, leaving it for the article text. slambo 20:56, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor object. Quite good, but I have some problems. 1) This train is particularly noteworthy for being the oldest operable locomotive (as you wrote above here as well), yet this is not mentioned in the first paragraph. Doing so would make it immediately clear why this particular locomotive is so important. Only a slight rewrite of the lead would be needed, I think. 2) The article really only has one section (Specs being a table and Timeline being a list), so I would consider dropping the "History" caption and moving all sections up to level two. 3) More important than the previous two, please briefly explain specific terminology where used. For example, it is not at all clear what an 0-4-0 is without reading that article. You could just say "Stephenson built the locomotive originally as an 0-4-0, a locomotive with two axles and four wheels, all of which are driven" or so. Jeronimo 08:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I've tried to address your points:
  1. I've added verbage to the first paragraph to note that this locomotive is the oldest operable steam locomotive in the world and that the Camden & Amboy was the first railroad built in New Jersey.
  2. I've modified section headings as you suggested.
  3. I've added brief descriptions of specific terms throughout the article.
Is there anything else that I should update? slambo 12:03, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Support now. Jeronimo 13:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - well-written, good use of references. Sayeth 18:46, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. Though the external links used as references could stand to be formatted properly as at Wikipedia:Cite sources. done - Taxman 21:50, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I thought they were correct, but I'll recheck them. The book reference uses Template:Book reference. slambo 21:58, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC) -- Ah, I see what you mean. I'll look through my notes tonight after work and update as appropriate. slambo 22:00, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - well written, good use of pics. Would be even better with one more current one. Edeans 04:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I found and added a photo that is permissible under fair use as far as I can interpret the Smithsonian's copyright page, but I'd really like to add a photo of the locomotive as it appears in the museum today (since 1981 was over 20 years ago) that is free of fair use restrictions. slambo 13:54, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC).
      • Followed the link and agree with your interpretation of the Smithsonian's policy. I also understand and agree that a pic of the current display is also desirable. Edeans 04:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Self-nomination. I ran it past the checklist ... - David Gerard 23:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - anything to piss off the whackjobs known as the Scientology Cult. I could come up with more plausible crap to base a cult off than this.
    That's not a very loving attitude ;-p - David Gerard 13:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Now for things i'd like to see fixed:
  1. needs more images, it mentions covers and sketches, lets get some up there.
    • I may throw in the cover of Dianetics. What sketches? - David Gerard 13:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry sketches is not really the word I meant, I meant perhaps an image to illustrate the Xenu/Xemu discrepancy since its in L Ron's own handwriting. However the cover for Dianetics is a nice addition, and quite useful to correlate with the description of the whole H-bomb volcano section. Alkivar 18:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I was reluctant to put the scanned page of OT III in, even though it's arguably of encyclopaedic fair use and they haven't attempted to sue Dave Touretzky who's had it up as "academic research" for nine years, because that would be tweaking their noses really hard ... but maybe of that one word - David Gerard 12:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • I've put the scan of the word "Xenu" in - David Gerard 12:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. minimal coverage of L Ron not even a small paragraph just a 1 sentance sidenote, needs a bit more.
    • What are you thinking of that isn't covered by a link back to his name? - David Gerard 13:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not suggesting a complete bio if thats what your thinking but perhaps more than simply "L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, also wrote a film script about him." in the lead in. Alkivar 18:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I've added a paragraph on how he wrote OT III (drunk and on drugs) - David Gerard 12:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. a split between external links and references to back up the article. Alkivar 07:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • That could be difficult - the things listed do in fact serve both purposes. What links would you put in one and what in the other? - David Gerard 13:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Have separated out the reference-only ones. How's that? - David Gerard 14:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • MUCH BETTER! Alkivar 18:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'd like the implications summarized. I know that I can hit the wikilink on body thetans and stuff, but it would be nice to have a sentence or two that sketches out the broader beliefs that put this in context. My only concern is that if this hits the main page, we're going to get even more noisome editing. Geogre 15:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    I've actually invited Scientologist editors to look over this page before, but none have taken me up on the offer. Shouldn't be more contentious on the main page than GNU/Linux naming controversy ... Will see if I can find suitable consensus summaries of the implications to put in and reference - David Gerard 16:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    By 'implications' I assume you meant the point of the whole thing, i.e. that you are covered in the souls of murdered space aliens and they cause all your problems and you have to audit them off. I've summarised that much in the second paragraph of the intro - David Gerard 17:04, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support It's worth it even if we get invaded by an army of Scientology lawyers GeneralPatton 23:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, if only to prove that Wikipedia can present worthy subjects that other encyclopedias won't even mention. --Modemac 00:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but I would prefer this article not to appear on the front page, to avoid the possibility of having Wikipedia sued by Scientology. (See Scientology vs. the Internet -- it's not impossible.) Risking your own skin to fight Scientology is one thing, but risking Wikipedia is another. It's true that this is "giving in" to Scientology's threats, but in this case I think Wikipedia's financial health is paramount. --Redquark 06:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Scientologists are, of course, welcome to edit this article and add their own perspective. --Modemac 12:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow, that is extraordinarily weird, if I may say so. I'll support, even though it's really too short, because the secretive nature of the subject might make further expansion difficult and just because it's so damn interesting. Everyking 09:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Tried to expand it a bit - how Hubbard wrote it. I'm trying to think of other things to say about Xenu that are worth encyclopaedic coverage - David Gerard 12:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, considering how hard it is to write a decent NPOV article from Hubbard's ramblings, this is as close as it will get. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:52, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • The recent nomination of Thursday October Christian showed me that there are some articles where so little is known that it is not possible to get to a length appropriate for a featured article, and where expanding the article will become original research. Xenu is just long enough to qualify. I don't think "because it will annoy the scientologists" is a reason for featuring an article, though. With those caveats and qualifications, I support featured article status. Dbiv 17:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's that short! (I don't think Thursday October Christian is too short either, FWIW.) That said, I've been looking around for stuff to expand it with - David Gerard 20:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't think a mocking image is appropriately NPOV for the lead image. L. Ron's handwriting sample is priceless though, and arguably a much better image. Otherwise I would support. Seems very well done, and is long enough unless someone can find something important it doesn't cover. - Taxman 18:57, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • I put that image in because it didn't have any other image at the time, and there is no official Scientology depiction of Xenu. The grey alien theme is very common with the critics, even if it has no official basis. I may swap the two around in the article - David Gerard 20:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I buried the image to the bottom of the article and added a more NPOV image to the top of the page. Should make it appear more NPOV overall. Alkivar 03:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Might I suggest that a picture of an exploding volcano (Stromboli perhaps?) be used as the main image - it would be appropriate at least. -- ChrisO 03:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, if we can make the captions full sentences. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't see a way to do so that wouldn't be fatuous. They're really not standalone items. What would you suggest? - David Gerard 12:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, they're both full sentences now! - David Gerard 23:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Subject too esoteric to be of general interest. Mkweise 06:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid this would be a non-actionable objection, being of general interest is not a FA criteria, not to mention the fact that general interest is all in the eye of the beholder. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:02, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Objection is not actionable. And besides the quality of content is the only thing that matters to be featured, not the subject matter. - Taxman 13:48, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • According to our policy, objections must state a specific issue/issues that can be addressed and fixed. GeneralPatton 02:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It covers the subject well and has excellent supporting material. The subject itself... man, this is one odd bunch of people... Radagast 14:19, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's long enough. Filiocht 16:05, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Support. I think this article is very good, and really close to being of featured article quality, and it ought to be featured soon. But it needs some work on style and readability, particularly in the introduction. I also think it needs a little time to age. It has just recently become what looks to be pretty NPOV, but the article could use some input from a Scientologist or two, just to make doubly sure that the article is accurate and adequately explains their point of view, so that when the article is featured, it doesn't get pounced-on.[[User:COGDEN|COGDEN(talk)]] 22:13, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • That isn't really all that actionable. It's had a Scientologist contributor, User:I'm4aNPOV, who was even posting from a CoS office. He didn't stick around, though. If this is to be regarded as actionable, where would you suggest we recruit one from? Also, please state your problems with style and readability with specificity (e.g. on a section or paragraph level), so that they will be actionable. The article has been around a while; this version isn't terribly different from how it's been over the past six months, the main difference being it now has references for everything - David Gerard 22:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • User:I'm4aNPOV only appears to have made one edit, and that was to remove a link. Regarding readability, I went ahead and made some changes myself. I'm not an expert in their area, so my changes should be verified. My main remaining objection regards the mention that Hubbard was on drugs when he wrote OT III. I think this needs an explanation or some sort of apologetics from a Scientologist, because I'm sure they have a POV on this issue that isn't represented. We don't necessarily need an actual Scientologist to help out with this, but there are probably explanations out there on the web that might be included. [[User:COGDEN|COGDEN(talk)]] 01:12, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Nice edits - thank you! I'm trying to track down a better source on the letter with the quote. The quote seems to be accurate. The paragraph doesn't flow perfectly, but every source I checked on its origins says he was drugged to the gills at the time. I'm looking for a credible reference (i.e., preferably not a Usenet post) comparing the "body thetans" story to the crawling insects on the skin feeling of barbiturate withdrawal. CoS representatives have denied the drugs story on a.r.s, but the letter was brought up in court (CoS vs Armstrong) in 1984 and never actually challenged - it seems Hubbard did in fact say just that, in those words. I've posted to a.r.s asking for help on this stuff, and for a Scientologist viewpoint (which may or may not be a CoS viewpoint). User:I'm4aNPOV was quite aware of Xenu, having made some controversial edits to Scientology and discussed such matters on that talk page - David Gerard 02:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm pleased with the article as it currently stands. All my reservations have been resolved; therefore, I am changing my vote, and I hope the article gets featured. [[User:COGDEN|COGDEN(talk)]] 20:19, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, if only for one of the most humorous disclaimers ever. Almafeta 02:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not actually sure the disclaimer will survive NPOV ;-) It's a bit pointed - David Gerard 02:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Straight-faced, surely! If we're to present a NPOV we have to take the Scientologists' concerns seriously, right?  ;-) -- ChrisO 02:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I dont think I ever read the disclaimer before you mentioned it... LOL, I nearly peed myself. Alkivar 02:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've made some fairly major edits to fix some outstanding issues raised here. -- ChrisO 02:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • You've done wonders for it - David Gerard 02:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, so long as that disclaimer is kept. Fantastic. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid I can't guarantee that ... it still smells a bit POV to me. The health warning should go with the bit in which Hubbard claims it killed everyone who found it before - David Gerard 09:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Never mind, it's preserved for posterity at BJAODN... -- ChrisO 00:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I fear I've already moved the silly bit of the disclaimer to the relevant paragraph of the body text. I hope you will still consider the article up to standard ;-) - David Gerard 08:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why are the references done up so weirdly? Shouldn't there be one ==References== section per Wikipedia:Cite sources? Johnleemk | Talk 03:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Ask User:ChrisO - David Gerard 09:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • It's a bit clumsy, I admit, but it seemed a better way of doing it (and thanks to whoever hyperlinked the footnotes) than having notations like "(Miller p. 75)" next to a section of text. Is there a better way of making it user-friendly? -- ChrisO 00:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I think we need that mooted new reference syntax - specifically, automatic footnote renumbering - David Gerard 01:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Article would make an interesting contribution to the FA library. Jacob1207 16:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Something you'd never see in another encyclopaedia. And yet it's definetly up to the level. - V 23:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony Blair[edit]

Margaret Thatcher and John Major are both featured, and this is just as good or better. The only objection I can see is that he is still Prime Minister, but there are enough people reading and updating the article that it catches up with events as they happen (for example, the resignation of David Blunkett yesterday). I did some light copyediting a while ago, but it is not my article by any means. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Support But under "Tony Blair's Second Cabinet, June 2001–present" appears still David Blunkett. He should be removed.--ThomasK 12:09, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Somewhat confusingly, the convention is that the main cabinet list shows the original cabinet members, and the section below ("Changes") records changes to the original list. The final entry to "Changes" records Blunkett's resignation and replacement by Charles Clarke. For example, Robin Cook is also no longer Leader of the House of Commons. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • SupportIain 12:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (while I declare that I have made major contributions to the article). It often suffers from vandalism, and needs a good copyedit from time to time because people tend to add little bits of information into it, but it's a good comprehensive article with bags of references and has managed to keep NPOV. It's certainly several orders of magnitude better than John Major which is already featured. Dbiv 12:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Fantastic article, but the organisation is really quite wacky. IMO, it flow a lot easier if the article actually went chronologically. Also, the copyright status of a few of the images needs to be determined. Ambi 14:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Erm, other than "Private life" and "Satirical caricature", doesn't it flow chronologically? I'll ask the image contributors about status. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually the images could do with a check. There are no less than three which depict him arm-in-arm with a President of the USA, which is a bit POV. The two with Bush are good images, though. The image currently by the 'Private Life' section has a POV caption on its page and looks like it has been elongated. I'll look out for some better ones, especially from earlier in his career. Dbiv 14:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I just can't see a good reason for screwing with the chronology and having most of the standard biographical information buried deep in the article. Ambi 05:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • OK - I've moved "private life" up to the first section, which means that "health" falls nicely at the end of the "2001-present" section. Better? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: Giano 14:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Filiocht 15:08, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Edeans 03:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Article seems biased in favour of Blair. There ought to be something about Alistair Campbell; about Peter Mandelson; about Blair's friendship with Silvio Berlusconi; about Blair's failure to get Britain to join the Euro; more about the feud with Brown and how Blair has found it difficult to maintain his supporters in the cabinet (cf. Mandelson, Blunkett, etc); about Blair's failure to complete the reform of the House of Lords. Etc. Gdr 04:10, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
    • Mmm - re perception of bias - are you saying that it is not critical enough? What other brickbats do you think should be thrown? On your specific points: (i) yes, Campbell certainly should be mentioned; (ii) Mandelson's ministerial career is mentioned: what else should be there?; (iii) why Berlusconi in particular?; (iv) well, we have not joined the euro, but I'm not sure that it a "failure" yet, as they have not really been trying: when the answer to the referendum is "no", that will be a failure; (v) what sort of details would you like to see about the 'feud with Brown': and it's not Tony's fault that his best friends keep tripping over their own feet of clay; (vi) again, I'm not sure that Tony has "failed" to complete reform, simply because it has not been a priority (obviously they have not carried it through quite in the way that they said they would, but then an article on any politician would be twice as long if it mentioned each U-turn and undelivered promise.) Basically, I am a little unsure what you think the article should say (in an NPOV way) about most of your specific objections. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • The article should be neither supportive nor critical of Blair: it should be neutral. However, many people are critical of Blair and the article should reflect their position. (iii) An example of how Blair has tried to circumvent the Franco-German axis in the EU by cultivating the support of Spain, Italy etc (iv) Blair wanted to join the Euro but politically it's proved impossible for him to do so: the issue shows an interesting conflict between his principles and his populism. (v) The conflict with Brown shows something about the quality of Blair's support within the Labour party: his strongest supporters are often young and inexperienced and haven't made good ministerial material: this isn't Blair's fault but it is a significiant issue he has had to work with. (vi) Not a big deal. Gdr 15:29, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
        • Sorry - by "not critical enough" I meant "does not include enough NPOV summaries of viewpoints of people critical of Blair". (iii) Has he tried to circumvent the Fanco-German axis? Canny. (iv) Lots of people want to join the euro, but politics is the art of the possible. (v) David Blunkett, "young and inexperienced"?! -- ALoan (Talk) 16:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: A great article of its kind. - Trick 23:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support with caveat. It is not sufficiently reflected that Gordon Brown is the most powerful Chancellor in history, that the Treasury has dominated domestic policy (with some exceptions like security/defence and agriculture) since 1997, and that Brown was the driving force behind major policy decisions such as Bank of England independence, minimum wage, caution on the euro. There is a clear foreign/domestic split which (even if you don't accept it as an implicit or explicit part of the Granita deal) needs to be reflected in the article. Arguably a Foreign/domestic policy structure would be more useful than a first term/second term one, given the continuity between the two. Rd232 15:28, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've tried to mention the power of Gordon Brown in the article - ref. to him chairing the Economic Policy Committee of the Cabinet, which no Chancellor has ever done before, and to Blair's having regretted it. The problem is that this fits more naturally into Brown's biography. I will have a try at putting it in. The second term has a domestic/international split but there's been a tendency for the two to cross over when it comes to the domestic effect of Iraq. Foreign policy mattered less in the first term. Dbiv 18:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'd also be tempted add something about Blair's habit of schmoozing millionaires (which Blunkett seems to have caught) - see Murdoch, Berlusconi, Ecclestone, Hindujas, Lord Sainsbury, etc. But it might be hard to make that look NPOV. :-) Rd232 15:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support He does have something on his lip in this, no? I thought only bad guys have facial hair.--ZayZayEM 11:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Great Article (anonymous comment by

I Want To Hold Your Hand[edit]

Every time I nominate this, it goes down because only one or two people support, even though there aren't any objections. Here's hoping the third time's the charm for this self-nom. Johnleemk | Talk 11:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Object for now. I'd like to see more critical response and info on awards the song won, if any. The article says that the song did great in sales, but not much about what the music critics of the time were saying (just Bob Dylan). Did it get nominated for a grammy? Why or why not? There also isn't much about the song itself (two short paragraphs), and if possible, I'd like to see more there. Spangineer 13:54, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I couldn't find any opinions on why the song didn't win a Grammy, though. Johnleemk | Talk 18:02, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the updates, it looks alot better. I took the liberty to combine and rearrange the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the section about the song itself to improve the flow, and with your changes and my minor change, I will support. Spangineer 18:00, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Evil MonkeyTalk 08:14, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good stuff, except of course I worry that fair use images will be a problem someday. Also, did you really consult all of those references? Where were all of those for some of the other Beatles song articles that still have little to none? - Taxman 02:52, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, I took bits and pieces of information from here and there. The reason for this is that literature on this song (or literature that at least has a paragraph or two on it) is much easier to locate than others. The bulk of material was still gathered from my usual references, though. Johnleemk | Talk 03:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, though shouldn't it be "I Want to Hold Your Hand" (lower-case 't')? Tuf-Kat 04:26, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Brilliant. By which I mean, support. Fascinating, and I'm not even the biggest Beatles fan you'll ever meet (though I do love the Beatles)! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, one of the best single-song articles I've seen. Filiocht 08:39, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, love it. Fascinating reading. The only thing I'd say is I'd like to see a few inline references, especially when you quote someone. For example, when you quote Marsha Albert, the fan (what a great story that is), you say she said this "later," but don't say when or to whom. It would be good to see in brackets what the source is, or else as part of the text (Marsha later told xxx). But regardless, I support this article. Slim 11:17, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Another great Beatles article from Johnleemk. --Szyslak 11:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Giano 11:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Planetary nebula[edit]

Planetary nebulae are my area of professional expertise, and I've done a lot of work to expand this article. I believe it now contains a lot of detailed information, without being incomprehensible or unnecessarily technical, and so I think it is worthy of being considered for featured status. Worldtraveller 10:54, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Object for now. A great read but the lead needs to be longer and summarise more of the article content. I'd prefer the references to be un-numbered and in alphabetical order, but this is a quibble, not an objection. Filiocht 11:12, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, I've expanded the lead section to a more useful size. On the references, if they were un-numbered, would you prefer to omit numbers in the text where the references are cited? Worldtraveller 11:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • No need, they're fine as they are. As a strict amateur, I really like this article, by the way. Filiocht 12:48, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a great article. I don't know enough about the subject to verify the material specifically, but your references are great. Good job. - Taxman 16:58, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Like Taxman I'm in no position to verify most of the article, but I think it's a well-written piece. Just one little thing. Could you place references like this [1]? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 20:48, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks like a worthy article. I would suggest that the fact that they have nothing to do with planets be included in the opening section. Jacob1207 21:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I see no flaws in the material, excellent detail. Would also recommend the reference alteration suggested by User:MacGyverMagic above, as the current version can easily be mistaken for unlabelled external links - I know I did so. -- Michael Warren | Talk 22:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Maybe "Observations" section could be expanded? GeneralPatton 22:50, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Altered the references as suggested, and added mention of the reason for the name to the lead section. Happy to expand "Observations", do you have any specific extra detail in mind that you'd like to see? Worldtraveller 23:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I'd love a more detailed story how our understanding of them evolved, you could take a look at this 1911 Britannica article [2] GeneralPatton 00:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Have added a couple of paras. I can add a lot more but need to dig up some references so can't do it straight away.
  • weak object. could you please do something about the image attributions. half are listed as PD but with no source. I believe all FAC should have 100% valid images. If you cant find source feel free to substitute some other image, i'm sure theres enough public domain material. After this change I will support. Alkivar 23:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • All image source information now added. Worldtraveller 00:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Evil Monkey 04:09, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Great article! -Vsmith 04:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Jeronimo 08:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Reads well. Added few more ilinks to lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Like some of the others have said, im personally not that familier with Planetary nebula's, but a top featured article should make sense to even the most average of lay persons - and I certainly fit into that category! IMHO the article is stunningly well presented - perhaps it has been blessed with a topic that is so beautiful - but regardless this article certainly maximises NASA's photo bank, and some well written sections certainly helps too! CGorman 21:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great astro article . -Joseph (Talk) 17:51, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
  • Support, although I'd like to see the word nova used. Is a planetary nebula formed by a nova, or is that something else? This point should be clarified. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 00:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Very much support - almost missed my chance to support an excellent astronomy article. There are lots more to do :) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Niagara Falls[edit]

Fine article, on a natural wonder which has been considered "touristy" for so long that it's easy to forget what a spectacular place it is. After a (re)visit this year and some research, I added material (mostly to the history sections), and JamesT delivered some good off-copyright pix from the Canadian archives. For uniformity I elected to capitalize the "Falls" whenever it clearly refers to "Niagara Falls" proper. I believe this is now "feature" quality.Sfahey 02:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Minor object. It's pretty good right now, but I'm missing a section about the Falls in popular culture. There's several films that feature the falls, and David Copperfield can't just be left out. If some references to those are added, I'm happy to support this one. [[User:MacGyverMagic|

Mgm|(talk)]] 09:45, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, I'll add David Copperfield myself, once I've tracked down some details. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 20:40, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • done,srf
  • Minor object. This looks pretty good, but the lead section needs to be expanded to give a better summary of the article. See Wikipedia:Lead section Jeronimo 08:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • done,srf
Support. Jeronimo 07:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • support, a very nicely written and paced article. informative.
  • Support. Mentions all key aspects of the falls in ordered way. Superm401 00:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I had some reservations about the Origns section, but user Pollinator fixed that (while I was thinking about working on it) and did a good job. Would like a bit more bibliographic info in the reference section, but that's a minor quibble. Great article. -Vsmith 01:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well done. - Taxman 18:36, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support; covers everything clearly and succinctly. Radagast 14:08, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work. [[User:COGDEN|COGDEN(talk)]] 22:16, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

British House of Commons[edit]

-- Emsworth 01:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object for now - an excellent start, and I want to support, but there are lots of details that could and should be added, such as: (i) introduction of radio and television broadcasting of proceedings; (ii) times and dates when the House usually sits (and emergency sessions); (iii) State Opening (Black Rod, the debates on the Queen's Speech); (iv) debating tactics and procedures such as points of order and programme motions (the "guillotine"); (v) the recent modernisation of procedures (e.g. the end of the hat for points of order during votes and changes in sitting times); (vi) other (in)famous disruptions of proceedings such as Michael Heseltine wielding the mace and the absailing lesbians; (vii) recent proposals in increase security (e.g. barriers to prevent strangers throwing items into the chamber); (viii) geography of the chamber (e.g., why the chamber has rows of seats down the sides (it used to meet in a chapel); where the Clerks sit; that and why there are lines on the carpet). Also, some sections seem long enough to deserve sub-sections (particularly history). The page is also rather long already (38k), and adding this sort of detail will expand it even more: it may be worth moving the longer sections, such as history, to their own "main articles" and summarising the main articles here. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree that there is a lot to be written about the House of Commons. However, I feel that one must be more selective: only the more important details need to be included. The days on which the House sits, emergency sessions, the tradition of Black Rod knocking on the door, points of order, the guillotine, modernisation of procedure, and the geography of the chamber are all important, and information on these has been added/expanded. I do not feel, however, that security arrangements and the like warrant additional discussion (but I will add Heseltine's famous mace wielding incident). Radio and television information, as well as information on debates on the Address-in-Reply to the Queen's Speech, relate to Parliament as a whole, and would fit in the Parliament article rather than this article. As to subsections, I feel that they would cause the Table of Contents to become overwhelmingly large. As to splitting information, I do not feel that it is necessary here; the present 40k size is not too large, especially for a topic that is this important. Thus, I hope that I have taken the suggestions of objections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8, and that I have addressed objections 1, 6, and 7. -- Emsworth 17:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • There is indeed a lot to be written: hence my suggestion of expansion and spawning of subsidiary articles. However, I'm glad you have taken in many of my points. I still think it is worth mentioning the intrusion of the broadcast media, if only because most people will never actually visit the Houses of Parliament but may have seen or heard parts of debates being broadcast: I think television is really a House of Commons rather than a Parliament issue because (if I remember correctly) the timetable and details differ between the Houses - the Lords were televised first as a guineapig; it may also be worth mentioning new Parliamentary practices, such as "doughnutting" the speaker. My mention of debating tactics was really directed at the rather ineffective and often boisterous style of Parliamentary debate, with an atmosphere that can resemble a rather poor school or univerisity debating society (cheap points scored through points of order; ineffectual debate airing the issues but getting little done). The new proposed security arrangements are topical, given recent disruptions that were not effectively prevented by the screens in the Strangers' Gallery; I still can't see mention of Tarzan's mace wielding. In addition to the abolition of the hat, the "I spy strangers" tactic went in 1998 too. However, if you are still strongly opposed to my remaining objections then I will beg leave withdraw. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I think that I have addressed all, except the objection on present security arrangements, which I do not agree with. -- Emsworth 20:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Thanks. Support now. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I think the current composition of the House should be moved to a separate article (perhaps included in another existing one). The information about the current composition is just about as relevant as any composition of the house in history, and these aren't listed either. The article does a great job of telling a general, encyclopaedic, story; this part doesn't belong in there IMO. Jeronimo 13:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The current composition section only shows at a glance what the present status of the parties is. It does not list all the Members of the House. I feel that this information is certainly relevant, and does not require a separate article. -- Emsworth 17:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Can we get a colour picture of the House? Johnleemk | Talk 13:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support-- minor objections above noted but they are all easily correctable. 172 19:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, a little bit more polishing can be done, but overall outstanding. -- user:zanimum

Medal of Honor[edit]

This is a comprehensive article about the US military's Medal of Honor. I have contributed to it, but so have many others. It is a partial self-nom. It went through peer-review a month or so ago. Ydorb 21:39, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support Extensive research and lists have made the article very informative and it is a popular topic, given the prestige of the U.S. Medal of Honor Husnock 22Nov04
  • Object. 1) Insufficient lead section, should be a summary of the article. See Wikipedia:Lead section. 2) The first section is confusing, I don't know what the name of this medal is, or what is should be. 3) The "Marine Corps and Coast Guard" stands out a bit, and might be merged with Evolution of awarding criteria. 4) It seems better to combine the two sections regarding the official statutes, viz. "Privileges to awardees" and "Authority". This would also make the latter section a bit larger. 5) The links in the statistics "By conflict" should link to the actual conflict, rather than country. Perhaps a table would be nice to present this information, but it is OK as it is now. 6) The list of recipients seems rather random, and some soldier do not even have a reason listed. I would suggest to spin off the list to a "Recipients of the Medal of Honor" article (which probably should eventually list all of them). Extremly remarkable recipients (such as the only woman) should be mentioned in the "Statistics" section. 7) The quotation should probably be moved to WikiQuote. 8) The WP:MOS suggests a different style for web references; please consider using it. In addition, a book reference would be nice, or a further reading if no book reference was used. 9) The image of the medals says the medals are in the public domain, but this is conterindicated by the article (if I understand it correctly), so perhaps the image usage note should be adapted. Jeronimo 22:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
All these points have been addressed in the article in response to your useful comments. Ydorb 20:40, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Jeronimo 13:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, none of my other objections are critical. Object. The lead section needs expansion. If it mentions the most recent awards in detail, it probably should also mention when the first awards were made. The sentence in Congressional Medal of Honor starting "Most recently, Congress passed legislation mandating the award..." lacks any sort of context. Are these meant to be more recent awards than the "most recent" 1993 awards? While mentioning the unknown soldier awards, it might be worth mentioning the reciprocal award of the Victoria Cross to the American unknown soldier. I would prefer the statistics to be presented in a table (but that's just me) and call me sexist but the "by sex" list seems a bit redundant, given that the only female recipient is mentioned straight afterwards. I don't mind including a list of remarkable/famous recipients in the article but I think the current list could be ruthlessly pruned. I don't know why the computer game is included in the See also section. Geoff/Gsl 00:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • There should be at least some disambiguation for the computer game which is found at Medal of Honor (computer game)--Enceladus 02:19, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • When I made the comment there was disambiguation text at the top of the article, which is sensible and I have no problem with. But I can't see why someone interested in the Medal of Honor medal should "also see" the Medal of Honor computer game. Geoff/Gsl 05:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. No information about Medal of Honor impostors (see [3] [4]) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:44, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: that is just too arcane a sidesubject to have. This is an article on the "medal of honor" itself. Some comments on those actually awarded it are appropriate, but no need to devote any time to those who have not been awarded it. jguk 23:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • If you feel it's too arcane to be included in the article, then at least they should be a companion article with a summary and wikilink at the main one. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:34, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • I left dicussion info about MOH Imposters. There is information in the article about federal crimes regarding MOH imposters and the penalities for wearing it. Putting up a list of MOH imposters, however, has some problems with the idea. See Talk:Medal of Honor for more info -Husnock 26 Nov 04
  • Support GeneralPatton 18:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support--Evil Monkey 22:07, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Reginald Maudling[edit]

Self-nom. I surprised myself when rewriting this article that he came out as a more interesting character than I had expected. A 'nearly man' of British politics. Dbiv 01:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral My specific objections have ben largely addressed by a lengthy re-write and a large improvement in organisation. I don't know enough about the subject to be able to support it, though - it could have factual errors or omissions which I am in no position to analysie. Psychobabble 02:14, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)Object. Far from brilliant prose (sorry to sound like a broken record) and a few things don't make sense to an ousider. What does "read law" mean? What was the conservative party's extensive rethink? Where did he stand in the latter movement? To an outsider this seems to be missing a fair bit. Psychobabble 01:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As for "Far from brilliant prose" this is insubstantial and I don't know how you suggest it should be changed. The term 'reading' for studying at a university is a standard expression which you really ought to know. The Conservative Party's rethink was into party policy after the loss of the 1945 election which is a far more general topic than this one article; I've started to cover it in the Conservative Research Department article. Maudling's position in the Conservative Party was much too subtle to be classified as 'Left' or 'Right'; as the article explains he was to the right of Edward Heath when defeated by Heath for the Conservative leadership in 1965. Dbiv 01:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll give eg's then. "Ministerial office in the 1950s" is a long, meandering one sentence paragraph and "experience of preparing economic policy" doesn't sound right to me. "Maudling's defeat was a surprise although feeling in the country and in most newspapers was in Heath's favour." "Maudling's tendency to reassuring calmness" and the first paragraph under "scandal" all read badly. It needs a close copyedit imo, much of the writing doesn't flow well at all. Psychobabble 02:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and as for 'reading' a subject, I dispute it being a common term outside Britain. I've been studying law for 3 years in Australia and I've never heard the term and Australia is, obviously, much more similar to Britain than the rest of the world.Psychobabble 05:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Let me take these points one by one. 1) "Ministerial office in the 1950s" has three sentences, not one. 2) Maudling did have "experience of preparing economic policy" in the CRD in the late 1940s - what does "doesn't sound right to me" mean? 3) I've redrafted some of the paras you 'don't think flow well' although this is again an insubstantial objection. 4) It is acceptable to use the variety of English relevant to the context of the article according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling. See sample google searches at [5], changing 'history' for any other subject. Dbiv 14:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I also dispute the term "reading" is widely enough used as to be acceptable. I've certainly never heard it in the US. If most of the English speaking world would not understand a phrase then it does not matter whether it is British or American English or whatever, it should be exchanged for a more well known term. Or put the more well known in parenthesis. This is also the case for a number of other phrases in that section. What does "called" mean in that context. What is a barrister? It should be noted inline, not forcing the reader to read the linked article. If there are that many in one paragraph, I'm assuming there are many more throughout the article. Clarity is more important than using British colloquialisms. - Taxman 18:04, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Undecided: Sorry to but into the argument, but I think as a potted political biography this is OK. I would like to support it. However, I think it needs a copy edit, perhaps Dbiv you have stared at it for too long, my grammar isn't good enough to do it, but I do see some of the points Psychobabble is making. The facts and dates are all there, it just needs a little more information and explanation. Reading for studying is particularly British, but could stay if about an Englishman (see votes for FA John Dee). The final section 'Death' at one and a half lines is far too short, he must have done something else besides die, dug his garden, walked to the off licence; and some less than romantic, or catholic souls may not know the date of Valentine's Day. Yes I know it says it at the top, bit is this significant? Was he a great lover? This could be the umph this page need!Giano 18:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) This is much better now, but still needs more information on the man, what made him tick etc. Giano 17:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think I have addressed these concerns with the latest rewrite. The date of Reggie Maudling's death is in the first line for anyone who doesn't know what day St Valentine's day is. So far as is known Reggie Maudling was not a notably good lover (although he did have four children). Dbiv 14:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: I think is a pretty good article and it's turned out much better than I ever thought when I started it. Come on, give it chance. james_anatidae 01:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Have attempted to improve the written style of this article. However, reverts by DBiv have ensured that while the facts are there the English and vocabulary remain basic to say the least. 13:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have done no reverts. We evidently disagree on what constitutes the best prose and written style. I found your edits flowed rather badly and lacked some necessary punctuation; they also tended to introduce new concepts: for example, did Macmillan retain Maudling in 1957 because he 'recognised the potential of a rising star'? Or did Butler persuade Macmillan to retain his ally? I don't know, which is why the article did not speculate. I'm afraid I also thought your edits included a number of clichés. Dbiv 15:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Good article. But it would be better to recast the Bar/barrister bit so it can be understood by an international audience. jguk 15:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Done. Dbiv 15:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support--ZayZayEM 07:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support assuming those sources were really used to come up with the material in the article and or fact check it. Not terribly interesting to me, but that is just because it falls entirely out of my areas of preference. It seems like a well written article, if anything it is a little scant on his personal life. We don't need much since that is not why he is famous, but what about his personal interests or similar. Object. No references. Was all this material made up out of thin air? - Taxman 04:01, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
It does have references. What do you think the autobiography and biography are? Dbiv 12:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Listed as they were they could have just as easily been referring the reader to biographies about him, but never actually looked at by editors of the page. - Taxman 18:08, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
I confess to not having seen Michael Gillard's 1980 book about Poulson. I requested it at the British Library but it had gone missing. However I know of its contents and they have been added to in Lewis Baston's book which has the benefit of having some recently disclosed extra documents. Dbiv 21:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, have added some more, and also some more interesting points. Dbiv 15:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bernard Williams[edit]

(Self-nomination) This is about Sir Bernard Williams, the British moral philosopher, who died last year. Slim 22:35, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • It doesn't bode well that I had to go in and add his full name and date of birth; that should be taken care of long before a featured nomination. Also, shrink the picture. But this isn't an objection. Everyking 00:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry about that Everyking. We were actually editing at the same time. I had the dates lower down in the article, but I've gone back and have re-written the intro and also added a few more details. Slim 00:52, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: the lead section is inadequate, giving no idea of the content of his philosophy (we don't need a deep explanation, but some pigeon-holes would be nice). Some of the writing is overly Mills and Boon (He was a lean, attractive, energetic man, his deep sun tan shown off to its best advantage by the baggy white suits he often wore). Mark1 02:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Mark. I'll rewrite the lead. As for the Mills and Boon bits, they are all absolutely true. :-) Slim 04:03, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Mark, I have rewritten the lead, added a bit more detail, and a few more links. That sentence (lean and attractive) is still there though, because I have grown somewhat attached to it.  :-) Slim 05:50, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Comments – This is well-written and referenced. I like the large photo. But it needs some tuning.
    1. The caption doesn't work for me: "He was a lean, attractive, energetic man, his deep sun tan shown off to its best advantage by the baggy white suits he often wore." It echoes the main text. Readers can judge for themselves whether he was lean and attractive. The reference to white suits jars with the photo of a dark suit.
    2. This sentence doesn't work for me: " He abhorred scientific and evolutionary reductionism, once calling reductionists 'the ones I really do dislike,' because, he said, they are morally unimaginative." "Dislike" is so much milder than "abhor."
    3. Need to say which war in "missing war service by only a couple of years".
    4. This statement appears to need more support: "There is no doubting the enormous influence of his approach." A quote from someone else should do the job.
    5. "He died on June 10, 2003 while …" needs a comma after "2003".
    6. This needs to be fixed: "{South America|South American]]"
    7. I don't know what this means: "congratulatory first".
    8. It should be put in the "Philosophers" category. Maurreen 07:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've added the cat, and fixed some spelling+grammar. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:56, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
I tried to strike out all my comments, but I'm doing something wrong. Maurreen 08:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Contains POV language. Don't know enough to fix it. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:56, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support Properly fixed and well-referenced. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 21:57, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Agree with MGM on the POV language. Take the first sentence for example, " arguably the most erudite of his age." or the caption under the first image "He was a lean, attractive, energetic man, his deep sun tan shown off to its best advantage by the baggy white suits he often wore." Also, we have no references (only external links). None of the images has source information, and the Williams and Nietzsche pictures are probably copyrighted (because of the addition to the Nietzsche picture). Support. Jeronimo 12:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To address the objections:
(1) I re-wrote the lead again, getting rid of "arguably the most erudite of his age" and used "arguably the most influential of his age," which I believe no moral philosopher would argue with. It's hard to find a quote for this, because it's taken as read by people who've written about him. (It's like trying to find a quote saying Einstein was clever.) Some philosophers would say he was THE most influential; others would say he was ONE of the most influential. No one would say he was not one of the most influential.
Found a quote from The Times to use instead.
(2) Maurreen, I think I dealt with all your points. Used "rejected" instead of "abhorred." It was the Second World War. Explained congratulatory first. Fixed the typos. Someone else added the categories and missing comma in the date. Got rid of deep sun tan and baggy white suits, and that he was attractive. Got rid of "enormous influence of his approach," as I couldn't find a specific quote for it. Added a quote about his being a feminist.
(3) Mark and Jeronimo, I think this version is less Mills and Boon-eque.
(4) Jeronimo, I don't know what you mean by references. I've supplied a fairly comprehensive bibliography. Do you mean actual footnotes throughout the text? Footnote are not normally used in philosophy entries in encyclopedias so far as I know. It would take me weeks to footnote everything in this article. I have a copy of the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy here (calls itself a dictionary, but is what we normally think of an encyclopedia), and there are no footnotes in entries, though they do supply a bibliography. Where I quote someone, however, I do supply a reference.
References added
(5) Jeronimo, the Williams photograph has been released for public use; and the copyright on the Kant and Nietzsche photographs has expired. Because you mentioned being concerned about the writing on the Nietzsche photo, I used instead the photo of him from his own Wikipedia entry, which has no writing on it.
Copyright information added to image pages
(6) Also, some of you didn't like the large photograph of Williams. Someone else reduced it, so it's now quite a bit smaller.
(7) Mgm, you said it contains POV language but you don't know enough to fix it. I've taken out some of the POV language. If you still have concerns, do you have specific objections that I can address?

Thank you, everyone, for the input, which is much appreciated. Slim 19:30, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

To address the most recent objections:

  • Object (again, same general idea as before). Some of the writing is still too gushing, particularly the paragraph that starts When he left for America; assuming there's a source for this material, quoting the source would be fine. Also, I don't know what His time as a fighter pilot did not harm his image with members of the opposite sex means: is the suggestion that he pulled Shirley Williams because he was in the RAF? Mark1 08:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Mark, yes, I was saying that his time as a fighter pilot served him well with women, as American philosopher Martha Nussbaum and several others have noted, but I've deleted it, rather than sourcing it, as it's probably unencyclopedic. The thing about Williams is that, perhaps unusually for an academic, he was extremely attractive to many women: physically, intellectually and politically. It's something that is noted by almost all women who have written about him. When women found out he had also been a fighter pilot, it was like the icing on the cake. I've also deleted that he was charismatic and energetic; that he spent a lot of his time at garden parties looking just over people's shoulders to see if there was anyone more stimulating around; and that his evening lectures often found him surrounded by undergraduates sitting at his feet. I believe/hope that gets rid of all the unencylopedic observations. Slim 02:23, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Mark, on second thoughts, I've deleted the whole "When he left for America" paragraph.
  • done Object. 1) Please format the external links used as references according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Cite sources. You created the references section, is it fair to say you have consulted all of those for material in the article? Also, I've never seen inline citations use the title of the work, only the primary author's last name. Is using the work standard? Is the bibliography section simply a list of his works? It might help to make it clearer to state that explicitly. It appears you have done great work referencing the article, thank you, keep doing that. 2) The lead section is too long. It should be 4 paragraphs max, and no one or two sentence paragraphs. - Taxman 20:54, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Taxman, yes I did consult everything in the "references" section for material in the article. I will make the citations consistent so that only the name of the work is cited if it's by Williams; otherwise I will list only author's name. The reason I did it that way is that I haven't worked out how to provide footnotes (as links) in Wikipedia articles. The thing about Wikipedia: Cite sources is that it suggests following the American Psychological Association style. I don't know why that style would be chosen over any other academic one. Yes, the bibliography is a list of his works: I have made that clearer by calling it "List of works by Bernard Williams". I have also reduced the lead section to four paragraphs, by merging the short ones. Slim 02:38, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • The only thing I referred you to Wikipedia: Cite sources for is for the external links. Those currently have no proper formatting except a description of the link. Also, still many one and two sentence paragraphs throughout and one in the intro. I'm not sure why that is so prevalent in Wikipedia, but in any graded paper, it would be considered a serious deficit, so it certainly doesn't qualify as great writing. - Taxman 15:47, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Where the inline refs are to works by Williams himself, it is indeed standard to cite only the titles inline. Where they're to other writers, it should be the author's last name. (In other words, common sense is the overriding principle.) These inline refs are overloaded, they have too much info. They should always be as simple as is consistent with being unambiguous. Therefore, please trim off the publication info, which is conveniently available in the references + bibliography sections at the foot of the page. Format refs like this: (Moral Luck) for a work by Williams, (Foot) for a work by Philippa Foot (assuming there is only one). Put in page numbers if desired, also on a common sense principle (=are they useful?).--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 15:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I have cited the work by title and date when it is Williams, and by author's surname and date when it is someone else; and I got rid of the extra publication info. Slim 03:26, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, fine. I've mentioned a couple of formatting details on your Talk page.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 18:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Mark1 06:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*There's a POV issue in the final paragraph, with the claim that nobody else discussed self-interest in moral philosophy honestly since Aristotle, which needs to be either reworded (a lot) or sourced in a neutral way, not given as opinion. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. I'll support this excellent article as soon as that's taken care of.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 18:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • I've changed that to a role neglected by Western philosophy since Aristotle. Mark1 03:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Mark, but I have doubts, I think the problem may be bigger. Surely the role of self-interest does come prominently into moral philosophy in the Western tradition ever since Aristotle? It seems to me that the burden of Slim's discussion in the article has been that it's new, or unusual, that Williams gives self-interest a positive role. (In moral action, not just the kind of societal automatic positive role that self-interest has in Mandeville, or else it wouldn't be very new.) I assumed that the phrase "not honestly explored since Aristotle" referred back to this negative/positive distinction, and also took sides, claiming that Williams is honest about self-interest while his predecessors weren't. It's only the POV taking sides that I want out of there, not the distinction itself. Only the bath water, not the baby. Taking it out orphans the reference to Christianity, too. Unless I've misunderstood, always a possibility. Perhaps Slim could weigh in?--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 15:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Heroic work by SlimVirgin to address all outstanding objections. Jayjg 18:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Bishonen, you're right that I was trying to convey that few philosophers before Williams had explored the positive aspect of self-interest in moral action. Perhaps I should re-write it to say "positive role of . . " and then say "thoroughly explored" instead of honestly. Slim 23:00, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
I've changed it to: "By illuminating the positive and, Williams argued, vital role of self-interest in moral action, a role largely neglected by Western philosophy since Aristotle . . . " Does that do it? Bishonen, I like your latest merging of paragraphs, except the one where he's quoted on the brain drain, which I'd like have as a stand-alone.
Thank you to everyone for all the effort you're putting into this article. You've definitely improved it. Slim 23:07, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Taxman, I've formatted the links the way I understood the Wikipedia page to recommend. Thanks for sending that to me. Let me know if I've done them correctly. I included the date I retrieved the webpage only on two occasions: one for what appears to be a personal webpage, as it may not be stable; and secondly, for an undated Williams article on the Royal Institute of Philosophy's site. Otherwise, they are stable websites (newspapers and magazines) and the articles are dated, so I didn't bother there with the dates I retrieved them. Bishonen and Mark, I've deleted the "vital" role of self-interest in the last paragraph, as it was too wordy, so it now reads: "By illuminating the positive role of self-interest in moral action, a role largely neglected by Western philosophy since Aristotle . . . " Bishonen, I split the first paragraph into two again, as I felt it looked and read better as two. Let me know if these changes are okay. Slim 08:13, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Well, that still amounts to claiming that self-interest does play a positive role in moral action, and BW illuminates it while the other guys neglect it. How would you feel about something like "By giving self-interest a vital positive role in moral action, a role largely denied by Western philosophy since" etc? There has to be more elegant phrasing out there, but you probably see what I mean.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishånen (tåk)]] 16:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wonder whether that's getting too bogged down. You could also argue that "by giving self-interest a positive role . . ." is POV, and really it should be "in attempting to give . . " I'll have another look at it, but I'm inclined to leave it as it is. Also, no moral philosopher (that I can think of) would argue that self-interest doesn't play a positive role to some degree. Williams illuminated that role, expanded on it, didn't shirk from its consequences etc. That is the difference between him and other moral philosophers. Slim 16:29, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Bishonen, I couldn't think of how to re-word it accurately without opening a can of worms, so I added "what he saw as the positive role of". The sentence now reads: "By illuminating what he saw as the positive role of self-interest in moral action, a role largely neglected by Western philosophy since Aristotle, at least in part because of the influence of Christianity, there is no doubt that Bernard Williams became one of the leading English-language philosophers of his time." What do you think? Slim 18:50, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • It's fine, NPOV-wise, so I consider my objection fixed. Seems to me Christianity comes as a bit of a surprise (and weighs down the sentence) here at the conclusion, not having gotten a look in before, but I'm not objecting on the basis of a detail like that. Great article, support.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 21:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, Bishonen. I agree with you about the Christianity part weighing down the sentence. I may get rid of it. Slim 21:24, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
I did get rid of it, Bishonen. Slim 04:16, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Copying the following from users' talk pages:

A comment also: the sentence "The utilitarian philosopher's main rival is the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant." is not entirely clear and seems a pretty heavy POV unless cited to a specific source. Also, is that meant to be in the caption or as a part of the next paragraph in that section? Currently it is neither. - Taxman 03:54, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Hi again Taxman. The sentence "The utilitarian philosopher's main rival is the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant" is the introductory sentence (a one-sentence paragraph) of the Kant section. I don't believe it's POV. There are basically two views regarding how to judge the moral value of an act: (1) utilitarian, which means consequentialist i.e. you judge the value of an act according to its consequences and (2) deontological, which means you judge the value of an act in some way intrinsically. See Deontology. A deontologist would say (broadly speaking) that, if an act X is good, then it continues to be good even if it produces dreadful consequences. The most important and influential deontologist is Kant. I'm fairly certain no moral philosopher would dispute that. Slim 04:16, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
It is a POV because it is an opinion. It does not matter that almost no moral philosopher would dispute it, that is beside the point. It is not a fact, partly just because 'main rival' is an ambiguous term. But you could easily make it NPOV in this case, by citing the comment to a source or a source that backs up your claim that "no moral philosopher would dispute" it. For ex, saying MSU is the main rival of UofM is an opinion, but mentioning Lloyd Carr, coach of UofM said the same thing is a fact, if he did say it. Please review the NPOV policy and think about what is opinion and what is fact. Just because many or even every person asked believes one thing is so, does not make it so. - Taxman 04:21, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Taxman, you are driving a hard bargain.  :-) Saying Kant is the utilitarian's main rival is like saying Oxford is Cambridge's main rival. It's a true proposition. I will try to find a quote. Regarding your fact/opinion distinction, in some cases, everyone's saying X does make X true e.g. the example above: if everyone believes Oxford is Cambridge's main rival, then it is true that Oxford is Cambridge's main rival, because their status and relationship is based upon the beliefs of others regarding that status and relationship. Similarly, if all moral philosophers believe Kant is the main rival to utilitarianism, then he is, as a matter of definition. But I take your point nonetheless.
Yes, your other changes were fine, thank you. Slim 04:35, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
I found a quote in the Boston Review obit from Martha Nussbaum, who is a philosopher. She calls Kantianism and utilitarianism "those two dominant theories."
So that sentence now reads: "The main rival of utiilitarianism is the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Williams' work throughout the 1970s and 1980s (Morality: An Introduction to Ethics in 1972; Problems of the Self in 1973; Utilitarianism: For and Against with J.J.C. Smart, also in 1973; Moral Luck in 1981; Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy in 1985) outlined the basis of his attacks on the twin pillars of utilitarianism and Kantianism. "As a group these works denounced the trivial and evasive way," wrote Martha Nussbaum, "in which moral philosophy was being practiced in England under the aegis of those two dominant theories." [6] Slim 05:11, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Taxman, I don't agree with your recent changes, and I'm beginning to lose track of what it is you want. (1) The list of 70s and 80s books was part of the text, not an inline reference, so it's not appropriate to create a footnote, (2) It was discussed above that I'd be using inline references rather than footnotes, so it seems odd now to create just the one solitary footnote, (3) It's not appropriate to say "Nussbaum, 2003" about a newspaper article, because that implies it's an academic book or paper. Why not just leave the reference so the reader can click on it? (4) Why have the Williams texts as a footnote but not the Nussbaum text? You are introducing inconsistencies, in my view. (5) Please don't lengthen any of the paragraphs any further. We obviously disagree about whether short or long paragraphs are better, but I feel Bishonen has edited it well, and I re-split only two of the paragraphs in the interests of clarity, emphasis and convention. Slim 15:43, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

History of the Yosemite area[edit]

Self-nom. I've exhausted several sources to write this and have been really scrapping the bottom of the barrel to find more, which is a good indicator that I should stop. Other than some more images (which I'm working on), what else needs to be done to bring this article to FA standard? --mav

  • I haven't had time read it all, but I'd like to see the article started with an explanation on where the area in question actually is before you shoot off into its history. I'll try to give it a closer later. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 21:50, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Geo-ref added. Images too. --mav 12:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This article is a detailed article, while Yosemite National Park is the general one. I don't think this article needs background. It's quite good, actually. --- hike395 08:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! --mav 12:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If I had to chose one thing that bothers me about the article, I would say referring to non-Native-Americans as "white". It might not be accurate (are you sure that no black people were involved at all?) and also I find it a little weird. I don't have a concrete substitute that is flawless, though (Europeans? Americans? non-Native-Americans?) -- hike395 08:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
'Non-Native-Americans' might be best, since being born in America doesn't a European make. :) Euro-American would also work. --mav 12:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Impressive work as always, mav. - Fredrik | talk 18:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Great work. Support when two issues are taken care of: 1) The one and two sentence paragraphs are eliminated. They show areas that are incomplete ideas and are not good prose. 2) The writing is pretty stilted throughout and doesn't flow very well. That is a consequence of being pretty well researched it seems, but it does need to flow a fair amount better from one idea to the next in many parts. - Taxman 20:57, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support--ZayZayEM 01:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Laal language[edit]

Self-nomination, but I will nonetheless blow my own horn a bit and point out that, to the best of my knowledge, this is the most detailed treatment of Laal in the English language anywhere, and - one advantage of dealing with "obscure" languages - I believe I have checked every primary source in existence. - Mustafaa 00:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Very impressive. Support, and my personal congratulations on such good work. Everyking 00:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Very reluctantly object, although I also give my personal congratulations for the excellent work. My concerns are more about style than substance - this is a superb article on the sort of topic that Wikipedia is inclined to overlook. However, it could really do with a better lead section, and it'd be nice if it were more accessible to non-linguists. It'd also be nice to see information on any preservation efforts (or if not, note that there aren't any) and any legal status. Also, is it a written language, and if so, what script? Ambi 01:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • That objection might be answered by a adding a short paragraph to the lead summarizing the fact that it's unclassified, and maybe another on anything about system of writing (either by natives or linguists) and legal status (none, I presume, but we should mention that). Ambi, is there anything else you think should be in the lead? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:20, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • As far as I can tell, no preservation efforts have been launched; I've updated the article to reflect the absence of schools which leads me to suspect that, as well as a bit more on the lead paragraph. - Mustafaa 02:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • The lead section is now superb - nice work! I've struck out three of my five objections above. :) Ambi 02:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • And I've added a little "legal status" section. Now the fifth objection might be a bit harder to answer... :) - Mustafaa 03:04, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • I've crossed out my objections, anyway - consider this a big support. The work you've done on the introductory few sections has had the effect of making it a lot more readable to non-linguists. It'd be nice if some of the later sections could receive a little bit of similar treatment, but I understand the difficulties considering the content - it's certainly not worth holding up FA status for this excellent article over. Ambi 03:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. How deliciously complex! My suspicion is also that the scarcity and small number of fricatives in the language puts it in rare company. -- Smerdis of Tlön 02:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: I do wonder if the possibility of its being a linguistic relic has been getting more support or less as time has gone on. Geogre 02:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I think more, but surprisingly few authors have commented on it, considering its status. Then again, that applies to a lot of Central African languages; I don't think there's even a reconstruction of Proto-Adamawa-Ubangi yet, for instance, and no one seems to have followed up on Kujarge or Jalaa yet. - Mustafaa 03:04, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:15, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. We want more like this! [[User:Dbachmann|dab (T) ]] 11:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, terrifically professional. Also very interesting, especially the grammar (to me), but I must protest against having neither explanation nor bluelink for the concept singulative, it's fairly arcane. Also I find the information on numbers tantalizing. Numbers "include" one, two and four? Well.. yeah, they probably would, don't they include "three"?--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 14:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • There are probably a lot more numbers (unlike in the Andamanese languages!), but unfortunately no others are given in the works published; I've updated it to explain that. Also added an article on singulative. - Mustafaa 13:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Great, thanks. I was trying in vain to imagine a culture that would need to talk about four things but not three things.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 20:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Very good material and I will support after two things: 1) There are so many small, one sentence sections and paragraphs that it makes the article very distracting and hard to read. It is already on a difficult subject, digging into the linguistics, so this issue doesn't help. Basically the article doesn't flow well. It is possible to combine some bits and work to make it flow better? 2) Bibliography is such an ambiguous term, that can just be used to list the works on a given topic. Since you have used them for material, do you mind calling the section references? - Taxman 16:31, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • 1) will take some thought; I can see your point, but on the other hand, I can also see an argument that they make navigation through the contents page easier. But 2) is actually intended to list every known work on the language, and if there are any out there that I've missed, I'd love for them to be added at some stage; so to that extent, I kind of think the term "bibliography" might be appropriate. - Mustafaa 13:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • For 1, the issue is also just that one sentence paragraphs are bad writing style. If someone navigates to a section from the toc and see only one sentence, would they not be dissapointed? 2) Listing all the works on a subject is a good goal, but somehow you need to specify what sources you actually used in the writing of the article. The featured article criteria suggest a 'References' section for that. That is the ambiguity I was referring to. If is important to know which works were actually used by the author for material or checking facts. Otherwise, with only a list of works about a subject, an article has no references. - Taxman 13:52, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
        • For 1: Not me! I would just love it if any of the works referenced had had even a one-sentence chapter on interrogatives, or numbers... But other may disagree. For 2), I see your point, so I've changed the title. - Mustafaa 14:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • I don't agree with Taxman, I think it would be a lot harder to navigate in this article if the one-sentence sections and paragraphs were joined together. They're separate in content, and if they were combined, the reader would need to do the extra job of distinguishing them. It seems to me that for grammatical description, this is good writing style. There's a reason grammar books have this kind of layout. Now, if the paragraphs could be made longer by putting more info into each of them, that would be great, but my understanding is that Mustafaa has already scraped the barrel.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 20:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • For some, if there really isn't more information available, I'll buy it. But for others, especially one sentence paragraphs in larger sections, the information is already there, it just needs to be merged together with good style. If this is all the information available on the topic, it still can be made to flow a bit better in parts without losing anything. For example many paragraphs are very choppy, and not knowing the subject, it is hard for me to improve them. As an aside, what is the chance you can get an ogg encoded file with a sample of the language for us to hear? :) (Certainly not objecting on that basis!) - Taxman 00:32, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
              • Hmmm. I've merged together the headings under "Speaker"; I'm not sure I can see ways to do something similar for the 1-sentence grammar headings. Do you have any suggestions? As for the soundfile - I wish! Give me a nice travel grant and I'll go get one, though... ;) - Mustafaa 00:54, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • For the sections that are very small but need to be distinct, there might be nothing better if no more information can be found. The only ones left are the one sentence paragraph at the end of 'Nouns' (can nothing more be said about that to merge it in with the para above or expand it?) and the one just below that in the personal pronouns section. Otherwise see what you can do to improve the flow within paragraphs and I'll be happy. Sorry, don't mean to be a pest, I just like to see great articles. - Taxman 03:55, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
                  • I think my recent edits may take the article towards addressing these issues... - Mustafaa 13:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Mustafaa has been doing very good work on endangered languages, and this one is superb. Like dab says: we want more like this! mark 18:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Can someone drop word on my talk page as to how I can ensure all those IPA characters are on my computer/browser. About half of them show up as blank squares.--ZayZayEM 01:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I really think this article should have an additional image (a picture of one of the villages or so) and a sound sample, but I realise these would probably be hard to come given the obscurity of the language. Therefore I will not object, but remain neutral. Jeronimo 07:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm impressed! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: Fascinating. BanyanTree 17:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doctor Who[edit]

Not exactly a self-nomination, though I've been one of a regular group of people who have done extensive work on the Doctor Who set of pages over the last half year or so. -khaosworks 02:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are anons allowed to nominate? If so, then I'm putting this marvellously comprehensive article forward. -- 17:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Well I've suggested that Khaosworks pushes for this to be a FAC, and I think it should be too. Support. violet/riga (t) 17:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: could perhaps do with some more references - there must be more available violet/riga (t) 23:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Reply: I could put in more references, but none that directly contributed to the information above. The bulk of the references are in the sub-page History of Doctor Who. -khaosworks 03:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe some of the fansites in the external links section need to be cleaned out, but the article seems otherwise well-researched, comprehensive and understandable, even to a non-fan like me. Support. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 21:56, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellent work, gives a great overview of the program without ever sinking to the level of fan trivia. Support for sure. Shane King 03:00, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor object. The "Viewership" section needs a copyedit, and the removal of some convoluted/injokey material. It'd be nice to see it get a good copyedit all over - it's not quite brilliant prose, although it is nearly there. Ambi 08:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I've attempted a once over copyedit. If you could point to something specific that should be changed, that'd be great. -khaosworks 12:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It's fine work, I'm happy to support. Everyking 10:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Nice article. Support. -- Arwel 14:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Chrism 12:38, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Wonderfully thorough. —αγδεε(τ) 09:00, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
  • Support --ZayZayEM 04:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Duran Duran[edit]

I just stumbled on this — it seemed so good (and surprisingly chockful of references) that I was surprised it's not a featured article yet. Johnleemk | Talk 09:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. violet/riga (t) 13:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Tuf-Kat 17:36, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but it needs more consistent year linking - I see four years listed in the lead with links, and then several linked later in the article. Other than that, looks good. Spangineer 00:00, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, that's four years listed in the lead without links. Spangineer 00:02, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Fixed. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 02:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. How can you have an article about a group without a single picture of them other than one blurry photograph of one member? I realize that copyright obstacles may make this difficult, but it still is a glaring hole... —Steven G. Johnson 00:50, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've been trying for six months to get a picture with appropriate permissions -- it's turning out to be very difficult! (Pictures of this band are apparently still worth money to the photographers.) I have one promising lead to write to yet. Can press kit/press release photos be used, and if so, how should they be tagged? [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 02:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • IANAL, but a fair use claim on some photo sounds reasonable in this case. Ambi 03:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • All right, several fair use press kit photos and a magazine cover included; I'll keep hunting for fully GFDL pictures though. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 10:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support when it gets a picture of the whole band, preferably from about 1984. This is worthy as an example to others taking a lead on popular music-related articles as to the standard to aim at. Dbiv 00:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yep, that's a good'un. Dbiv 20:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor objection. A very substantial rewrite has annulled all my previous objections, the structure is truly fantastic now, the 90s section is nicely NPOV, there is no sentence in brackets which shouldn't be and my other minor quibbles are gone. Well done. My only remaining request is some information on bands which Duran Duran have listed as influences and a link to what I'm guessing is a new page containing bands influenced by the band. And the fair use on some of the pictures might need to be looked at by people who know more about this stuff than I do. Overall, very nice work. Object. I'm beginning to see how articles that have glaring examples of bad writing in them (like Celtic tiger) get featured. This has glaring examples of bad writing. There's a sentence with the phrase "needless to say" twice in it, a large number of sentences enclosed in brackets which should be either taken out or made into proper sentences, a few misplaced phrases (such as the one referencing NME, and their "very controversial"... early release of a video) and some POV writing (in the Nineties section only, the rest is refreshingly good). And can we source the "famous" quote about So Red the Rose? Also I think the structure could use a re-working, the heading dividers under Nineties and Eighties are good, but not inclusive of all the text under the heading. Putting year dates, even if they are approximate, on the events under the headings in the heading itself would be a very good idea. Otherwise things like mentioning that someone got married just seem like non-sequiters. It's mostly good, but it really needs a polish. Given the number of supports this has got, maybe I'm just being too picky, but I though featured articles were meant to be brilliant prose. Psychobabble 08:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Sadly, brilliant prose seems to have been disposed of. I often wish we had retained that name. Filiocht 10:44, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've been working to build this towards FA candidacy, but knew it wasn't quite ready for prime-time yet; still trying to weave together several different contributors' works (including lots of trivia about marriages and pop rivals). I've tried to address your concerns, but I'm not sure what to do about the NME Top 100 albums phrase -- it's not chronological, but it seems worth noting, and it's much more about the Rio album than about the year. Do you suggest deleting it, or moving it down to the 2000s section, or what? And what is the objection to "very controversial"? It was definitely a tempest in a teapot, but there were articles about it in the LA Times, Rolling Stone, and more. If it's just the "very", consider it gone. I'd be really happy for someone else to come give the article a good copyedit; after a while one becomes blind to one's own mistakes, and I don't care whether the brilliant prose is mine or yours! [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 10:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I've polished the whole thing up a bit -- can you please re-read and let me know if your concerns have been addressed?
  • Should the lengthy list of "musicians influenced" be pared down, prosified, or moved to another page? [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 10:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I think they should be moved unless it's possible to really turn them into prose. Johnleemk | Talk 11:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Moved to talk page; will work in a paragraph on some of the more important bands mentioned here. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 06:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support--ZayZayEM 03:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis[edit]

Not a self-nom - I just stumbled across this, and it looks remarkably complete, meeting all the FAC criteria that I can see. Ambi 04:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Suport Interesting subject Martyman 05:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor object. This looks rather good, but the "Reaction" section is a bit poor, as it lists only a single reaction, and no source is mentioned for the reaction. Also, several links in the External links section are already outdated, as is often the case with newssites. These should be cleaned up (there is currently a lot of duplication in the links as well, so it seems unnecessary to have so many). Jeronimo 07:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The article is very nice. It's hard not to be impressed by the development of this article in the 2 days following the first publishing of the discovery. The following is not actionable, so not an objection, but I don't know how wise it is to feature an article about such a recent and controversial discovery before it has been given proper peer review etc. Regrettably, my knowledge in the field is limited so I don't have anything to add about the article contents. — David Remahl 08:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. this is an article to be proud of. I had read about the discovery in the news, and I thought I would insert a short note on the matter on WP, and lo and behold, a full-fledged article was in place already. That it is a new discocery is duly noted in the intro. The taxonomy seems a little too definite, the possibility of a classification as a subspecies, H. erectus floresiensis could be noted more prominently. dab 12:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: It sounds like the objections and concerns above wouldn't be very difficult to fix, but I know absolutely nothing about the topic outside of this article, so it would be good if anyone with a bit of knowledge about such things could take a shot. Ambi 12:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. GeneralPatton 18:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I weeded out a couple of dead ext. news links & added another Loom blog link to reaction or controversial work. -Vsmith 01:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Suport Fantastic article on a new discovery --ZayZayEM 07:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article. Andre (talk) 22:33, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Modernist poetry in English[edit]

My first ever (anon) edit was creating this page. Recently, Ive expanded it and others have chipped in (long way of saying self-nom). I think it's a reasonable overview of a complex subject. Filiocht 12:34, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, has everything, some of Wikipedia's best work indeed. The entire credit for this elegant article should go where it belongs, to Filiocht. (Disclosure: I did some minor copyediting.)--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 15:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Jeronimo 18:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (I did author a short paragraph.) Geogre 14:23, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: A beautifully written page on a very difficult, varied and exhaustive subject Giano 17:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, as always. I think Filiocht deserves a special award for his amazing ability to come up with articles like this on even on the most challenging subjects. Ambi 03:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but basically I just write about stuff I'm interested in and have been living with for the last 35 years or so. Filiocht 08:43, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Lovely page. Goes past "overview" into some depth, which is great. Good job! [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 22:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow great work, had everything I was expecting to see, pictures, references, information on the impact, development and legacy. My only nit is that the lead section is not all that well structured for someone not already familiar with the subject. The first paragraph spends more time telling us what Imagists are than telling us what modernism is. The first paragraph of the section 'Modernist poetry' seems to do a much better job of telling what modernism is. Can you refocus the first paragraph to ease us into the subject? Support, after this one nit is fixed. - Taxman 04:20, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Better now? Filiocht 08:34, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Well it is a little non-standard and the sentence structure of that first paragraph is awfully complicated (It's all one also), and doesn't ease the reader in, but it does explain the topic. The rest of the article is excellent, so I won't object on that. - Taxman 15:39, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
I've split that paragraph into three sentences to try to clarify. I can't see a way of working the article title in any earlier than the 2nd para, unfortunately. Filiocht 15:56, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, better, but can you find simpler terms for "versification" and a simpler way of expressing the idea in the third sentence? Specifically, what do you mean by "dislocation of the 'I'"? Especially the dislocation part. There are still multiple clauses in that sentence, which is fine for later in an article, but a lead section, especially the first paragraph, needs a gentler introduction to the material. I'm assuming it is clearer than day to you, but to someone not familiar with the subject it still takes some significant deciphering. - Taxman 20:31, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
I have, somewhat reluctantly, further simplified this paragraph. Hope it's OK now. There is a limit to the degree to which these concepts can be simplified, just as there is in physics or medicine, say. Filiocht 08:53, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry you don't like it, I think it is much better. Hopefully someone else will weigh in. - Taxman 14:10, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Supply and demand[edit]

It's big it has pictures, what else does it needs? Just kidding, it seems a great article, surprises me it's not featured already.--Alexandre Van de Sande 16:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Abstain. The content seems ok, but the article needs much more ilinks (wikifying and such). Shouldn't external links and references be separated? I will change my vote when I have more time to carefuly read the entire article - those are very important concepts in the economics and deserve a very good article. As a side note, note that supply is a redirect to this article, but demand deoesn't even mention it (perhaps disambig or rediect is needed here?), also ilinks to those terms needs to be created/fixed from various economics-related articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:50, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I have wikified a lot of topics throughout. Are there any more that you think would be useful to wikify? The separate supply and demand articles, especially the demand article are so bad they need to be rewritten. That of course does not affect this article. - Taxman 19:42, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • I also wikified some links, they look better now. I will wait a little more though, I need to think a little more about wheter this article is complete.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I flagged the difference between partial and general equilbrium models in the header, this seems a fairly good explanation of partial equilbrium supply and demand. Psychobabble 01:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The problem with this is that it makes the intro significantly more difficult to understand for the layperson. I'm not sure the extra accuracy is worth that cost. - Taxman 19:42, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • This looks pretty good, but could rewrite at least the first sentence of the lead section? It is currently rather difficult to understand for the layman. Terms like microeconomic, Marshallian and equilibrium should be brief like explained (f.e. Marshallian could be something like: "conceived by the important economist Alfred Marshall). Jeronimo 19:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, that's my fault. I'll se what I can do. Psychobabble

Great topic, good explaination! Mfecane 04:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)