Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2005

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 1968[edit]

Self-nom. A somewhat obscure topic, but an important one to Canadian history. It has been through peer review and all concerns mentioned there have been addressed. - SimonP 23:53, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, I like this article, it's comprehensive. Phoenix2 01:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This article just goes to show that even an obscure topic can have a thoroughly developed article if one takes enough time to write it. An excellent example of what Wikipedia can be. Ben Babcock 05:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work. Phils 12:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good, just make the external links a bit more visible. Amazing work. DrippingInk 15:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article. An important event in Canadian history (no matter how obscure), well explained. --Anderal 02:51, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support:Seems to cover the event well, in an interesting way. Giano | talk 28 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Support -- Cyberjunkie TALK 28 June 2005 12:36 (UTC)
  • Support. I liked on peer review and I like it now. --Scimitar 28 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)

Hubble Space Telescope[edit]

The thought of trying to analyse under-exposed STIS spectra still gives me the horrors, but apart from that, I like the Hubble Space Telescope. This article was previously featured, then demoted. I've worked on getting it back to featurable, with help from peer review, and I think it's now time to give it a run past FAC. I realise it's very long (50kb); thoughts on whether it needs to be split most welcome. Worldtraveller 11:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, Yes, it's lengthy but it is comprehensive and has lots of relevant images. As far as I can tell it's impossible to split this up without mangling the brilliant prose (summaries would - intentional or not - leave out important details). - Mgm|(talk) 17:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The References seem to be partly broken for me; some of the links don't work, and the numbers in the text do not match those in the Reference section, which makes them useless if the document is printed. Once this is fixed, I will support (yes, I have thoroughly read the article; Worldtraveller pointed me to it some time ago, and I was about to suggest he nominate it here anyway). Phils 18:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Support. Phils 29 June 2005 19:30 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment - I checked all the links and they all seem to work for me. As for the numbers in the text matching the refs, this is a bit of a tricky one to fix because I've quoted several times from a couple of my references. I can make all the numbers match but then it won't update automatically if things are switched around; or I can remove the numbers from the refs section - then there's no disparity between the superscripts and the reference numbers, but it's still no good for a printed article. Any ideas on how to improve this?
  • Support, long but comprehensive article. One of the best complete summaries of the telescope. Phoenix2 20:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. As I wrote in PR, I'd support it a week ago. One note: you still have room to add several nice images without cluttering the text. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is an amazingly complete and well-organized article, however, I think the lead paragraph needs a bit of work in that there's no defninition -- we assert that the telescope is important without actually stating what it is (eg. something like "[The HST is] the only permanent orbiting telescope ever put into service and . . . "). Assuming this is fixed, I would support FA status. Jgm 04:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Adjusted the lead section, hope I've addressed this now. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Support as per Jgm. However, section 8.3's header should probably be changed from a question to a statement and I agree with Jgm that the introduction needs to be clearer on what the telescope is. Ben Babcock 05:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed the section title as suggested. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but only because of references. The references section should be split off the notes section, and the inline links, for instance [1] should be converted into Template:Ref and Template:Note. Until this is done, I can't support (though the content is great!) - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)#
  • Have to say I'm not sure I agree with making inline external links into refs and notes, as there would be one more click between the reader and the external link. What would the advantages be? Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Whilst I think the article previously had too large a section on future space telescopes, as noted on peer review, now that the whole section has been removed some important information is now missing. For example:
Space telescopes are still essential for observing wavelengths which are absorbed in the atmosphere. In particular, Hubble has been increasingly used for observations of the near-ultraviolet wavelength range, for which no new telescopes are currently planned.
If information about Hubble's current usage due to it's strengths over current and proposed land-based and space telescopes were included I'd be happy to support. Other than that it's a great article, though I think the Conception, design and aims section could easily spawn a daughter article and be trimmed. CheekyMonkey 10:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've added a bit explaining more about Hubble's unique advantages in the section about the final serving mission, hope that covers everything you think it should. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
You say "its successor telescope will not be launched until possibly several years after Hubble's demise". I presume you mean successor as in the next telescope to perform observations of near-ultraviolet wavelengths and not as in the successor to the Hubble (i.e. the James Webb Telescope which the original statement in the future space telescopes section seemed to suggest wouldn't perfom observations at this wavelength). Can you please clarify? CheekyMonkey 29 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)
  • Comment: As noted this article was once featured, and was demoted. Of note is the Wikipedia:Former featured articles page, a concise listing of formerly featured articles, and a page worth noting in regards to the trejectory a FA can take. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 00:53, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but please remove the external link references and replace them with footnote references. - Cedars 29 June 2005 02:21 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! I'm not sure, though, about converting inline external links to footnotes - it would mean readers have to click twice to reach the external link rather than just once, and I can't see what advantage it brings. Will be glad to convert it if it's generally seen as desirable though. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • SupportI can't think there is a lot more to say on this subject about which I formerly knew nothing. I'm not too sure about the current epidemic for footnote everywhere! Giano | talk 29 June 2005 12:24 (UTC)

The Giver[edit]

Self-nom (this is the article I hack upon when my insomnia starts biting me). It has been up for FA twice before, once nominated by me and once by SocratesJedi. Anon edits have snipped away the POV bits mentioned the last time. It is now more thoroughly footnoted and referenced than many FAs, and it includes material hard to find elsewhere on the Web (thanks to things like "newspapers"). Anville 06:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Conditional support, there are a mix of rererence styles used throughout the article, please adjust them so they're all using the same system and the numbers in the text match the notes.--nixie 06:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All citations are now done using footnotes instead of inline hyperlinks. Anville 18:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A well written article on an interesting topic. Just one thing I would like to see addressed. The plot summary is rather dry visually. This may have to do with the lack of links, but I think it could be improved. See The Brothers Karamazov for an example of how this could possibly be changed. Also, on the same note, some of the sections are rather long and dull as well. This is often a difficult thing for literature articles, but maybe some pictures could be added? Anyways, these are minor quibbles and I still support whether the article is changed or not. --Omni gamer 06:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I gather in reading this that it is geared towards the middle-school age level, like 12 or so? I don't think that's made sufficiently clear, a mention in the intro or something like that would be nice. Also I'd like to see a little more detail about the controversy. How strong is the content to which some of these parents are objecting? That's not a vote, by the way, but I'd lean towards support if those things were addressed. Everyking 07:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • To amend that last part, upon reading more of the article I think I understand the controversy, but maybe it should be made a little more clear. Everyking 07:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A very well-written article. Some pictures would be nice, but this is a literary article, so that's less of a possibility; with that in mind, I think it's definately featured-article status. Almafeta 16:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • <Jun-Dai 17:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)> The opening section should contain information on the relevance of the topic. What impact has The Giver had on society, and why should anyone care about it? Is this book widely read? Did it spark a literary revolution? or a revolution in the US or any other educational system? Did it cause riots? Is it still selling a good number of copies after 12 years, or has it mostly been forgotten? I'm not saying that the book has to have been revolutionary to deserve an article or get FA status, but it should at least provide some scope in the opening passage with regards to the book's significance. In fact, I would cut down the synopsizing in the first paragraph, since the first section after that is the plot synopsis. Additionally, the plot summary should be shorter. We don't need a long overview of the plot in an encyclopedia.
    Just briefly: notice that the opening paragraph in The Adventures of Tintin starts with a description of how popular the series is (200 million books, 50 languages), followed by a description of the whole series in under 50 words, followed by what the series is known for. The Brothers Karamazov also starts by explaining the book's relevance. It also described the book in less than 50 words in the opening section, mostly focusing on relevance. The Country Wife also mostly discusses relevance in the opening section. The Giver, on the other hand, doesn't mention anything external to the book and its author in the opening section.
    To continue: the article as a whole suffers from a similar problem: it is mostly focussed on the internals of the book and its relevance to the author. The "history and critical reception" needs to be broken up. The critical response doesn't really need to be in the same section as discussions on classroom use of the book. The "inspirations and adaptations" section is especially choppy in a fairly choppy article. Anything that seems as much like a list as that section does should be done with bullet points or rephrased to flow better. Additionally, the fact that imdb listed the Giver as a possible movie is not encyclopedic material, and this especially includes details about that listing ("Bridges himself is, at present, the only credited cast member to be listed.").
    Additionally, the fact that a small town decided to pull the book from 8th grade reading lists is pretty minor as controversy goes, and really doesn't deserve one of the longest paragraphs in the History/Criticism section. General trimming and restructuring is needed overall. Lack of concision is the most critical problem. All of the FAs on books are more concise, even though each of them is more well-known, and had a longer time to develop a history and have impact on society. The Giver should probably be one of the shorter FAs for a book. </Jun-Dai>
    Those should be longer, then. This one should not be shorter. Everyking 20:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Aw, James! You didn't say anything like that when you supported The Country Wife as "an example of literary cruft at its finest"! Bishonen | talk 20:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Refer to Peer Review. I endorse Jun-Dai's acute points about relevance and internal/external analysis. Also, the page is unhelpfully structured, a section with lesson plans is totally redundant (Wikipedia is not a how-to guide) and there's some quite surprising POV in it. I was nonplussed to find the passage "On the other hand, the current fashion in postmodern literary criticism of applying "serious" methods to any and every work in sight, thereby producing verbiage impenetrable to the outsider..." in a page nominated here, and looked for evidence of recent vandalism in the History: but not at all, it's been there since March. Unfortunately I wasn't able to access the (rather incomplete) online reference cited for it, which was to an article by Chip Morningstar entitled "How To Deconstruct Almost Anything" (no context or time of writing or retrieval supplied), as the site was down--I don't know whether temporarily or permanently. But whatever the cite says, there's no excuse for this kind of aggressive (and tangential!) POV in an FA. This is just one example, I'm going to look at the article and not least the links more carefully, hoping to come up with specific advice, but I can see right now that it's not ready for FAC. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
More: I believe there's a strong connection between the lack of external/societal context and the weak structure. Such a context is exactly what could give a master plan for the page, and avoid the impression of random order. There's good stuff here, if it were better organized and contextualized. For instance, the themes section needs context (with inline references) showing that not only the book, but the ways of reading it, come out of a particular time and place.
Now I've been able to access the Morningstar essay, and I have no quarrel with its quality, but I'd change "tangential" for "utterly irrelevant": what it's doing here is a mystery. The paragraph starting "The prolonged and arduous journey" is also irrelevant, with an "oh, that reminds me" effect.
It's very teasing to have a spoiler warning, plus references to the mystery and ambiguity of the book's ending in nearly every section, and yet never be told what the mystery ending is. The boy and the baby either die or don't die at the end, that's all I'm getting--is that all there is?
References seem good on the whole, but technically, I have trouble getting my mind round the way the footnotes work--not sure they do, in fact. Also, see here for how to format online references. I've done one example ("Award-winning book frequent target in schools") to demonstrate. Also reverse authors' names to surname-first name for alphabetizing and make a separate alphabetical references list, please, as well as the notes list. I know it takes extra space, but the reader needs it for orientation. Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 28 June 2005 12:43 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace[edit]

A third nomination. This still looks good to me. I have re-read, and I hope the objections to the two previous nominations (here and here) are addressed. Still mostly User:Giano's work. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Changed one of the archive links above so they point to the two separate nominations. - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is very good. The writing's excellent, it's comprehensive and interesting, and it's nicely illustrated. A couple of points: I'd like to see inline citations or more footnotes, as I see there's only one, and it's always good to see some sources as you're reading the text. I'd also like to see some mention of Diana's death and the crowds that gathered outside the Palace, with the tabloids stirring up rumors saying people were about to storm the walls. The mood was certainly ugly at one point, and I think that may have been a unique event in the Palace's history. I'd also like to see the red links deleted, as they make the page look untidy. But these are not objections, just suggestions. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very happy to see that a plan has been added since last nomination (I remember being told that it couldn't be provided due to "national security" or somesuch before). Could possibly do with information about the permanent staff. Morwen - Talk 13:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The plan I have drawn is basic in the extreme a few rooms on one floor, most of which are open to the public. No up-to-date more detailed plan, i.e., one showing guest bedrooms, offices and private rooms etc is available. Giano | talk 16:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written, informative article. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article. Ben Babcock 03:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well written. I'll add a spoken file to it soon. Craigy (talk) 04:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, a comprehensive and interesting read even though I have no clue what a spendthrift is. Could you add the external links that source the single father incidents in the footnotes or reference sections and maybe split website and books (in the reference) in the process? (Don't forget to add the time they were retrieved.) - Mgm|(talk) 09:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Lots of good information. Rentastrawberry 16:09, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Although clarification for the sentence However, it is not universally admired, and was voted the fourth ugliest building in London in March 2005. is needed. Who voted, what kind of poll was it, and perhaps provide a source for the Palace's ranking. Phils 18:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The article was elegant before, like all Giano's work, and it still is. Actually I liked it better before, when it had normal (=lower-case) spelling of words like king and queen used as common nouns (i. e. not as titles). I don't want to spend the best years of my life embroiled in wiki spelling wars, but a sentence like "the new King was rather less taken with the ornate palace than his late brother" looks simply odd to me. (The Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta are on my side.) Bishonen | talk 14:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Contains an image with an unacceptable copyright, Image:Buckthroneroom.jpg. Ideally we'd like to see images created by wikipedians, but we are not showing the best we have to offer by featuring something with an image that is about to be deleted. Otherwise this article does a great job of featuring photographs taken by editors... Gmaxwell 02:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Image has been removed. Giano | talk 28 June 2005 10:43 (UTC)
  • Support: Well-written and informative. However, I second SlimVirgin's suggestions about citations; I'd like to see more footnotes. Cyberjunkie TALK 28 June 2005 12:32 (UTC)
  • Regarding the footnotes: I and "an other" are looking at this, the problem is quite what is the best way to achieve it, most facts on the palace are easily checked, where I have thrown in an oft repeated story for interest's sake i.e. Eleanor Roosevelt in the Blitz and the Sheik barbecuing in his bedroom, I think it best to state instantly in the text that this is just part of the palace's folklore so there is no excuse for it being taken as undisputed fact. Giano | talk 28 June 2005 18:36 (UTC)

Captain Marvel (DC Comics)[edit]

Self-nomination. I did a good bit of editing work on this article, although the foundation of it was rather solid before I began. It would make a good comapion piece to Superman, as Captain Marvel was the most popular superhero of the 1940s. --FuriousFreddy 06:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Condional support. Quite good. Remove external links from the lead (!) and main body, move to notes/external links, link via Wikipedia:Footnotes. Spoiler warning template needed as there are a lot of spoilers in mainbody. The bullets in 'Supporting cast' section seem acceptable, but rewrite the 'Appearances in other media' and 'Cultural influences' sections so they are normal paras, not bullets. Also, I think that it might be good to actually merge the nominated Captain Marvel (DC Comics) with Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics) and other CMs mentioned on Captain Marvel into one article, but this is not an object - in the end, Captain Marvel (DC Comics) stands alone well enough as a good subarticle to the main (poor) article on 'Captain Marvel.' --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I can take care of all but the last one. The other Captains Marvel are compeltely different characters from seperate companies. The only thing they share in common is the name; it'd be like megring all the various uses of Tom and Jerry. The Captain Marvel mentioned here, however, is the original and most notable. Also, file size would definitely become an issue if the two articles were merged. The article at Captain Marvel is nothing more than a disamiguation page; it isn't meant to be a full article. None of the pages referenced from it are meant to be subarticles of the Captain Marvel page, but just articles about entities that all have the same name.--FuriousFreddy 21:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Done with converting the in-line references to footnotes style and the rewording into prose. Again, the various Captains Marvel have no correlation except for their name, and really should not be merged into one article. All of Marvel's Captains Marvel do actually share an article, but the only other character related to this one to share the name "Captian Marvel" is better known by her original name: Mary Marvel, who is also mentioned a number of times in this article). --FuriousFreddy 00:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • OK. I support now. The merger was just a comment to be considered by editors more familiar with the subject, not an objection, so I am satisfied now that it has been adressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, well written and comprensive, meets FA criteria.--nixie 03:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good research, well organized. ike9898 18:41, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • This article starts out great but falters a bit near the end; I think the article would be stronger if the various spinoff plot summaries -- which don't really add anything to the reader's understanding of the character and its importance or influence -- were themselves spun off into sub-articles; the final section could use some copyediting and style work (ie. the use of the word "kid") and the Family Guy reference seems useless and is a terrible way to end the article. I won't formally object to FA status, but I hope this critique is helpful. Jgm 03:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I didn't want to delete the American Dad! reference (I didn't add it, and it seems notable enough), so I just switched the "Cultural influences" and "Apperances in other media" sections; I actually think the flow works better that way. As far as making sub-articles for the various spin-off plots, I only did it for one The Power of Shazam! because that one was the most notable--and longest--revamp. The other two revamps were easily summarized into a few sentences which explained just the most notable aspects, which is what I went ahead and did. --FuriousFreddy 11:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support great article! Have done a few minor alterations, but most definitely support this. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support very well written, certainly meets WP:FA criteria.-Poli 21:17, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Antarctic krill[edit]

After much discussion I want to sponsor this article again. All objections and suggestions and language have been worked on, references added, some images moved off. An academic group from Australia, USA, Germany, Japan and Norway found no errors. Thanks go especially to user:lupo, User:Yakuzai and in Scandinavia to User:Salleman. The article covers the basic biology, ecology, geography, fisheries and some unique bio-features of this key species of Antarctica, which is probably (in terms of biomass) the most successfull animal of the planet (yet known to only a few), and gives an outlook for future ventures of Ocean Engineering (I contributed to the article).

  • nominate and support Uwe Kils 18:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, it is clearly evident that a lot of work went into this article since the last time you submitted it, but the problem can be fixed. The article needs some variation in the positioning of the pictures, and there still may be too many. Phoenix2 18:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thanks for your comment, Phoenix2, I moved images out but others moved them back in Uwe Kils 18:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Support, ready to be featured after lots of hard work. Phoenix2 00:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's a potential FA, just wait to see what others think. Phoenix2 18:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support this time around. It's still a little text-light, or maybe it just seems that way because of the wealth of quality images, but it has greatly improved. --Scimitar 19:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)*
  • Support The only thing i would add more to is the section on eyes, oh yeah and maybe renaming subheading from "Systematic" to "Morphology" as that would in my view be more comprehensible to the average reader. I think as it stands it is a very comprehensible article that is informative and interesting with some great supplementary images.Yakuzai 23:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support- it is amazing how much this article has improved since the beginning of its first FAC. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - much improved! — Catherine\talk 02:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I (?re)reoriented the pictures in an alternating fashion, and did some edits toward the end, where the redo had tailed off a bit. This was largely gilding the lily, as I think the meat of the article, in its newly rewritten state, had already made it feature quality. Sfahey 04:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object, I find the way the citations have been done to be quite hard to follow, a simple numbering system would be better. I raised this in the last FAC, the graphs need better captions. --nixie 05:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thank you for the comment - I added to the captions where senseful - I agree with Lupo on the numbering of refs - we will kep on putting more in (maybe change it in the end) - best greetings to Australia Uwe Kils 12:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Big improvement on the captions, and adding the bullet poitns to the references list has made it much easer to read, Support--nixie 00:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, of course, even though I don't like the alternating left-right image placement at all; it makes the article looke piecemeal. To nixie: we once had a numbered reference scheme, and it's a maintenance nightmare. Two references are in image captions, they both got shown as "[1]", and somehow it made the numbering in the main texts start at 2, and it was very difficult and maintenance-intensive to make the ref numbers agree with the list at the end. (A ref reading "[7]" should indeed go the an entry numbered "7", otherwise it's worse than useless.) The current scheme uses symbolic references as they are common in many scientific papers (it's a scheme I have used successfully in all my peer-reviewed publications) and doesn't have that problem. Lupo 06:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I also like the images better on the right - change them back Uwe Kils 11:37, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, on balance: I suspect that there is probably more to be said, but the nominator ought to know what should be in the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Much better now. Can we get the lists at the bottom formatted as * lists? Morwen - Talk 12:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
hallo Morven - we still collect more (see comment of Lupo, who did most of the ref work) later we might change it Uwe Kils 12:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting and informative. One suggestion: It would be nice to include a little more on what eats the Antarctic krill other than the very brief "Position in the Antarctic ecosystem" section. BlankVerse ∅ 13:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thank you for the comment - I added some more, will later add some on the whales Uwe Kils 14:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
added whale birds squid seal fish consumption data from Hampton Uwe Kils 17:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support because what is there is great, but I'd still like to see more effort on providing explanation of jargon, and more context for many of the overly technical bits. Older Comment: great stuff, especially the thorough citation. If there's anything factually incorrect in there, a knowledgeable person could find it easily. But it seems the most imporant points have avoided citation. Specifically claims of the largest biomass, the specific amount of the biomass, and speculation of the largest biofeedback mechanism. This is enough to object on, but I'm assuming you can get those citations easily enough, so I'll support once you have. Also the citation system is confusing. What is the difference between Kils79 and H+83? Also, what is meant by directly utilizing the phytoplankton cells? What would be not direct? There are other examples of writing that appears like it would be clear to someone knowledgeable in the subject, but is a bit hard to parse for someone like me. I'll try and help if you like, or just go through and add some inline context for places where people might get confused. - Taxman Talk 14:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • thank you for the extensive comment, I will work on it - direct: means not over the traditional food chain phytoplankton small copepods, large copepods, mysids, little fish - biomass: this is much disputed, in lack of methods and because of the huge area we do really not know much - I was on a venture with 11 research vessels fron 10 nations, and we still have only a vague idea of the stock in Scotia Sea alone - and much krill lives under the ice - Uwe Kils 14:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I understand that even less than I understand what is in the article. You mean that instead of going to progressively larger organisms a 6cm organism eats the phytoplankton? Well then just say that! Actually part of the rest of the article does I think, so just explain it a little more. The whole of the text is rather terse, so explaining some biology bits with very short (a few words sometimes) bits of context goes a long way and wouldn't be too wordy. - Taxman Talk 00:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
is this better?: "The size-step between krill and its prey is unusually large: generally it takes three or four steps from the 20 micrometer-tiny phytoplankton cells to a krill-sized organism (via small copepods, large copepods, mysids to 5 cm fish)KK79. The next size-step in the food chain to the whales is also enormous, a phenomenon only found in the Antarctic ecosystem." Uwe Kils 02:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • it says not largest biomass but animal biomass Uwe Kils 14:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, I saw that, but didn't specify. - Taxman Talk 00:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
The "Kils79" ref should have been "KK79". Fixed it. The system for deriving the symbols is pretty simple: if there's only one author, use the first few (3 or 4) letters of his last name. If there are multiple authors, use only the first (upper case) character of each last name. If there are many authors, use the first and add a "+". In all cases, append a two- (or for short symbols, four-) digit year. Break ties by appending lower case letters, beginning with "a". Lupo 14:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've never heard of that system but it sounds standard. Could you either explain it at the bottom or link to an article explaining it? As for the rest, it sounds like you guys will work that out well. - Taxman Talk 00:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
It's the "alpha.bst" style from BibTeX, used widely in Computer Science publications (and maybe in other fields, too). For an example where it's used, see Design Patterns by the "Gang of Four" (Gamma et al.). I do not know if that style corresponds to a recommendation by some style guide (it's neither APA, MLA, nor Chicago), but I somehow doubt that Patashnik just made it up. Lupo 07:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On the biomass: the FAO05 reference gives estimates from 1985 as ranging from 125 to 725 million tonnes. Surely there must be a more recent estimate? The CCAMLR upped its catch quotas significantly (from 1.5 million tonnes to 5 million) after a change in the methodology of arriving at such estimates in the 1990s. I would also like to see a reference for the recently added statement thatCrabeater Seals supposedly eat 120 million tonnes of Antarctic krill each year. Even with the highest estimates, that would be one sixth of the total biomass! I find that hard to believe. Lupo 14:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BONNER B 1995 Birds and Mammals - Antarctic Seals. in Antarctica Pergamon Press 202 - 222 I gave that on the crabeater page - the Antarctic is hard to believe - the high biomass estimations are based on what the whales once took (details are in Nicol, S.; Endo, Y.: Krill Fisheries of the World, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 367; 1997) Uwe Kils 15:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I looked it up, Bonner writes at least 63 million tonnes, so lets change it to this figure, I have in my notes 120, will try to find the source or call colleagues about it, but even 63 off one species is astounding, taken that the whole yield from all oceans and all species, fish, mulluscs, cephalopods, srimps ... is only about 100 million tonnes a year - some say the ants are the biggest, but that would be a collection of many species, others say the copepods, but that too are hundredth of species - E. s. is one species all over the Southern Ocean - Uwe Kils 15:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Made all of my comments on previous FA nomination page; thus support. Batmanand 19:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the article seems to be complete and is written in an understandable way. From looking around in other encyclopedias and in the internet I got the impression that this is the best article about this topic. Kudos to all authors and in particular to Uwe Kils -- mkrohn 01:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful article, and the Images are just so good. Though I can't get that last ref-note link in the intro to work (mn|nicol|NE97), it's missing, or something. Shanes 04:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fixed. Lupo 06:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I mirrored two comments from the first nomination down below to have a compact reference for our Wikiversity projects - thank you all for your help - it was a lot of fun to work with you - I think it is amazing what humans can create in no time if they work accross all boarders and ages with our new communication tools - good luck to you Uwe Kils 10:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • (mirror)SUPPORT This is very different from the usual featured article format, but it is good. It explains in depth most of what (I would imagine) students of the subject need to know. I thought I was totally disinterested (still not riveted) by the subject, yet it held my attention to the end, and I have learned something. So in spite of being a little unconventional in its style and format, I have changed to support, now that it is reliably referenced. I would ask other objectors to give it a second read and see it accordingly for what it is, something well written and informative, on a subject little referred to elsewhere. Giano | talk 18:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • (mirror)Support I've rewritten the difficult systematic section to be more intelligible to the non-specialist, and I would now support this interesting article - perhaps pleopod could be explained also. jimfbleak 05:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Great article. Lisiate 23:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Worthy article. Alex.tan 04:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indian Railways[edit]

Last week's Indian Collaboration of the Week. I learnt a lot about the Indian Railways while writing this article. Thanks to all the people who helped. The first of my two (maybe three) part series... =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Thanks to Nichalp for leading the charge on this one. What a metamorphosis! I've helped out with copyedits and link fixes, but not much more. slambo 18:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, looks quite comprehensive to me, not rather Railways of India? Phoenix2 18:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I now see that Indian Railways is a company, not an overview of railways in India. Phoenix2 18:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Done =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
By merging the two sections the article becomes too long. In this way we can move the technical details to another page and expand that further. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
The discussion on the talk page was to split the article into Indian Railways and Rail transport in India, not to merge them. slambo 10:47, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
And then there was some about putting them back together again! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support a fascinating article that covers its vast subject admirably well. Lisiate 03:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Well written article with plenty of pictures and very good prose. Sam Vimes 11:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A well written article and I learnt a lot about Indian Railways. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 03:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good, it appears that the points I mentioned in PR have been addressed. JYolkowski // talk 20:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Order of Canada[edit]

I, along with two other users, have fixed up the article. We have added links, references, images (some drawn by me, again, like at Hero of Belarus). And with the possible removal of a person from the Order and a recent investure, people will be looking at the article to see what the Order is about. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I may also sound in, Canada Day is just around the Corner on July 1st. This is the day that new members are announced Dowew 00:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well written. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nicely done, images are well documented, and the article reads very well. --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I like the way this article is organized. Phoenix2 03:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, sadly. I agree with the above, but I think the article is not quite sufficiently referenced. There are no references except for the (rather poorly formatted footnotes) which means a lot of the information in the article does not have information on its source; I also suspect some of the "External links" were used as sources. Examples of information for which I could not readily find the source in the links provided are the numbers of living Officers and Companions, and the description of the backside of the medals. I admit I haven't searched through the sourches exhaustively, but other readers in need of this information might show even less patience. I apologize if I come across as being overly picky about references, but recent conversations with people I know have given me the certainty that lack of verifiability and through referencing is Wikipedia's greatest flaw, next to vandalism. Phils 09:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Support. Congratulations to Zscout370, and thanks for adressing my concerns. Excellent work. Phils 17:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey, there is no need to apologize. I will take care of the references. As for the reverse of the medal, there were pictures I have seen online, but no law to back it up. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As for the number of living C.C. and O.C., this is what me and others did. We went to http://www.gg.ca/Search/honours_e.asp?Search=2 and filled out sections needed. We checked off the grade, then living, then search. We cannot save each search, since there is no special website that displays each search, unless you wish for us to link to the above site and call it a reference. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I will support of the references are dealt with. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Support - I couldn't help copyediting. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, noting Phils' comments. I have little doubt that Zscout370 will address them to the best of his abilities, so I'll vote support now. 172 18:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above comments by Phils have been responded to, and if there is anything that I missed, just let me know. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My mistake-- I read the article earlier, missing the recent changes. Excellent work. 172 18:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A well written article and one of Wikipedia's best. --Omni gamer 19:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I pointed out during PR, it is very very short. Without pics, lists and section headings, all content would fit on a single screen. Since everybody seems to agree it's comprehensive as it is, I won't object, but I have this feeling it can and should be expanded somehow. I won't object based on my 'feeling', though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What sections, do you feel, should be expanded the most? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the only thing that can be added now is basic trivia regarding the Order. I just added info about Diefenbaker being the only Prime Minister not entered into the Order, however there is only so much of that you can add in before it just gets ridiculous. Dowew 02:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • If he is talking about citations for the various appointees, that is more appropriate on each article of the various appointees. If there are historical designs of the medal, we should show them. But I have yet to find older designs of the medals. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--Scimitar 23:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Extremely well-written and comprehensive. It is certainly informative and serves its purpose well. Ben Babcock 03:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems short for a FA, but I don't see anything that could be added.say1988 16:09, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

As of 18:09, 26 June 2006, the article was promoted. Thanks to everyone that has come here and voted. <Cheesy>I dedicate this one to my Ontario girlfriend.</Cheesy> Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:33, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Second Crusade[edit]

This has been on Peer Review for awhile, and no one seems to have any more suggestions, so I think I can nominate it here. This is mostly a self-nomination - the article existed before, but it has been greatly expanded, with a number of other new articles leading off from it. It's not quite as long as the featured First Crusade article, but not as much happened, and I think this is as good as it can be. Adam Bishop 05:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Stbalbach 05:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. You may want to ilink some more names and terms. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral - for the moment. Is it possible to go back and cite which material came from which source? Otherwise the article is in VERY good shape. --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, probably not...it's mostly a summary from Runciman and Setton, with relevant bits from the various sources. Adam Bishop 05:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I know, it's a pain to go back and add them, been there and done that :) Since that's the only "objection" I had (and the references used ARE quite clear), I change my vote to Support. --JohnDBuell | Talk 14:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Ancient history is not a strong point on Wikipedia, and this is quite the encouraging exception. 172 18:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 18:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support with the sources cited the article is FAC material. Falphin 14:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago)[edit]

I've been working on this article for a few months and it feels fairly complete and I think it is decently written, so I thought I would take a shot at putting it up for an FAC. On peer review I got a request for the party logo, but I can't find the symbol in the online or offline sources available to me. Guettarda 23:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Minor Objection- I would like to see more citations (sources) and in-text references. Otherwise, seems to be well-written, though I had to fix up a few grammatical mistakes. Keep up the good work! Flcelloguy 15:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Meighoo's work is fairly definitive (based on his PhD on TT politics) but I will look for some more refs. Guettarda 15:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Asking for references beyond those that have been used to write the article seems like intellecutal dishonesty to me. --nixie 03:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • In response to this I did find (and read) some additional sources which let me flesh out some parts of the article. Meighoo has his POV, Sudama another and Malik a third. Of course, it would be wrong to just add refs and not material. Guettarda 03:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I have to agree that just adding refs and not adding to the article would be unethical. However, what I was looking for was more references to verify all facts, make sure the article was balanced and NPOV, and make it more comprehensive. Now that the more references have been added and the article accordingly expanded/edited, I'm happy to support. Good work, Guettarda! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. An additional photograph or two would make the layout more visually appealing, but I can understand if these are difficult to find. Details of the party's stances on specific issues (political position of Tobago vis-à-vis the "mainland", for instance) would also help, if available. Are there any membership statistics? Did the party have any auxiliary organizations (e.g., a "youth" group/wing, a "women's" group/wing, etc.)? This is already an excellent article overall, but details in these areas would help to better convey the DLP's impact on Trinidadian society. —Seselwa 17:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Good points - these things didn't really occur to me. Guettarda 17:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • A lot of the context of global politics is beyond my expertice. I don't have the framework of knowledge to hang it on - I could repeat what sources say, but I wouldn't know what was POV or NPOV. I have not found data on party membership. Membership tends to be confined to activists and the like in Trinidadian politics. I've done my best to address your concerns. There's more material to digest, but never enough time. Guettarda 03:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, comprhensive article on an interesting subject.--nixie 03:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Architecture of Btrieve[edit]

Self-nomination — I got Btrieve to FA status, however during my attempts I shifted large amounts of material to the article Architecture of Btrieve. I then tried to get this to FA status but failed - the objections can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Architecture of Btrieve/Archive1. They were largely to do with explaining what a btree was and that the lead section wasn't terribly interesting. I have since fixed up these issues so am submitting to FAC again. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment — Could do with a few more linked words (I linked I/O and API) even though they may produce red links. More diagrams wouldn't hurt. Also, no external links? I know the Btrieve article has some but even so, are there no web pages out there that have information relating to the architecture?. Other than that I read it without my eyes drooping - which must be a good sign :) CheekyMonkey 12:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Good points - could I clarify which bits you think would be good to have diagrams for? This will give me a chance to make them... will link to the Btrieve website, however there really isn't much on the underlying architecture of Btrieve (its not as popular as, say, MS SQL Server - and rightly so IMO). Most of this is extracted from manuals but even more from Kyle's book! I am gratified to see that it's not too boring :-) Ta bu shi da yu 23:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Have wikilinked more words. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the Indexing section would benefit from a diagram. Other than that looking at the article again it's hard to see where else a diagram could go where it will successfully summarise the relevant paragraphs. Regarding external links, are there newsgroups / forums out there that deal with the architecture? CheekyMonkey 16:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • OK, indexing now has a diagram! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • OK, I think that's fair enough. Will look into creating some diagrams when I get the chance. Hopefully soon. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I now Support. CheekyMonkey 12:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't even really know what Btrieve is, so maybe I shouldn't vote, but the article looks sufficiently crufty, so I vote support. Everyking 12:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "Btrieve is a database developed by Pervasive". Thanks for the support, I guess. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that didn't help me much. I mean, I get a general idea. But never mind. Everyking 00:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • No, not "never mind". Clearly you have something you want to say, so out with it man! I'm not sure what else you want us to explain: if your suggestion improves the quality of this article then, by gad, I'll do it! But the fact is that Btrieve is a database, and if the reader wants to know more then there is a wikilink to the main article. As for being crufty — tell me which bits are crufty and I'll rework the section or remove the bits from the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Nah, I use "crufty" as a positive term—that's a compliment. I wasn't saying I thought the article needed to explain it better, I was saying that I don't understand it much myself, and I'm too lazy to try, but nevertheless on a cursory glance the article looks good. Everyking 22:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. In the Lead I would not mention Pervasive's unusual use of navigational database to describe their transactional ISAM-based architecture. I think that this is confusing although it merits mention later. I have also raised a number of questions as inline comments. --Theo (Talk) 22:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Have fixed the lead section (clarified the issue) and have edited to resolve your comments. Cheers Theo :-) Ta bu shi da yu 23:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The changes address all my issues but raise a new one! The clarification of the phrase navigational database is not best presented in the lead because it distracts the reader from more important matters. Could you move any mention of Pervasive's descriptions of their product and the consequent explanations to somewhere lower? --Theo (Talk) 01:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Cool... I was hesitant in making a new section as this doesn't really "fit" in any other section. I have decided that a new section actually was required and have shifted this info into that section. Look OK now? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The recent changes address all my concerns. --Theo (Talk) 19:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Ashes[edit]

This article was the previous Cricket collaboration of the fortnight. Nominated on behalf of jguk who has done so much for cricket-related topics here; and has now left wikipedia. Although I may not be able to address specific queries, there are a fair number of wikipedians who would gladly do so.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 13:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • I echo Nichalp. I am a member of the cricket wikiproject, but have played very little part in this article. I would be happy to address queries. I would certainly support. Cheers, smoddy 19:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am looking to support this FAC, but first want an explanation as to the placement of the note about rugby late in the article. Wouldn't it be better to place a note in italics at the top about another non-related page of the same name, like they have in the Harvard University article? It doesn't make sense to have it as it is now. Harro5 00:04, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've fixed it. =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • You could, of course, argue that they are related, as the name was directly taken from the one series to the other, showing the cricket Ashes' importance and reach in the early Twentieth century. smoddy 07:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • They are, but a single para is too short. Perhaps you could write something longer? =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • I'll see what I can do. smoddy 14:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • I have put something in at "The Ashes outside cricket". These were the only two examples I could find – are there any more? Cheers, smoddy 15:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - comprehensive, encyclopaedic and topical - Ian ≡ talk 04:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. But then I am a member of the cricket mafia. Outside opinions would be especially welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I made a few minor changes before posting this. Picky comments here important for FAC questions, rather than general article talk: Capitalisation, "The Ashes" throughout (not "the Ashes"). Would the initial "help" be better phrased: "Readers unfamiliar with cricket will find many cricketing terms used in this article explained in the main Cricket article and the List of cricket terms." Isn't "10 cm" better than "100 mm" (4 inches isn't exactly 100 mm, the urn probably isn't exactly four inches!). I think the reference to "Gladiators" in the outside cricket section is not mainstream enough to warrant a mention, but perhaps I'm a minority, here; also I think this would be the right place to mention - without overdoing it - its inclusion in works of fiction (I can think of two - as the backdrop to the film The Final Test starring Jack Warner and Robert Morley with cameo appearances by several England players of the time, and the intergalactic importance of the little urn in Douglas Adams' book Life, the Universe, and Everything and Adams' quirky reference to cricket's oft-perceived eccentricity - "Only on Earth could they make a game" out of it). Otherwise, a very nice article. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think I have addressed these concerns. The Gladiators reference is one of the few things that I could think of to flesh out that section. I have changed the units (for some unexplained reason, Bobblewik had changed them from something far more explicable). I haven't put all that stuff in the section, but if you want to add something, please go ahead. smoddy 16:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Cyberjunkie TALK 14:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I know nothing about rugby, but after looking at the article, it explained a lot about one of the most important sport rivialries/events I have ever heard about. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Australia[edit]

This comprehensive article provides a really good overview of contemporary Australia. It comes in at 37kb (right between Cambodia and South Africa). The writing is good and the facts are well sourced, I fully support its promotion to a featured article--nixie 05:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. C'mon 'Straya, vote now! Harro5 07:30, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support The sentence with were a commonplace of mediaeval geographers appears to be missing a word after commonplace. I don't know what to replace it with, but other than that, it's great! Tuf-Kat 08:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Is a commonplace becoming unusual? Perfectly cromulent word: "A common or ordinary topic; an opinion or statement generally accepted or taken for granted; a stock theme or subject of remark, an every-day saying. Slightingly: A platitude or truism." This article is very well-written. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I thought perhaps commonplace was what you call a group of mediaeval geographers. As in, look at that! It's a huge commonplace of mediaeval geographers in their natural habitat! Seriously, though, I've never heard the word used that way. In any case, the current wording is clearer, to me at least. Tuf-Kat 22:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - good stuff. Pity they are going to lose The Ashes this year ;) (Commonplace "... n. 1. b. Something that is ordinary or common".) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well ALoan, if they lose to lowly Bangladesh like they just did, England might win! :)  =Nichalp (Talk)= 17:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Thanks to nixie's hard work, this article is now one of the finest in Wikipedia and should be recognised as such.-- Cyberjunkie 11:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support — Excellent work.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 17:52, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object — This is a great article, except for the images. I think that a lot of them are misplaced, or should be moved off to sub article of Commons to make place for more evocative images of Australia.

** NewParliamentHouseInCanberra.jpg - There are no other images of historical Australia in this section, and thisimage has litle to do with the history of Australia at all. This should instead be moved to the Politics section.

Done, and added a lithograph from Flinders book to the history, unfortunatly most historical images are tied up with convulted copyrights by way of the Naional Archive.

** Image:Ac.johnhoward.jpg - I think instead of this image, the photograph of the Parliament house itself would be better suited. I tend to dislike photographs of individual people on country articles, it tends to make one person stand out above the entire country itself.

I didn't like him there either
  • Image:Map of Australia.png - I think there are much better maps of Australia available than this one. For example, the map of South Africa that is used on South Africa is much more informational than this one.
Actually there aren't, and I'm no cartographer. If someone would like to make one or reccommend a good map making program this can be changed. As far as I can tell the map on South Africa is a copyvio from here [2], along with several other images of dubious copyright, which isn't really acceptable on a FA. I have made sure all images in this article have GFDL compatible copyrights.
The map is actually from SSA, Statistics South Africa. All the other images are of clean copyright status, they're just miscategorised.

** Image:Australian $10 note 1988.jpg - This is a good image, but I don't think its the best image to illustrate the entire Australian economy. what about a photograph of the skyline of Melbourne or Sydney?

Changed to Brisbane skyline since its the fastest growing city.

** Image:Australian population.PNG - This is frankly quite ugly and might be suited for the demographics sub-article, but I think a photograph of a diverse street scene would be more effective and visually interesting. What about one of the Vietnamese-store lined streets in West Footscray in Melbourne?

The graph is gone, but there's nothing with free copyright available on the commons, If you've got something please add it.--nixie 02:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to support this fantastic article once my concerns over the images are addressed! Páll 22:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like the changes, but I still think that this article needs more images before I can offer my support. There are so many iconic images of Australia, there must be something to fill up all this image-free space. Opera House? Harbour Bridge? The Bush? Something? Páll 04:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I still maintain my oppose. The images in the history section have nothing to do wit the history. How does a photograph of Uluru relate to the history of Australia? Páll 19:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Images in the hisory section have been adjusted again, 1. captain cooks ship (discover and bicentennial), 2. Port Arthur (convicts) 3. Anzac Day (which I think should definately stay in the article as it demonstrates living hisotry)--nixie 02:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support! Barbequed prawns for all! Average image quality on WP overall is low. The textual quality here, however, is excellent. And while people are talking about images, how about some pictures of Melbourne? It's Australia's best city after all. --bainer (talk) 12:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support however I've two questions/comments:
1. The date of the first human habitation is estimated to be between 42,000 and 48,000 years ago when a period of massive ecological change, believed to be a result of human action, occurred although there is a footnote referring to this, I highly doubt that this can be accurate. 2. The agriculture and natural resources sectors contribute 3 and 5 per cent of GDP and make up the bulk of Australia's exports. this is a smaller nitpick, but as far as I know, there are traditionally 3 economic sectors - agriculture, industry and services. That Australia's industry sector encompasses the expoitation of natural sources should be mentioned, but within a paragraph on Australia's industry sector (that is currently missing). Themanwithoutapast 03:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Point 1 is more than likely possible. Agree with point 2 and 3. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • 1. When the Ingidenous Australians arrived they started burning everything, they used fire very effectively for hunting, and turned forested areas to grassland, they also wiped out the megafauna- they're very significant ecological changes. 2. There are way more that 3 sectors that make up GDP, in Australain data the typical breakdown is ag, mining, services, morgages and manufacturing, what makes it more confusing if you look at the raw data is that with the standard error in collecting the data it all adds up to more than 100%. The fact that mining has related services is of little consequence since all industires have related services many regional towns in Australia wouldn't exist if there wasn't an associated mine or agricultural area, better material for discussion in the Economy of Australia article.--nixie 04:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • 1. okay - if that is really correct, it should be either explained in the footnote or in the text - otherwise it is really confusing as it stands now. 2. Yes of course Australia has more than 3 "sectors" of economy - but the undisputed, traditional categories are: the primary (agriculture) sector, the secondary (industry) sector and the tertiary (service) sector - every branch of a country's economy should be classified within these three - that's the standard in talking about a country's economy (short overview of the 3 sectors).Themanwithoutapast 13:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm well aware of the high-school economics break down of an economy, the fact is that Australia extracts alot of minerals (a "primary" activity) and ships most of it unprocessed overseas, so mining is pretty much classed as a primary activity here.--nixie 13:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • First, this was just a comment, not criticism that Australia's minerals exploitation activity is mentioned. However, because this article will be a FA, it should adhere to common standards to make it comparable to other articles. The high-school economics break down as you call it is still the traditionally used break down of a country's economy - as long as this does not change I suggest to use it and describe Australia's economy in this way. Themanwithoutapast 14:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • I have, mining is a primary economic activity.--nixie 14:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent, excellent article. One thing, though - a few of the captions tend to use some poor grammar. I also disagree with the objector above about more images - it has just enough, and any more would start to overwhelm the text. Ambi 07:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is nothing on race relations, not much on immigration and nothing on Aboriginals. I'm sorry, but until that stuff gets added this is not a neutrally written article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Question / Comment (?!) The entry "official language= None" What does this mean? Is English really a de facto language in Australia ? What sort of political correctness is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ern malleyscrub (talk • contribs) 05:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is a summary and I don't think that it should have an extended section on race relations, or the problems with immigration, there are other good articles that do that.
  1. Added a desrciption of Aboriginal and TSI culture
  2. There is a description of the genocidal policies toward Indigenous Australians, added a link to the Stolen Generation
  3. I added back info on the 1967 referendum (it keeps getting lost)
  4. I added native title
  5. I also extended the demographic information on the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians
  6. I added the following sentence Racial inequality is an ongoing political and human rights issue for Australians, I don't think editorial comment on the current governments policies and action (or lack of it) toward reconcilliation are necessary. (Apartheid gets about a pragraph in the equivalent South Africa article and most of it is about the ANC.)
  7. Immigration is mentioned, both in history (I added an explicit link to the white Australia policy) and demographics;
  8. I have added some info on mandatory detention of illegals, once again editorial comment is not necessary or NPOV.
  9. I have added explicit mention of multicultual policy since the end of the white Austrlaia policy.
  10. I am not qualified to make comment on the extent of racism in Australia, and I can find no recent publications that discuss it.

I think I have addressed your concerns, so unless you are going to make some other suggestions as to what is specifically missing and that can fit within the framework of this summary article then your objection is otherwise inactionable.--nixie 02:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - looks OK to me. Alphax τεχ 06:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Panavision[edit]

I started the article and have been working hard to build it up to featured status. Just came out of peer review, where it got a modest looking over. I want more critiques, though, and want it to be featured, so I figure this is the place! :) Thanks, guys. --Girolamo Savonarola 11:17, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

  • Comment: One small detail. I think it would look better if the links in the "See also" section were capitalised like headings in accordance with the WP:MOS. It isn't a biggie, but it just looks a bit more professional. Harro5 11:36, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I read this on Peer Review and was most impressed even then. --Theo (Talk) 19:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, though I believe the standard is to capitalize only the first letter of section headings (except proper nouns of course), so it should be Early history and not Early History. Tuf-Kat 18:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Is it possible to get a screenshot of a "Filmed in Panivision" credit from one of the movies mentioned? --FuriousFreddy 19:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No idea. I can't do it at the moment, unfortunately. (Computer's in surgery!) Anyone else up for the task? --Girolamo Savonarola 19:37, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Support: It would be better if footnotes were used instead of just a list of references. Otherwise, a very comprehensive article. Cyberjunkie TALK 14:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 13:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Convention on Psychotropic Substances[edit]

Re-nom. Broken links have been fixed, references have been converted to endnotes, and more content about meth has been added. The treaty text itself has been wikisourced. (Thank you, Smoddy, for your help!) Remember me 12:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • As Remember me says, I fixed up the footnotes in this article. I think it is well written, has good images, and is very well referenced *wipes sweat from brow*. Therefore, I support. smoddy 13:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but...well...the writing is a little dry, and full of extremely long chemical names. A tough read, especially for a generalist. Maybe we could move the sections on adoption and controversy up above the specific drug sections, to draw people in? Meelar (talk) 20:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

*Object The Convention is an international agreement but there is no discussion of the politics surrounding its creation or continuing existence. The article has relatively too much focus on individual substances whilst ignoring the real controversy regarding the legalisation of some drugs. The Convention is regarded as one reason why some countries find it difficult to adopt a more liberal approach to drug use. In short, the article needs to take a more strategic perspective on the issues. JPF 22:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Support This concern has been adequately addressed.   JPF 16:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • A lot of political background has been added. 205.217.105.2 19:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, This one should have made it in already. Let´s try to get it right this time.Tparker393 09:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, my objections from last time still have not been met. It still concentrates way too heavily on psychotropics, and not enough on stimulants. It still needs more balancing, and at least 1 image of a stimulant (no Ecstacy does not count). But it is looking better. Support looks much better now.  ALKIVAR™ 22:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Pics of a meth lab, amphetamines, and crystal meth have been added. In addition, text has been added explaining stimulants' role as an impetus for the treaty's creation; the section on the recent rise of stimulants has been expanded; and there is substantial coverage of specific stimulants (cathinone and methcathinone) that were placed under international control after 1971 through the Scheduling process. Tangible 13:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The orignial nomination is here.—Theo (Talk) 08:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. My previous concerns have been addressed. This is much improved.—Theo (Talk) 08:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. strikes me as UN glorification, despite the limp "controversy" section. to be NPOV, i believe it should approach the subject with far less acceptance of the proposition that the UN (or anybody, for that matter) can tell me, a peaceful adult, what i can put in my body, or even have access too. sounds like it was written by a UN panel, from what i saw. didn't read every word though. SaltyPig 14:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The controversy section has been expanded to include a discussion of proposed denunciation. Joo-joo eyeball 17:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is important information and as a featured article it will clearly raise awareness. --Howrealisreal 20:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Commodore 64[edit]

I think this is very well-written and extensive without being overly drawn out. Passes featured criteria in my view. --DanielNuyu 20:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. This is a great article, and obviously a huge amount of work has gone into it. I would suggest saying something about it in relation to the other machines that it was competing with in that era (TRS-80 and Apple II). Although the technical info is clearly linked to, it would help to have some references for the statements about the history. Not sure about the legality of the screenshots of proprietary software, although it's hard to imagine anybody really objecting when it comes to stuff this old.--Bcrowell 23:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A really interesting article (C64s were before my time, and this is a great read for someone who's first PC ran on Windows 95!), and as long as there are no problems with the screenshots this will hopefully pass FA easily. Well done to those who wrote the article. Harro5 04:44, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • There are computer users that never used a C64?! The first computer I used... Ok I won't finish that. This makes me feel old, and I'm not that old. (Not that there's anything wrong with being old :) I'll give some useful comments when I have a chance to read the whole article. - Taxman Talk 23:47, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
So how old are you? 30? 40? :)
  • Support. I'm not really a computer geek, and this is way to old for me, but it's well-written and interesting. --Scimitar 19:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. This informative and enjoyable article does not cite sources for its many assertions. I recognise that the ==References== section probably lists all the sources but I seek closer links between source and text. Like Bcrowell, I would also like to see more comparative information for the C64's competitors. Less significantly, in the ===C64 successors and the 64C=== section, did the external design of the 64C really 'reflect "modernism"'? Was it not simply following contemporary workstation design trends? --Theo (Talk) 23:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with you on the point about the 64C, and a new change reflects your suggestion. As for the inline citations, I am not one of the original authors and cannot contribute in that vein; in my opinion, however, the article is concise and modular enough to logically tie certain pieces of information to specific references as listed. --DanielNuyu 22:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I am old enough to remember these (a few friends had one; I had a Sinclair Spectrum) and this article looks fine to me. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - The article is great, but it does not talk about the SX-64 at all. If derivatives like the C64GS and the C64DTV are described in lenght, there should be a section about the SX64, too. (Preferably with a picture, if possible) -- Marcika 13:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - (Sort of a self-vote, Since I'm a regular contributor to the C64 article.) I've added the suggestions above, (namely C64 competitors, SX-64) which should hopefully address most of the concerns about the article. By the way, you don't have to be that old to have used a C64... My first computer was a Commodore VIC-20 and that is older than the C64 and I'm only 26! ADSR6581 13:12, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Would you be able to contribute any inline citations in order to alleviate the last part of Theo's objection? --DanielNuyu 22:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, but I will require more specific information about the assertions he is concerned about. ADSR6581 22:47, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support- I read the artical over. I believe it has what is needed for it to be a featured artical. --ZeWrestler 14:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - though I love the aside (really!), we still need a source for the following: "(In fact, one webmaster of a Commodore 64 games museum website mentioned that to this day, he does not know how the game Clystron's title screen managed to display 4 different colours on the same 8×8 pixel block without halving the horizontal resolution.)" - Ta bu shi da yu 09:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I have removed the reference, as I could not find the source. It was submitted by someone without a username (see here [3]).ADSR6581 11:47, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Mostly for previously-stated reasons. Sahasrahla 19:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy[edit]

Self-nom (though I can't take all the credit for the article, much as I would wish to). Went through Wikipedia:Peer review recently, have incorporated most suggestions there, including sorting out the referencing. Morwen - Talk 15:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In what way about the spoiler warning? (My vote has to be neutral, I've made many major recent contributions to the page myself). --JohnDBuell | Talk 17:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, it's just a bit of an eyesore, occuring right after the lead like that. --Scimitar 22:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is comprehensive, readable, and meets the criteria as I see them.—Theo (Talk) 17:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. Remove external links from the main article (mainly the 'Interactive fiction and video games' section), move to notes, link with footnotes. Besides that it is a good article and a proof that if something goes through PR first and the comments are adressed, it is likely to pass the FAC with flying colors :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Are there any example pages that do this for cited sources and for external links both that you can point at? Morwen - Talk 18:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Quite a few, for example Anschluss and several others I voiced the very same comment about :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • See, in order to adapt that style we'd have to totally change the reference citing we already did and are quite happy with. If you want to do the heavy loading here, fine but would prefer to find a format that doesn't require us to redo everything. Morwen - Talk 08:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • External links turned into notes using the 'ref' and 'Note' system. Actual text references were cited using a different system...should these be combined, or can we work it as is? --JohnDBuell | Talk 18:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support- well-written, comprehensive article. Just a note: the "red links" in some sections may be a bit distracting... :) Flcelloguy Cello today? Give me a note! d.c. al fine? Desk 21:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Towel... I mean Strong 42 Support. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 05:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent Tuf-Kat 08:15, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but is there any reason for the footnote on the name being in the coloured box? I don't like it! And can we commission William Franklyn to read it for Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia? Joe D (t) 20:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Or Stephen Fry. Given his wide-ranging and eclectic knowledge, he would make an excellent Wikipedian. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, yes, get them both on Wikipedia. Additionally, Spoken Wikipedia should have Brian Perkins, Charlotte Green and Eddie Mair read other UK related articles, Christopher Lydon for the US and Phillip Adams for Australia. They all have brilliant voices. Joe D (t) 16:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Because many of the images that we've included on the H2G2 related pages use Hitchhiker or Hitch Hiker or Hitch-hiker, and Adams DID say in 2000 that he'd prefer everyone use "Hitchhiker" from then on, we had a note at first, then realized that it'd be better to use a Template so that it could be included in multiple pages. Then there was a debate as to whether or not we should say that "Wikipedia uses this spelling, because Adams said so" with other sites mirroring the content, and figured that again, if it's a Wikipedia template, another site can just change the template if they so choose, instead of changing several pages. If you don't like the colour, change it! :) --JohnDBuell | Talk 19:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the explanation, I've removed the colouring, moved to standard text-align and removed the italics, as there seems to me no reason to give this note any more weight than any other text in the article. Joe D (t) 18:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Very well done, good refrences, very detailed. --Quadraxis 02:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment MechBrowman asked for the Template:HitchhikerSpellingDisclaimer to be changed so that footnotes are used for inline references, and not directly naming the title of the book in within the note. This has been done. --JohnDBuell | Talk 17:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Restoration literature[edit]

This is the first in an ongoing attempt to ensure that every period division mentioned in English literature has a corresponding overview article. I did most of the writing and work on the article (self-nom), and Bishonen did the rest. Please see the talk page of the article for some of the peculiarities of this type of article. Geogre 20:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. This is impressive work indeed, and an ambitious start to a well-conceived Wikipedia literary history series (to which I'll happily contribute a word or two in areas I know more about than this one). Might a better title be "English Restoration literature," just for clarity's sake? -- Rbellin|Talk 04:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Possibly so, but we're up against two things, here. The first is that the damage, such as it is, was done in the English literature article, and I wanted to be consistent and name the break-away article in the same way as the section. The second is (and I know this sounds precious) that I don't know of another national literature that has a "Restoration" period, quite. In general, though, I do favor greater specificity. Geogre 04:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I love ambitious projects, and this is a well executed take-off. Well-written, clear, nice pictures, superb research. Keep them coming! — mark ✎ 13:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, the only think I don't like the low res uncaptioned image in the lead.--nixie 06:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with your dislike of that image, nixie. Both Bishonen and I hunted high and low for a better picture. I had wanted one showing Charles in his court (an English "Sun King" imitation, as such paintings and prints were certainly made) to suggest a radiant "king covers all" image, but I could find none in my print sources. As for the web, the pickings are slim, and the best things are already on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that I've been sort of stuck with low-res. I'll see if I can get anything better. As soon as I do, I'll replace the image. Geogre 15:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The new image is great. --nixie 00:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yep. Thanks ever and again to bishonen, a highly regal Charles II now stares back at us from the first picture. Geogre 00:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; I also admire the ambition. Just as importantly, the writing is exemplary, as is the scholarship. More please. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support of course. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David Helvarg[edit]

Resubmitted after further changes and much polishing by other editors. I believe that all the outstanding isses from the failed nomination have been addressed and that this now offers a comprehensive encyclopedic biography. --Theo (Talk) 10:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Two things (not voting): There's a category that's a red link, and it may be best to move the quotes to Wikiquote. Everyking 11:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    You wish is my command. Both things now addressed. --Theo (Talk) 13:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support again. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. —thames 13:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow, smooth! Strong support. Unlike Filiocht, I haven't felt able to support any of the previous versions, but this is something else. Certainly all my complaints have been taken care of, and all the encyclopedia reader's needs are catered for in this well-written article. Great process, a credit to Theo and to Wiki! Having said that, here's a minor cavil: the short "The Ocean and Coastal Conservation Guide" section, and moreso the "Feeling the Heat" section, still sound too much like promotional material, with those sponsors rearing their ugly heads again, and a cameo of the achievements of some book editor. Please lose everything like that from those two sections, and the article will be perfect. Bishonen | talk 16:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I have tried to address each of your issues. The sponsors of the work on which Feeling The Heat was based have gone. So too is Mr Motavalli. I have condensed the OCCG section a little. --Theo (Talk) 19:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--I applaud all the work that's been done since the original nomination. Meelar (talk) 19:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It's always a pleasure to be able to learn from Wikipedia, especially when the article I'm learning from is so well written. --Scimitar 22:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The section for the early life of David Helvarg seems pretty short in relation to the rest of the article. Is there any more information known about his early life? Flcelloguy Cello today? Give me a note! d.c. al fine? Desk 02:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    We know that he played in the waters and swamps of Long Island until the swamps were replaced with housing developments and the water closed to swimming. But such charming prefiguring is not encyclopedic. What else is significant? The article already gives his place and date of birth, his parentage and his education. It also mentions his adolescent interest in civil rights and pacifism. His career starts when he is 22. What else should one say about the first 21 years of someone who is not a prodigy? --Theo (Talk) 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    OK, support- well-written article! Flcelloguy Cello today? Give me a note! d.c. al fine? Desk 21:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RMS Titanic[edit]

I think it's long enough, has lots of info and is accurate. It was also one of the greatest events of the 20th century.- B-101 01:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support [Why is this under archive1?]  =Nichalp (Talk)=
  • Support. Looks good, although expantion wouldn't hurt. Last two sections are made of short paras, please merge/expand. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor Object- Agree with Piotrus, last two sections are too short to be in a FA. Please expand those and I will support- otherwise looks excellent, though! Keep up the good work! Flcelloguy 12:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) Upon revisions/expansions, I beleive the article is ready to be a FA. (i.e. support!) Question: I'm not sure, but does Wikipedia have a policy regarding commas in numbers larger than 4 digits? (i.e. 1,500 or 1500)? I re-read the article and wasn't sure whether or not Wikipedia had a policy saying yes or no for commas in numbers. Flcelloguy 15:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says commas should be used. MechBrowman 02:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you mean Current Condition of wreck and Comparable maritime disasters should be expanded? Expanding Comparable maritime disasters, which really has little to do with Titanic, would seem superfluous. MechBrowman 17:00, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comparable maritime disasters should perhaps be mained (main article templated) to maritime disasters. I think I meant the 'Titanic in popular culture' section - it's lenght has improved, but it's lot of tiny paras, please merge. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I understand what you mean now, I expanded and condensed both Comparable maritime disasters and Titanic in popular culture. Tell me if it needs further adjustments. MechBrowman 01:18, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor Object. I agree with Piotrus and Flcelloguy, a few details in the final paragraphs esepcially the composers and lyricists for the musicals as well as some of the details of both shows would be good. I'm willing to expand them for you if you wish as I know both shows. I also think the lead could be longer, it could be a bit more detailed such as including White Star Lines, Harland and Wolff, Thomas Andrews and Robert Ballard. The lead should summarize the article. I'll be more than happy to change my vote if these are addressed. Ganymead 16:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) Support. Ganymead 22:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I added the information you requested, expanded the intro slightly and made Current condition of the wreck a Subsection. MechBrowman 19:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Excellent Giano | talk 22:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, it has much improved since I last read it in full and I believe this article to be comprehensive. Mgm|(talk) 09:49, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, good article on important event. Phoenix2 23:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. 205.217.105.2 15:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anschluss[edit]

The article has been a FAC when it was not quite ready. Since then Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anschluss/archive1 it has been substantially expanded and restructured. It is partly a self-nom. Wow! This has been edited quite few times, that its not even funny. Too many lines through sentences, does Wikipedia even notice this!

I haven't forgotten you, Themanwithoutapast. I will review this FAC in a few hours. Phils 16:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's dense. A few small things I think should be addressed while I read it in more deatils include, shortening some of the really long section headings and fixing up the notes, I think that you should remove the numbers from the notes list since they don't correspond to the numbers in the text.--nixie 02:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support now. Object. It has improved (longer, more pics, better language), but some of my past objections are still not adressed. References are still mixed up with external links. I don't think it is comprehensive - the appeasment is not mentioned at all, neither is Munich. On the bright side, this is not far from FA quality and I hope I can support after those points are adressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I added a paragraph on the consequences and reactions part of the article concerning the British appeasement policy. I have linked those external links to the text that have some specific bearing to it. If you want more on the appeasment issue, please state so. P.S.: added some new pics. Themanwithoutapast 03:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • It is comprehensive now, I think. I don't see references now - please read Wikipedia:Cite sources and format this properly (i.e. create a section 'references' and copy and format positions mentioned in notes into it, also, if some external links were used as references, move accordingly). Also, I think that note on spelling (and naming - the first para) should be moved from lead into either a separate section (name) or simply to notes below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • 1. references: I formatted it according to wiki-cite sources + as stated there I only included references that give an in-deep view of the subject at hand + additional reading. 2. moved the note of 'ss' and 'ß' down to notes. Themanwithoutapast 14:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The intro isn't an intro to this subject, which is the Anschluss of 1938, but the current intro gives a potted history of distant events; it's also written in a dense style I think is hard to follow unless you're already familiar with the subject. Also, the notes: I'm not keen on doing it this way (though that's just a personal preference, not an objection), but is the link given in, say, the second note actually the source of the sentence or paragraph? And if so, why not place that link in the text rather than make the reader jump first to a footnote? (Again, this is just a question, not an objection, because I know others accept this way of doing footnotes. I'm asking only because I find it confusing.) SlimVirgin (talk) 09:33, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • 1. As far as I know it is not necessary to give a summary of what follows in the article, an introduction - as the term states - should be an introduction to the article and well that it is in this case. 2. dense: in what way (which paragraph or section is hard to follow?) - please eleborate or give an example so that I can fix that. 3. the footnotes: there were direct links in the text before - I prefer it that way too - however it was critizised last time this article was a FAC and therefore changed. Themanwithoutapast 12:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I see no need to launch into Ausschluss in the second sentence of the intro. The intro should highlight the most notable points about the Anschluss of 1938, and give the reader a taste of what's to come: X number of German troops marched into Austria on (date) after Hitler declared Y. How long the Germans stayed; effects on Austrian population; the extent to which the Nazis had the support of the people; effects on the Jewish and other vulnerable populations. That should be the intro, not the history of the 50 years or so before Anschluss. Anyone who knows nothing about Anschluss still knows nothing about it after reading your intro.
As for the dense writing, just looking at the intro - examples: "The prospect of an Anschluss had been the subject of inconclusive debate prior to the Austro-Prussian War of 1866": debate where, between whom, why inconclusive? "Bismarck deliberately excluded Austria because he believed the Austrian elite would be a harmful counter-balance to the Prussian landed aristocracy — the so-called Junkers — in the reunified Germany." What does "harmful counter-balance" mean? Why harmful? Why would this matter to anyone? Why would it matter to Bismarck? In what way was the aristocracy of Austria different from the Prussian aristocracy? It all needs to be unpacked, and the intro is not the place for it. Is all this directly relevant to Hitler's decision to invade?
Regarding your footnotes, it's a shame you were forced to use these. Just to repeat my earlier question: is the link given in, say, the second note actually the source of the information in the sentence or paragraph, or just some further reading in relation to that sentence? SlimVirgin (talk) 13:21, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • 2. When you reference "a potted history of distant events" in the intro, I take it you are talking about what was considered but never came to pass in the 19th century? I'd reckon that this part of the intro is the section that's not been overhauled in the extensive editing process which this article has undergone, which is to say that this is fair but hardly beyond repair. Buffyg 16:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I've changed the intro now and shifted the old introduction to the main body of the article. With regards to your examples to "dense writing", well we could ask why? and "give more details" in every single article on wikipedia. So if the argument of "dense writing" only applied to the introduction then I hope you are satisfied now, however if it was a general remark on the article I've to say that would lead us to object to every single FAC. Themanwithoutapast 16:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • The new intro is much better, thank you. Regarding the writing of the rest, I'm not sure how to explain clearly what I mean by dense; but what, for example, does "harmful counterbalance" mean, and in what way would the Austrian aristocracy have provided it to the Prussians? That sentence is unclear; and what I'm saying is I think there's a way to write intelligently without using words or phrases that won't be understood by people who don't already know the subject. It isn't always possible to do this, but it should be the aim, particularly with an article like this where there are no technical terms. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, I think there was really a problem with the first section "Situation before the Anschluss" - this consisted of many contributions that have made it into the now comprehensive article from the early beginnings and therefore the whole section was difficult to read. I hope it is better now. Themanwithoutapast 02:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Every change that you've made has improved the text and has made it much clearer with a better flow. Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:20, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • The second footnote clearly refers to this passage: Even before the February meeting, Schuschnigg was under considerable pressure from Germany. This may be seen in the demand to remove the chief of staff of the Austrian Army Alfred Jansa from his office in January 1938. Jansa and his staff had developed a scenario for Austria's defence against a German attack, a situation Hitler wanted to avoid at all costs. Schuschnigg subsequently complied with the demand. and - while a german source - exactly gives this information; in fact I took the information from this article in the Wienerzeitung. It is therefore a valid citation. Themanwithoutapast 16:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)\
  • Support. I hope I'm entitled to vote although I made some edits to the article in the past. I think Themanwithoutapast did excellent work to bring it up to featured article standard. Martg76 22:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Thx, at least one person in support. Themanwithoutapast 01:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm also supportive, but, then again, I wrote much of the section about the legacy of the Anschluss, which is the section that probably leads to regular remarks about dense style. Perhaps someone should drop Piotr a line on his talk page to remind him to see whether his objections have been addressed. Buffyg 08:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, readability has improved alot since my last read through, covers the topic very well. --nixie 14:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Reads well now. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Island Fox[edit]

Partial self-nom. Well-written, stable, comprehensive article about a unique species. jengod 22:13, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: I like the article, but it's pretty short . . . --Scimitar 18:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now it's excellent. Support. --Scimitar 13:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I would like to see more details of population levels. Also, please cite sources for individual assertions. I like the writing style. --Theo (Talk) 23:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    nixie's changes address my main objection but the footnotes still need attention. They should be numbered to match the superscripted tags in the body of the article. --Theo (Talk) 12:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, the article is a bit short. Areas for expansion include the lead which should summarise the content of the article, physical description (are there visual diffences between males and females, metric conversions for height and mass, size comparison with other foxes), the differences between the subspecies could be further described, a map showing where each subspecies occurs would also be a good addition. What methods are being used for recovery? Is there a standard odering for sections for animal articles, Blue Whale has a more logical sequence of its sections. Anything that has been discovered from research should be propperly referenced.--nixie 02:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Support I've worked through a bunch of my objections, mostly because I like foxes.--nixie 07:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object The "notes" need numbers, which match the numbers used in the text, otherwise the reader can't tell which note is being referred to. Paul August ☎ 20:24, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • All you have to do is click on them. Gah, there are no direct cites, there is no set reference standard, it is clear where the information came from. That referece template is also used on other featured artciles and is particularly appropriate for science articles--nixie 22:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For how to use the "ref" and "note" templates, the way they were intended to be used, and how to organize the "Reference" and "Notes" sections see, for example, Gangtok below. The "ref" and "note" templates are designed to occur in pairs, and typically they have matching numbers, and each member of the pair links to the other. And the "note" template instances are expected to be collected together in a numbered list in a "Notes" section, in the same order as it's associated "ref". The way they have been used in this article, there are multiple "ref" templates associated with a single "note template, and the "note" templates are a bulleted list. This means for example that there is no way to tell, for a bit of noted text, which "note" it is associated with (linking on the bracketed superscripted numbers jump to the correct section but you can't tell which entry there it is associated with) and backlinks generated by the "note" template (Indicated by the "^" symbols), don't work correctly. This article is also confusing "references" with notes. There should be a "References" section giving complete bibliographic information (e.g. Smith, John The Big Book, So and So publishers, (2005) ISBN 12345678) for each source cited. Then if you want to further granularize your source citation you can have inline-citations of the references listed in the "References" section using parenthetical citations (e.g. Smith pp. 34-36) or use footnotes or endnotes, typically indicated by small font superscripted numbers in the text, and referring to a matching numbered note in a "Notes" section. The note can then be some explanatory text, or a citation (e.g. Smith pp. 34-36). Paul August ☎ 05:27, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Switched to footnote4. --nixie 06:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Much better. Paul August ☎ 13:07, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A model for other species pages. --Wetman 02:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vanilla Ninja[edit]

Self-nomination for Vanilla Ninja. Article is on an Estonian girl band and has been written pretty much completely by myself in the past week or so. Spent a few days on peer review and received a couple of concerns and suggestions, all of which have been implemented and/or fixed. I think it passes all of the criteria for a featured article, including a good amount of well-licensed images and numerous references. Hedley 00:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Well done! However, object until the references are fixed to be more in line with cite your sources. Would appreciate the use of Template:Ref and Template:Note in the article. When this is done, will enthusiastically support! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The issue I foresee with references is that I didn't include them within the text, but instead completely at the end because almost all of them are in German. As it is English Wikipedia, I feel it would be foolish to link to German language references so frequently. The sources are cited at the end under references, although some content comes from personal knowledge collected from news reports, looking up info, etc. that i've forgotten the source of. If you could be more specific with which bits of information should be cited better i'll attempt to fix. Hedley 01:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • support good informative article, much improved in last rewrite. Jtkiefer 01:22, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. As long as the references section is as thorough as possible (you're right, English only), this is a very intersting and thorough article on an unknown quantity to most. Harro5 08:04, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Describing the plotlines of individual music videos is too detailed and not particularly interesting or encyclopedic. The article can certainly do without them. / Peter Isotalo 11:30, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I hardly think its not encyclopaedic, its an article on the artist and their videos are inherently notable. The article could be without them, but many articles could do without things, but are better and more comprehensive with them. Hedley 13:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Detailed plotlines of the individual videos are neither interesting to read nor particularly relevant; they're promotion stunts like most music videos, not world-renowned art projects. A list with brief summaries will suffice. / Peter Isotalo 21:12, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • So you think that everything that isn't 'world-renowned' should be summarised? Isn't being comprehensive one of the criteria for a featured article? Hedley 21:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Comprehensive does not mean "include everything". They really don't add anything to the overall quality of the article. Really well-executed summaries is what makes the best FAs. It's definetly underestimated as a sign of article quality here on Wikipedia. / Peter Isotalo 08:25, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, looks fairly crufty. Will oppose if Pete's objection above is acted on, although the detail could be moved to a subarticle if necessary, I suppose. Everyking 12:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Neutralitytalk 19:51, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support looks really good. I don't know what the article spoilt, though... smoddy 20:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow... looks good. Nice job, Hedley. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:17, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, comprehensive and interesting Celestianpower 17:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, although I am mildly concerned about the lack of explicit sourcing and the quirky approach to citation in the ==References== section. --Theo (Talk) 22:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work Hedley! Up to featured standard in a very short time. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, though I agree inline citations would be nice. Tuf-Kat 00:30, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Why are there no wikilinks to the band-members? But even if those girls have wiki-articles of their own, in addition to the information on all the music-videos there should be a section them as well, some information on their life + maybe education, etc. Themanwithoutapast 22:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    In contrast to the english article - the (much shorter) german article consists in half of short bios on the band-members, for instance Miss Siska apparently studies accounting at the university of talinn. Themanwithoutapast 23:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object An article about musicians should include substantive discussion of their music and its critical reception. I come away from this article with hardly a clue as to whether this band's sound resembles the Spice Girls, the Indigo Girls, the Supremes, the Runaways, or anyone else. And way, way, way too much detail on the music videos. Monicasdude
There is frequent mention of how each single sounded, and I believe that comparisons to other artists are made along the line. As for the music videos - detail is important, and I think its something that is good to include. Hedley 23:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think that "pop-rock" is a useful description of how particular tracks sound. It doesn't convey very much. As for detail, the featured article criteria say that articles "should stay tightly-focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail"; and I believe that such extensive summaries of individual videos reach an unnecessary level of detail -- for this or any other artist. Monicasdude 00:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gangtok[edit]

Self nom: I am resubmitting this article, a town in the Himalayas, for FA status. It lost in January, (see the archive here.) I've fixed the objections and also allowed the article to gather dust for about five months. Suggestions and constuctive objections will be appreciated and promptly be taken care of. :)  =Nichalp (Talk)= 10:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Mild oppose. I request that the person archiving this to have a look at Jun-Dai's comments before archiving, and not just count on the number of support votes alone. Edit: Most of my concerns have been addressed by Nichalp - excellent job! The only problem left is the unreliable references used in the article. This clearly does not meet the reliability requirement in the featured article criteria (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Edit: Article is now much better and looks less like a tourist brouchure. Kudos to Nichalp for the excellent work done. I am going to refrain from added a support vote although it does meet FA criteria, because I feel this article can achieve much more. I have made some copyedits to the numerous minor mistakes I have found, and I do hope that Nichalp and other contributors will continue working on the article. Perhaps with some more effort, it would be worthy of a front page status. =Travisyoung= 03:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. Use of unverifiable/dubious reference - Let's not add "references" just for the sake of having references.
    • "site currently only available through Google cache" - Gangtok Times website cannot be found, and a cached reference was provided instead. On top of that, there is no direct link to the cached page. What is the point of adding the reference? Edit: The "reference" did not mention crime rates in Gangtok. It mentioned that crime rates in Sikkim are the lowest in the nation (without providing any numbers) and I assume it was assumed that Gangtok has one of the lowest crime rates. This is wrong and serves as a poor reference. Why not get official statistics?
    • Two references given were tourism-based (Sikkim — Land of Mystic and Splendour and Holidaying in Sikkim and Bhutan), which might give a clue to the point on "flowery"/"touristy" language below.
  2. Incoherent paragraphs - Paragraphs start off on a particular topic and end on another. This makes the article incoherent and gives the reader a very "cut and paste" feel. For example:
    • "Residents of Sikkim are music lovers and it is common to hear Western rock music being played in homes and restaurants... The Paljor Stadium, which hosts football matches, is the sole sporting ground in the city." Why not have two separate paragraphs? Edit: Not separated yet.
    • "Citizens in Gangtok are extremely fashion-conscious. The major Indian festivals...". What's the point of adding that statement on fashion-consciousness?
    • "It is one of the southernmost locations in South Asia to receive snowfall" but yet later in the article - "Snowfall is rare, with Gangtok having received snow in 1990, 2004 and 2005 in the recent past" (I would agree it is a fact, but saying that it receives snowfall when it only happens 3 times in 15 years is stretching it a little too far.)
  3. Use of "flowery"/"touristy" language - Some examples include:
    • nestled in the lower Himalayas Edit: Not corrected yet.
    • appellation
    • Gangtok grew in stature
    • monarchy was abrogated Edit: Not corrected yet.
    • the lofty Kanchenjanga
    • enjoys five seasons
    • drenched by rain
    • bathing the avenues in various hues and colours
    • mighty Kanchenjunga (note the difference in spelling from the previous)
    • aldermen of Municipal Corporation
    • cornucopia of natural springs
    • enjoying an almost uninterrupted electricity supply
    • well served by English, Nepali and Hindi dailies
    • yet to make its mark
    • staunchly maintains its secular credentials Edit: Not corrected yet.
    • architectural highlight is the 200 foot (91 m) TV tower (I wouldn't consider a TV tower an architectural highlight) Edit: As long as you can provide a reference which states that the TV tower is of architectural importance/significance, I'll remove this opposition. Otherwise, it sounds very much like a boastful remark; it is just a TV tower.
    • built on the site venerated by
    • the hirsute Himalayan Black Bear
    • and other objets d'art. etc. This point has been mentioned before during the previous FAC, seems to me it has not been acted upon. Edit: Not corrected yet.
  4. Poor choice of picture - half of the picture is grass, the other half shows several peaks; which is the "mighty Kanchenjunga"? Edit: The caption is much better now.
Until these issues have been addressed, it is an oppose. [edit: Shouldn't this be a self-nomination?] Edit: Please add "self-nom" to this nomination. -Travisyoung 13:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions.
  1. This is the google cache link: [4]. I had used the reference in the previous nomination. I've had to reference that phrase from a credible source, else it would be my point of view. I've included the link.
  2. The highest peak in the image would be the Kanchenjunga.
  3. While, I have been honest to mention that I have used a travel book as a reference, might I also add that such books also detail the history and geography of a place.
  4. Removed snowfall in the lead-in
  5. Yes, the TV tower is an architectural highlight (I don't have a pic though)
  6. fixed:
    • "stature"
    • "lofty"
    • "bathing in various hues..."
    • "drenched by rain"
    • "hirsute"
    • "venerated by..."
    • "cornucopia"
    • "fashion conscious"
    • "aldermen"
    • "yet to make its mark"
    • "objet d'art"
    • "mighty"
    • "secular credentials"
    • "well served..."
    • "nestled"
  7. split sports-music paragraphs
I didn't resolve one or two of the others, as I think its a little too harsh. May I also add that its isn't a cut & paste job.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 14:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately Travisyoung has not reviewed this page once again, either to withdraw his objection or stay with it.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 20:36, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I have been busy with work. I appreciate the edits you have put in, the article looks better now (less "touristy" and "boastful"). However, there were some edits which were not corrected but claimed to be corrected - please correct these.
The "History" section looks much better now, although I think it would be better if there were good references to back up the points.
I am also concerned about the way Jun-Dai has voted despite still having doubts. "[D]on't like standing in the way of people's efforts" is not a valid reason for puting a support vote! Either support, oppose or don't vote. This has been pointed out by Sfahey as well. It is best if Jun-Dai can clarify and list out his doubts rather than let the article go on featured status. =Travisyoung= 09:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1) I had resolved your objections but a bug must have prevented some from being saved. I've corrected the same.
2) "abrograted" is used in context and I prefer not to change it.
3) I can't provide you official statistics a) Gangtok comes under the Sikkim Police and no data are released for Gangtok alone. b) No credible references available online. This is the only reference available and it does have the state statistics. The low crime rate makes Gangtok "unique"; and has to be referenced. In the article it is also mentioned that the state comes under the SP. I'd vote to keep this reference until better ones are obtained.
I understand your point. However, it is clearly stated in Wikipedia:Cite sources: "Wikipedia articles should cite their sources, preferably reliable sources." Both are guidelines which are a result of consensus within the Wikipedia community. The reference you have provided is a secondary source, so the way to check whether it is reliable or not is stated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Evaluating secondary sources. =Travisyoung= 13:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4) Here are links for the TV tower: [5], [6], [7] and [8]. I hope this settles the debate then. I don't have an image of the tower, but part of the antenna is visible here: Image:Whitehall.jpg.
The first, third and fourth are duplicates of each other. The second is a homepage of someone's travels! I would prefer the word "landmark". "Architectural highlight" would be more suitable for the likes of Guggenheim Museum Bilbao; something of architectural value. =Travisyoung= 13:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 =Nichalp (Talk)= 10:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
1) I've rewritten the crime part and included it below with the police topics. I've managed to get an active govt of India link as a new reference. 2) I've separated the sports and music section before, but it is still marked as "not done". 3) I've rewritten "architectural highlight" to landmark. BTW the tower pc is available here. (The fifth image) . 4) I've replaced the location of gangtok map.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 15:47, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Excellent work, I hope you agree that the article looks much better now! The link to the government website is excellent, since it is a direct and reliable source, and it allows for comparison by looking at Sikkim's crime rate versus the national average. The map looks much better now too, the reader can locate Gangtok straight away when looking at the map. Is there anyway to remove the divisions for the state in the India map so that the state of Sikkim stands out more? This would be much clearer. Could the section on the Himalayan Zoological Park be shifted to another section; I don't think a zoo qualifies as a cultural institution. Several numbers do not have the metric equivalent as well. The reference to the posting of of IPS officers doesn't really show anything, you can remove it. Is there any reason for a separate references and notes section? =Travisyoung= 02:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can't modifiy the states of India map, but I've increased the font size of Gangtok. 2) I've renamed =cultural institutions= to =city institutions= to address the zoo's inclusion. 3) added imperial units 4) The IPS officers mentions that the police headquarters in Gangtok is manned by an IGP.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 08:09, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Instead of a google cache link, with _will_ expire, why not use the wayback machine link to the same page, which 1) works better, and 2) unless archive.org goes away isn't expiring on us. WayBack Machine archive of www.gangtoktimes.com/2004/Jan05-11/viewpoints.htm
The original link was http://web.archive.org/web/20041121030218/http://www.gangtoktimes.com/2004/Jan05-11/viewpoints.htm it turns out that the http in the wayback machines links is optional, and it still works if you remove it as above which allows normal wikipedia formating to work Rick Boatright 23:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good idea, but the link does not display correctly on wikipedia. I wonder if the talk page could hold the reference instead.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 10:21, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Rick, I've included the link in the references.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:21, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article. However, on IE there is a lot of white space - eg History starts with a five line gap, plus there's a big gap between the first and second paragraphs of Geography (plus elsewhere). Could this be fixed? And in the first paragraph of History - isn't the word "hermetic" rather than "hermitic"? jguk 22:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Hermitic' has a different meaning (WordNet says "characterized by ascetic solitude"), and would be the more fitting word in this context. Phils 05:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Phils' right about the word heremitic. I managed to resolve the gap in the geography section. The other gaps unfortunately do not display in my IE.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 06:56, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
I am using IE version 6.0.2800.1106 and I have noticed the big gaps as well. =Travisyoung= 09:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My version is 6.0.2900.2180. I guess the bug is resolved in my version.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 10:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, I believe the gaps have more to do with screen resolution than IE version. I moved one of the pics lower (two different places, depending on which people think is better), both of which avoid the big gaps in the upper sections. At 1280*1024 res there is a small gap ([only] using IE) in the "City institutions" section, but lower resolutions all seem to be fine. I only had time for a brief scan of the rest of the article, but I didn't see anything that would keep me from supporting it. Niteowlneils 07:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't like the images at the bottom, In my resolution 800x600; the bear image overlaps with the next section making it look untidy.  =Nichalp (Talk)=
Sorry, just thot I'd try to address someone's expressed concern. The huge white chunks look even less tidy to me. Given the large number of pics, and the shortness of all the section texts, the ony way (other than removing pics or adding text) I can see avoiding both issues would be to put the pics in less logical places, such as moving Rumtek to Media, and the bears to Transport. Or, I suppose, either of those to External links. Niteowlneils 14:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Tentative support I'm not going to oppose it this time. For two reasons: (1) I don't like standing in the way of people's efforts, especially when they feel strongly about them and (2) I think that most of the objections that I have will be fixed as the article gets more attention by being a Featured Article. I don't think up the FA quality yet, however, so I'm going to try to make some changes and comments for improvement during its nomination. See my comments at Talk:Gangtok. Jun-Dai 17:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the Talk page. I will address your concerns there, and try and modify the map somewhat.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:09, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
The map looks much better now, excellent job Nichalp! I think it would look better if dotted lines separate the different districts and the district capitals are not shown. The point of interest in the map is Gangtok. =Travisyoung= 09:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
map replaced  =Nichalp (Talk)=
<Jun-Dai 00:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)>
Some people have asked me to clarify my support vote in light of my concerns. Keep in mind that the reasons I gave for not opposing it were written before I gave my support. I am not supporting it to avoid standing in the way of anyone's efforts, that was simply why I wasn't going to oppose it. Since then, the article has improved enough for me to lend my tentative support. I feel that the article comes as close to meeting my interpretation of the FA criteria without more direct input from people in Gangtok or more in-depth research than is readily available to those that are editing it and want to see it FAed.
I marked my support tentative, because I think the article meets the current standards for "Featured Article". It does not meet the standards that I would like to see featured articles meet in the future, but if those standards were in place, we would not have enough featured articles to have a daily featured article (without cycling them). The article is not as good as it should be, but it's about as good as it's going to get under Nichalp, myself, and the like. Certainly there were articles in the past that made it to featured articles that would never make it now (I hope), and I'd like to think that an article like this would not make it in the future. The standards have to be a balance of where we'd like to see the Wikipedia's best articles be, and what we can actually accomplish given the amount and quality of the people-hours that we have.
Additionally, I have some concerns that should not interfere with it getting FA status, but they do interfere somewhat with my support of the article. The article has too many pictures for my taste--I'd like to see about half of them removed. But at the same time, I recognize that this is different from what others may have for Gangtok as a featured article, and I'd hate to see it held back just because two voters couldn't agree on which way it should be. Does this help clarify my position?
</Jun-Dai>
  • Support The suggested changes that are substantial have been made, and the article "reads" much better now than when first listed. Parenthetically, I am concerned about someone voting "support" while saying it was not yet up to FA status. Frankly, most articles get WORSE after they make FA, since unhelpful changes are not as readily purged once they are no longer under the watchful eye of a jury. I would prefer articles be "frozen" until they hit the front page. Sfahey 23:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Comprehensive, well written, great map and photos, and follows the WikiProject Cities guidelines. Petersam 16:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. --Scimitar 22:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BC Rail (formerly titled British Columbia Railway)[edit]

Self-nom. I've been working on this article for a while and it's spent a few weeks on peer review. I think it's ready for FAC now. JYolkowski // talk 02:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Comment it looks great but I am wondering about the name. Don't most people know it as simply BC Rail, and wasn't this the name it itself used? Also the table at the bottom seems to have a lot of whitespace making it much larger than it needs to be. - SimonP 02:59, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've removed some whitespace from Template:Canada class 2. As for the name, the railway operations were known as "British Columbia Railway" from 1972 to 1984 and as "BC Rail" between 1984 and 2004. Since the only reason I wrote the article at "British Columbia Railway" was because that's where it was when I got here, there's probably some advantage to moving it to BC Rail. If anyone else has related feedback, that would be appreciated. JYolkowski // talk 23:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I've added a few photos and done some minor text edits to it. Another fine article on a Canadian railroad. slambo 03:07, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow, impressive article! Just a couple of comments. (1) The first sentence is so full of symbols that it's almost impossible to read. In general, the article could make more of an effort to grab a reader who isn't a fanatical train buff. (2) Some of the photos are very dark, and need to be brightened a lot in Gimp or Photoshop, e.g., in the one captioned "The Whistler Northwind," I can't even see what it's a picture of.--Bcrowell 04:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The photos of the electrics being dismantled and of the centerbeam flat car are ones that I created, so I've got the originals. I'll see what I can do with them tonight in Gimp. slambo 15:25, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Well, that wasn't quite as difficult as I feared. I've lightened and re-uploaded the three photos that I created. slambo 22:20, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
I've brightened up the two that I thought were way too dark.--Bcrowell 02:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the support and the feedback. The abbreviations and reporting marks stuff is pretty standard for railway articles but I'll see what I can do. I'll also see about a better Whistler Northwind picture. JYolkowski // talk 23:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I've attempted to rewrite the lead paragraph to retain all of the previous information while trying to space out the terminology a bit. Is that any better? JYolkowski // talk 20:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Looks nice!--Bcrowell 02:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support- in-depth article written with no bias, excellent! Flcelloguy 02:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A very thorough and readable article. --Theo (Talk) 16:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - should be moved back to British Columbia Railway. "BC Something" articles should be expanded to "British Columbia Something" per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) (cf British Columbia Liberal Party, British Columbia Lions despite being commonly known as the BC Liberal Party and BC Lions respectively); and BC Rail went by its full name for nearly as long as the abbreviation anyway.

United States Senate[edit]

Self-nomination. -- Emsworth 22:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support- great article, non-biased and explains history, procedures, etc. clearly. Flcelloguy 02:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support- excellent information covering every aspect of the Senate. I wish there were more than just three pictures, but that's just my personal preference. Brendan OShea 03:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support- very good article. I've refered to it more than once myself. I may hunt for more good PD pictures to add if I have the time, but I think it's ready for FA status now. --Satori 04:26, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written, and importantly, not too long. As good as if not better than Canadian Senate, a featured article. Harro5 08:27, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Phils 10:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Up to Emsworth's usual standard Giano | talk 12:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think this is your best so far!
  • Support- Explains the Senate very well, and is not overly long. It's neutral, and it's a great article. Matjlav 17:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object mildly. I would like to see specific sources cited for some assertions. I have marked up the article accordingly. This is a pleasure to read so I would be happy to see the citations in comments or using Template:Inote. --Theo (Talk) 18:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added the relevant sources. Also, I would like to thank everyone for the support; I don't believe that any of my previous nominations has been received with such kind remarks. -- Emsworth 19:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      Support wholeheartedly. --Theo (Talk) 07:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would someone please edit the gallery of portraits to lines of 3 images each? As they are now, they are slightly too wide for 800x600 screens. Mgm|(talk) 19:07, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, well done. Phoenix2 19:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please remove the image gallery. It is unnecessary, a separate page could be made to discuss minorities in the Senate, this is not appropriate and distracts from the prose. Images should be related to the prose, and the history section does not discuss any of the individuals in the image gallery. Deus Ex 00:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • In view of changes, Support Deus Ex 00:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support  =Nichalp (Talk)= 04:55, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Tough it could be more grounded in recent literature on the politics of Congress, such as the work of Barbara Sinclair, Terry Moe, and Morris Fiorina. 172 06:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War[edit]

I'm actually pretty proud of this one. I spent the last two weeks fixing it up, adding references and quotations, 'etc. See the difference for yourself -- before and after. It's detailed, and one of the few articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict that doesn't have the obligatory {{POV}} tag. →Raul654 07:31, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think this article needs a separate references section that is easily navigation, and this should probably be done with a numbered notes and references system. Otherwise, this looks a very good article. If the referencing system is addressed, I'll have a full read and vote on this FAC. Thanks. Harro5 08:03, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and added a references section. →Raul654 08:16, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Support. A NPOV account of a major war in the Arab world, and a very well complied reference for those interested. Well done all contributors. Thanks to Raul for the references section as requested. Harro5 08:41, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, however, I'd like to see the references formatted according to the guidelines (specifically, the websites in the "References" section should include retrieval dates and more precise source information; web pages are inherently dynamic. Nice work. Phils 20:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Suport. It is now about as comprehensive as an overview article is going to get. - SimonP 13:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) Object it has very little on the Egyptian motivation to attack Israel and nothing on why the Syrians decided to join them. As I understand it there were important domestic concerns in Egypt that contributed to the war. In the months prior, for instance, there were major student protests against the government. - SimonP 22:27, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • The primary motivation for the war (which the article says both in the introduction and again in the background section) was unquestionably the recovery of the territory lost during the Six day war. Anyone who says otherwise is flatly wrong. For Sadat in Egypt, there has been speculation that, even before the war was fought, he wanted to jump-start the peace process (because, the speculation goes, he realized that Egypt could not maintain, socially or economically, a hostile position towards Israel indefinitely). As far as the motivations in their own words --- since neither Sadat nor Assad ever published memoirs, their "true" motivations can only be speculated at. →Raul654 22:43, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually Sadat's autobiography is widely available in English and it would present a valuable, if biased, extra opinion. - SimonP 22:45, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • Also I think you are failing to take alternate views seriously enough. Here's a quote from William L. Cleveland's A History of the Modern Middle East, which is a pretty standard introduction to the subject: Sadat's presidency had achieved little after two years. The measure of despair that affected Egypt generally was reflected in 1972 and early 1973 in outbreaks of student demonstrations that stood as criticisms of the government's apparent lack of resolve. If Egypt could show that Israeli military might was not as all-powerful as assumed, then perhaps the United States could be persuaded to enter the negotiating process and work to soften Israel's hard-line position. In pursuit of this aim, Sadat, with Syria as an ally, undertook the war as an instrument of diplomacy. (pg. 365) - SimonP 22:55, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
          • I've added a paragraph to the background about the unrest within the nation. Also, as to Sadat's biography - based on the reivews, it seems to only cover the period on his rise to power and his motivations for making peace with israel. It doesn't mention the war at all. Also, in the bibliography for my book -- "The Arab side of the war is poorly documented. A notable exception is the war diary of the Egyptian cheif of staff, Gen Saad el Shazly. Unfortunately, books by other Egyptian generals published in english are heavily laden with fantasy, but interviews granted by General Gamasy and Egyptian intelligence officers to the Israeli press offer valuable information... There is nothing authoratiative at all from the Syrian side but light is shed on military aspects by outside sources. These includes an official Iraqi report on the Syrian front - one of the most straightforward arab accounts of the war." →Raul654 23:08, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
            • You're changes look good, but I want to make sure this is comprehensive before I support it. I'm going to the library tomorrow and will try to see if there is anything more on this issue. I'll double check Sadat's autobiography and I believe Moshe Maoz's Syria and Israel: From War to Peacemaking might be the best source to find something on Syria. Cleveland gets the student protest information from Ahmed Abdallah's The Student Movement and National Politics in Egypt, unfortunately this book is available in neither of the university libraries I have access to. - SimonP 00:05, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
              • I've finished my research. I have added some notes to the talk page of the article before making any changes. - SimonP 23:34, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: For an article of a war that doesn't date back very far it has an astonishing lack of pictures of the war itself - aren't there any, or is this a matter of copyright issues that prohibit it to include some? Themanwithoutapast 22:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You said it yourself -- there aren't any non-copyrighted pictures available. →Raul654 22:43, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, you can even find some non-copyrighted material on wikipedia related to the Yom Kippur War: pic, and in general the fair use-doctrine is quite generous, so with the right justification it's possible to include photos of e.g. a tank, some soldiers or other images related to the article. Themanwithoutapast 01:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, the picture you are referring to is this one, which clearly indicates that it is copyrighted. →Raul654 01:41, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, the use of this pic falls under the fair use doctrine as indicated on the talk page of the pic. Where is the problem? Themanwithoutapast 01:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Stuffing an article with "fair use" copyrighted image doesn't exactly exemplify the best of Wikipedia. Phils 05:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • I've gone ahead and two (fair-use) pics; one of the combat in the Golan and one of combat in the Sinai. →Raul654 05:41, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just curious, why are all of the references Israeli sources? --Tabor 07:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Look up, at my reply to Simon, re: "The Arab side of the war is poorly documented..." →Raul654 07:14, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written, comprehensive, as NPOV as one can get with Israel-Arab (the lack of a POV tag is a great compliment to the article). Well referenced, lots of important stats, inclusion of all major fronts - inclduing Sea - was welcome. Maybe more about the American airdrop, but aprat from that well worthy of Featured Article status --Batmanand 14:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object. Technical issues: remove external links from main body, transform into notes. Add a picture to the warbox. Merge 4 lead paras into 3, as specified by Wikipedia:Lead. Can stubbish sections 'at sea', 'Participation by other Arab states' be expanded a little? Also, their paras are one-two sentences, consider merging. After those minor points are adressed, I'll support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • (1) Done (2) A picture in the warbox is not part of the standard, as far as I can tell (3) Done (4) There's really not a whole lot more to say about the war at sea -- there was one battle, and it's already described and its individual article linked; as far as participation by other arab states -- there were two big players (Syria and Egypt), two minor players (Iraq and Jordan), and those are described in great detail in the article; the contributions by the rest were small enough that there's really not a whole lot more to say than what is in that small section →Raul654 22:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • If they cannot be expanded anymore, then so be it, it was just a suggestion. What template are you using? It might need to be merged with Template:Warbox. Anyway, pic in lead is nice and thus I think there should be one in the warbox. I'll support when I see a pic in lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A good survey, though it could be more engaged in some of the international relations literature, which is at the root of some of the problems noted by SimonP. 172 06:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isaac Brock[edit]

This is a self-nomination. The article is about a person who is a national hero in Canada and a significant historical figure in the War of 1812. The article has been through a peer review which resulted in significant changes. I also believe it meets feature-article criteria, and will do my level best to resolve any actionable problems brought up. --Scimitar 16:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support A fine read. My only quibble would be that the lead image should be within a {{Infobox Biography}} block, but that's not enough to stop my support. slambo 17:26, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Added. --Scimitar 18:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support with the quibble that: "Despite his lack of secular education" suggests that he had had a religious education. This is not mentioned anywhere and seems unlikely. --Theo (Talk) 00:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I've changed the wording to "an extensive formal education" to avoid confusion. --Scimitar 19:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Very well doen. say1988 02:39, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, great work --nixie 04:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work. Phils 19:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent. DanielNuyu 22:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Liked it, small comment: a map or maybe a painting of a scene in the Battle of Detroit would enhance the section on it. Themanwithoutapast 23:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I acutally haven't been able to find a painting (who wants to paint a battle scene from a battle that wasn't really a battle, eh?), and I'm not sure about the veracity (or for that matter copyrights) of the maps I've found, or else I would include them. --Scimitar 13:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, great work, well written. Phoenix2 23:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Thought I knew quite a bit about the man, found some interesting stuff that was new to me. Very well laid-out, as well. Radagast 02:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Geography of India[edit]

This was a recent Indian collaboration of the week. Although this time is isn't a total self-nom; I did write about 80% of the prose in this article in two days flat! The collaboration also involved User:IMpbt who helped immensely, and to a certain extent User:Guptadeepak. Also thank all those who helped add, critiqued, copy edited & NPOV'd the text. I wish I could cut down the length of this article; but alas, couldn't put my summary skills into use, as all mentioned points were necessary. (PS I've also drawn the maps). ☺  =Nichalp (Talk)= 20:20, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment Wonderful job on the maps. Now to read and vote... slambo 20:45, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
I've read through it now and can lend my Support. One additional comment, however, on measurement units. Most of the article uses metric units, but there are a few conversions to imperial units scattered throughout the text. If you're going to show conversions, show them all or stick with one set of units. slambo 00:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Units work done.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 09:32, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very thorough and well-written (nice work with the prose!), and great use of pictures throughout. A good geography candidate for FA. Harro5 21:25, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This looks good and reads well. I note that the footnotes are inconsistent in style, which I would like to see fixed. --Theo (Talk) 22:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Notes 1-8 use Template:note. The rest do not. --Theo (Talk) 23:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Template:note is for inline referencing. The others are references for the article as a whole. I've tried to differenciate it somewhat by using bulleted lists for the non-inline refs.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
I sorted out the notes/references myself. --Theo (Talk) 16:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting it out. I wasn't aware of this system.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 04:29, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support, I agree that the refs should be a consistent format, also the rivers section is disjointed and difficult to understand and needs to be tidied up. --nixie 05:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Refs are displayed according to Wikipedia:Cite your sources. I've modified it slighty. Is this what you were looking for?  =Nichalp (Talk)= 11:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Why discuss both classification systems when they're basically the same? Also names appear in the text and then appear later as wikilinks, shouldn't the first use of the name be the wikilink?--nixie 00:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that one is based on where the rivers originate and the other on where they flow. The second section was added independently of the first, so we still have to bring the sections to line. Any proposed solutions would be welcome--IMpbt 02:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with nixie; removed the extra text.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:32, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A very well-written article. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Object. I'll support iff all measurements are given in standrad as well as metric units. Otherwise an excellent article. Excellent job. --Neutralitytalk 05:55, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Done  =Nichalp (Talk)= 08:40, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the rapid response. I now lend my full support. Neutralitytalk 16:34, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Various verbal infelicities which I'm working through and fixing myself- I'll try not to do anything too drastic. It's rather misleading to say that Indonesia is an "island nation to the south of India"; that needs fixing in some way or other. Mark1 08:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Be bold! and fix whatever is wrong. Such infelicities though are hard to spot, I agree. you've done great work, thanks.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 11:27, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is a color coding problem on Image:India-naturalhazards-map.png; I suppose "Draught prone" in the legend should be orange-brown. Also, the color boxes in the legend are not aligned properly. The caption of Image:Talmarg.jpg.jpg (what's up with this filename?) reads "Snow is only received in elevated regions.", which I find a bit obvious. Lupo 08:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've corrected the colour, but since I've rasterised the layers, I can't align the key. I've also removed the snow image.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 09:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. As a co-author (mostly adding info, copy editing), the article still needs some work in terms of corrections and clean up (mostly minor and in sections) before it becomes a FA. -- Impbt
  • Object. The "notes" section has two problems: (1) the notes numbers don't matchup, and (2) the section includes several entries which should go into a "references" section. Paul August ☎ 19:55, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Fixed; added inline and non-inline references under =References=.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Well this is better, but I'm not particularly happy with the mixed format of the "References" section. Also why is this reference "The Land (.doc), The Great Mountains of the North" be considered reliable? Who is the author? Where is it from? As far as I can tell it is just some random page from the web. Paul August ☎ 15:48, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there might be some issues so referenced it from an official govt of India article. BTW, the previous reference was credible, as they publish texts for schools (See: [9]). I've crosschecked other references in the original article. The references also have been sorted.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 17:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Now there is both a "Notes" section (using "ref/note" style notes) and a "Footnotes" section (using "mn/mnb" style notes). They should be combined into one section (preferably called "Notes" and placed after the "References" section) and a single note style chosen (I happen to prefer the look of "mn'mnb" over "ref/note" — actually I like "rf/ent" style notes the best). Every reference mentioned in the notes should be listed in the "References" section with complete bibliographic info (currently I think they all are, except for the "Physical Divisions" reference mentioned in note 1). Then each reference mentioned in the notes can be shortened to just a citation (and link, if the citation is to an online source — which all of them are currently). Paul August ☎ 20:09, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
1) I've displayed all references in the =note= section according to a template so I can't shorten that. 2) I don't support merging the =footnote= with other sections as it is a clarification of a point, not a reference. I'd prefer to leave it as it is. Thanks for your suggestions.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 12:14, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Well it will be very confusing to have both a "Notes" section and a "Footnotes" section. For example when readers see: "Afghanistan1" how will they know whether it refers to note 1, or footnote 1? If an editor wants to annotate a piece of text, where should it go, in the "Notes" section or the "Footnotes" section? As used on Wikipedia, these two terms are virtually synonymous. I think this is essentially unworkable. From your comment, I think you might be confusing notes with references. As I use the term, a reference is a source which is used to write the article, and all references should be collected together in a bulleted list in a "References" section, with all the bibliographic information necessary for a reader to easily identify and find the source. Notes (also called footnotes or endnotes, depending on placement) are for any information that you want to associate with a piece of text, but which you don't want inline, for example some clarifying text, and/or to cite (i.e. point to) a reference listed in the "References" section, in which case, since the reference is already listed completely there, the note doesn't have to repeat all the bibliographic information — and consider you may have several notes which cite the same reference. Thus for example the text for Note 2 can be shortened to just be "Deccan Plateau", since the first item in the "References" section has the rest of the source information. Also a citation given in a note can give more specific "chapter and verse" information (e.g. Smith p. 5) to point the reader to a specific part of the cited reference work. For an example of how all of this can be done see Attalus I. Paul August ☎ 14:26, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Ok. I finally get what you mean. I wasn't aware that inline references were also considered to be notes. User:TheoClarke has addressed the problem. Thank you for enlightening me on the differences. I'll do the same for my future articles. Regards,  =Nichalp (Talk)= 04:29, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad to have been able to help. I think the article is better now. Paul August ☎ 16:32, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Will support once this is addressed. Good article, and well illustrated, BTW. Phils 20:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I haven't gone through all the recent edits done to the article, but it seems good and informative. Good job User:Nichalp --IncMan 15:31, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

George F. Kennan[edit]

Another article I found quite helpful, especially with all the citations. JBurnham 14:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Object for now. The lead section is quite overwhelming at 5 paragraphs, four of them long--that should be cut down to about 2, perhaps 3. Meelar (talk) 16:18, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Better? [10] JBurnham 16:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes. Lead could still be more concise, but I change my vote to support. Meelar (talk) 17:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

***It would also be quite helpful to include Kennan's various positions (ambassador, etc) as well as the fact that he is a writer in the first sentence. As it is, you have to read to the entire intro to find out exactly what he did. I would rewrite the first sentence as "George F. Kennen, (dates) American writer, political critic and ambassador known as "the father of containment" and a leading figure in the Cold War." After reading the intro, I must say I'm still not exactly clear on what Kennen did beside being a political critic and ambassador. You mention that he left the State Department in 1950, but what did he do at the State Department? That's not stated in the intro. Ganymead 20:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

        • Support Ganymead 04:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • This should clear up the above. [11] JBurnham 21:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • SupportMinor object, should this quote: if were are really all-powerful, and could hope to get away with it. I very much doubted that this was the case , read we are? There are 4 inline links to webpages that should be turned into footnotes. I think that external links to 10 obituries is a bit excessive. The book section should be called biblography or publications so that it is clear that those books were written by Keenan--nixie 00:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)--nixie 00:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • See [12] The only objection I did not resolve was the four inline links. I'm holding off on that since there seems to be a reason for including some as inline references while others as footnotes. The references to print material are in the footnotes. The references that can be found online are the inline citations. IMO the more inline links to webpages, the easier it is for the reader. JBurnham 10:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with JBurnham on this. Meelar (talk) 19:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • I think its best to apply one system to everything, but I'll remove the objection if more people support. --nixie 05:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object. No references. I see them in Notes, but this is not proper formatting. After this is formatted properly, I will likely support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. My only reservation about this is that I feel that the Lead lacks punch but this concern is not strong enough to merit any objection. --Theo (Talk) 14:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That's probably my fault, since I modfified the original lead. Let me know how I can fix that. JBurnham 15:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      I have been bold and copy edited the lead myself. I may have deleted information that is not covered in the main body of the article (although I believe that the lead should summarise material that is covered in more detail later) so do check it and insert the lost details into the appropriate parts of the body. I would do it myself but I am off to bed. --Theo (Talk) 00:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Excellent work. The prose flows much better now. I don't see any problems, BTW. JBurnham 02:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, although the prose could use tightening up in places. --Scimitar 20:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Object There needs to be a proper "references" section per Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus comment above. Paul August ☎ 20:39, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support An important article for the main page. (Though I could have been less gutless and included more on some of his controversial recent work when writing this article.) 172 06:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Architecture of Windows 2000[edit]

Self-nomination (yes, I know the history says Mav contributed it). This was split from the recently promoted Windows 2000 article, only due to size issues of that article (when it was removed that page went from 59K to 45K). I put a large amount of time and research into this, and would like to now see if this could become a featured article. Note that I realise that this is my second FAC nomination, but I intend to polish both articles if objections are made. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Everyking 12:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Eggs-cellent. :D Phils 18:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, nice job. Neutralitytalk 19:50, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support My edit comment gave you credit. :P The only part I'm responsible for is the lead section, which was a summary of the ==Architecture== section at Windows 2000 (itself a summary of the body text in this article that Ta bu shi da yu wrote). --mav 23:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, folks, I forgot to mention that an objection was raised on PR. It is:
    "Maybe I'm dumb, but could I ask you to please state the obvious. I had trouble understanding the first two paragraphs even. Quick quote:
    'Windows 2000 is a 32-bit, preemptible, interruptible operating system, which has been designed to work with either uniprocessor or symmetrical multi processor (SMP) based Intel x86 computers. To process I/O requests, uses packet driven I/O which utilise I/O request packets (IRPs) and asynchronous I/O. However, Windows 2000 is known as a hybrid operating system as the microkernel is essentially the kernel, while higher-level services are implemented by the executive, which exists in kernel mode. User mode in Windows 2000 is made of subsystems capable of passing I/O requests to the appropriate kernel mode drivers by using the I/O manager.'
    I don't know what you mean by 32-bit or preemtible or interruptible or SMP, etc. are. I don't know what I/O requests are. And this may shock you considering how the article dives right into it, but I don't even know what kernel mode and user mode are. I know it sounds stupid, but explaining jargon goes a long way towards making the article accessible to normal people like me.
  • Now I actually agree with this, however I'm unsure how to explain these things in the lead section, which is almost too long already. Showuld we add a broad overview of Windows 2000 in an overview section and explain some of these concepts there? What do people think? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Comment Well, while it's clear that the Article on Windows 2000 with 59K should be considered a little bid to long, this article seems too short. I realise that more detail on such a technical issue could be a tough for the ordinary reader, however in general a FA should have a certain length. So I'll object. Themanwithoutapast 22:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Hold on... exactly what bits do you want me to expand?! And since when has a size of 24KB been a major issue for FAs? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    It certainly doesn't look like 24KB, ... and I know that it isn't quantity what counts, however because I cannot give a specific topic that should be expanded (I am not familiar with software-architecture and what is important) I change my object to comment. Themanwithoutapast 01:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    It's just a little bit under 24KB. This includes notes, comments and references. If further information needs to be added then I will update accordingly (there is one thing that Nicalp has asked for on the talk page, will be done soon). - Ta bu shi da yu 01:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Xiangqi[edit]

I'm nominating this article for FAC because this article is a thoroughly-written, comprehensive article. I've been a Xiangqi player for five or six years now, and when I found this browsing through Wikipedia, I was impressed. It gives clear, consise rules, with appropriate pictures and diagrams. In addition, it also gives a good history. Overall, the article is extremely well-done, having gone through a lot of revisions. The article is extremely accurate (considering my xiangqi experience...), and it should be a featured article. Flcelloguy 20:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. From the article

It has more players than any other board game of the chaturanga family.

Even more than western chess? Do you have any reference for that? Also I think there needs to be a section about the way Xiangqi is played today, what are the major tournaments, and who are the best players. Deepak 21:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Deepak for your suggestions and for pointing out the flaw in the article!
  • The original article had a sentence claiming that Xiangqi was the most popular form of chaturanga. I could find no concrete evidence for this- not a surprise! I doubt that there is a way to count the entire number of players, because of the millions of casual players out there. Also, what defines a player? The closest I could find to upholding that sentence came here [14], and it seemed more like a casual, offhand statement than fact. Thus, I've changed the sentence to say that xiangqi is one of the world's most popular forms of chaturanga, especially in Asia. This seems to be agreed upon.
  • I also added sections on xiangqi today in the U.S., xiangqi worldwide, xiangqi leagues and federations, rankings, and the best players. My source is this for best xiangqi players in the world, and here [15] for how xiangqi is played today (clubs, tournaments, etc.) Thanks!
Flcelloguy 00:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Weak object. The lead in should be two or three paragraphs long for an article of this size. Also the inline external links are incorrectly displayed. See wikipedia:Footnote3 style and the India page for an example of its working.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 20:03, May 29, 2005 (UTC)  =Nichalp (Talk)= 20:52, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks- I'll be fixing it up the next couple of days. :) Flcelloguy 17:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wragge for fixing up the footnotes/references! That is now taken care of. Flcelloguy 19:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The intro paragraph is now being examined. Please see the ensuing discussion here, we're all working on it! Thanks. Flcelloguy 00:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The ToC are too lopsided; reduce the subheadings.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 13:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nichalp, thanks for your suggestions! However, I believe that the ToC, though with some sub-headings, is pretty clear right now. Is there any policy that I'm unaware of that states there should be less sub-headings? What do others think? Let me know, I'm always open to suggestions! Thanks. Flcelloguy 00:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A heading having a single subheading is considered bad style. I've modified the headings which I didn't like so that it remains invisible in the ToC; this addresses my objections.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 20:52, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A rare article without any serious copyedit issues at all, clear pictures, and subject coverage which is both comprehensive and accurate. I have moved the references and links to wikipedia:Footnote3 style Wragge 18:23, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • Wait. I've brought up a couple of problems in the discussion page that I think need to be sorted out first, namely the mistranslation "Elephant Chess" and the imprecise explanation of the "Movement of the Horse." --Fazdeconta 18:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have responded to Fazdeconta's concerns on the article's talk page, and other people are having input as well. Feel free to offer suggestions or comments! Flcelloguy 20:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Fazdeconta! Upon a second look at the article, he has commented that the wording is clear. Also, it seems like the majority of people support keeping the literal translation of the phrase xiangqi in the article. Again, as always, I'm open to suggestions. Thanks once again! Flcelloguy 00:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support An interesting article which gives thorough and detailed information about chinese chess and its gameplay. Also, this article is without copyedit issues. -- Crucis
  • Support. Full disclosure: I wrote from half to most of the article. —Lowellian (talk) 13:46, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sandy Koufax[edit]

I did the major rewrite of this article so it might be considered a self-nom, but there have been many major contributions by others since then, so I don't feel to bad by finally nominating it. It meets all of the criteria of a feature. It sites its sources and all the facts appear to be correct. Gorrister 13:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: The only thing that concerns me is that there is only one reference. Are there any other possible sources that could be used here? Great article. --Spangineer ∞ 20:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, based on the above concern. This is more like a summary of Leavy's (excellent) book, the source of most if not all the game sequences, anecdotes, and quotes. To his credit, the nominator freely acknowledges this, but such an article would never "fly" in a print encyclopedia. Sfahey 04:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the external links were used for some of the stasticical information, but I left them under external links instead of moving them to references. When doing the actual rewrite, I used his biography mostly. Gorrister 01:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could a Sports Almanac be used to verify those statistics, and then added to the references section? Spangineer ∞ 10:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I will update the page with all of the references that I used and then we will see if that resolves this issue. Gorrister 11:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very thorough, and very interesting, article on a famous sporting figure. Deserves FA status. Harro5 02:55, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - not sure if there's a relevant project dictating colors for the infobox, but if not, why not use "Dodger blue" instead of the random teal? - Bryan is Bantman 03:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Somebody is trying to get all the infoboxes standardized. Besides, the infobox is a template that is used for all baseball players (or at least the ones I've gotten to). Gorrister 10:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've taken care of this. I only used four direct quotes - and they were actual quotes that Leavy quoted - and made notes of them. Let me know if this satisfies your conditional support.Gorrister 13:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. Please eliminate the one and two sentence paragraphs. They should either be expanded or merged into related material. They basically highlight areas of poor flow of the prose and/or incomplete information. The rest is very good, but a few suggestions (not further objections): The lead is pretty short. Wikipedia:Lead section calls for 2-3 paragraphs, but the lead section seems to be very well done as a summary, so I guess we could let that go if there are not important things missing from it. Also the references are pretty sparse. Do you have access to any more good ones to support the material and add some more citations? Finally, it is mentioned his birth name is not Koufax. Did he legally change his name to that, and if so, when? - Taxman Talk 20:49, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think I got rid of all the 1-2 sentence paragraphs (by merging, not expansion). Also, regarding the name, did you want more details than what is in the second paragraph of the "pre-professional career" section, which says "Although Irving never legally adopted Koufax, Sandy always referred to Irving as his father and took on his last name". I'm not sure what to add to the lead; adding a paragraph about his childhood seems unnecessary, and I'm not sure if there are other details that could be added that would make sense and flow with what is already there. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:26, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sydney Riot of 1879[edit]

Self-nom, though others have helped. An interesting side-story. There was some discussion around whether the quotations should stay - but given their historical significance in the tale, and that any précis wouldn't be much shorter, they've been kept in (and there are other FAs I've seen that take a similar approach too), jguk 18:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This is really interesting from start to finish,very well written and informed. Giano | talk 07:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great article. It would be nice if there could be photos from somewhere, but perhaps from 1879 there wouldn't be... Perhaps contacting MCC or the New South Wales cricket board might be of use? Otherwise, fantastic. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 11:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen a photo or artist's impression of the SCG from this era. The later ones all show a stand that wasn't there in 1879, jguk 12:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was just suggesting that these two bodies may have something that they could share. I do see that it is unlikely, however. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 12:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dealt with, jguk 07:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A wonderfully original topic for FA. My only suggestion would be to extend the lead somwehat, perhaps by mentioning what the "controversial decision" was and a brief summary of the reaction. Harro5 06:58, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
I've added a comment on what caused the riot and when the overriding dispute was resolved, jguk 07:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now - Prose does seem to be brilliant (although Webster tells me whilst is archaic) but Wikipedia is not a place to have full letters (that is what Wikisource is for so saying that the he 'full text of the letter is on Wikisource' is a bit misleading since the full text is in this article as well). Both of the letters in this article need to be cut down to size by using ... as appropriate (one quarter to one third of their current length should do it). Also, the external link cites really do need to become part of the ref/note setup already in the article due to the fact that the two systems work differently and thus mixing and matching them is confusing to readers (one system brings the reader to another part of the article while the other lands them in another website). the lead could also be expanded a bit. --mav
I agree about the letters, a summary, or abridged version and a link to the full text in wikisource would be better, Minor object for now--nixie 03:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. At least, the letters should be indented (was the original not indented?) for readability. Conditional support. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 07:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC) Looks better now, but I still would prefer shortening. -- Sundar 08:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
I too agree with mav, and will object until the letters are abridged significantly (especially the first) or summarized. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:53, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
I've ummed and ahed over the letters for a while. Overall the bias appears to be in favour of keeping them. Since they tell much of the story, any useful précis of them is likely to be fairly long anyway. Also, they are of particular historic importance in the dispute - so much so that Wisden Cricketers Almanack (despite the space they took up) saw fit to print them in full. In an article that is 30kb, they look ok - if the article was much longer, I'd probably agree with you though, jguk 07:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is a policy page, and all FAs need to follow policy. In the realm of having full letters, this article does not follow that policy. So if the whole letters are not abridged or summarized, then this article can not be featured (irrespective of the number of supports this FAC gets). --mav 04:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What part of WP:WIN does this article contravene? I can't work it out. The article is certainly more than a mere collection of public domain or other source material. smoddy 11:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
'Complete copies of primary sources should go into Wikisource.' The two letters are complete copies and Wikipedia is not a place to host those. --mav 12:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That to me is intended at excluding these article from existing on Wikipedia as articles in themselves, not as stopping the whole of a source being shown. smoddy 13:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And yet 'Complete copies of primary sources should go into Wikisource.' See also the associated guideline, which explains this in more detail. --mav 16:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I understand from your comments on other pages that your opposition to including sources in articles has always been that the source remains editable. I would have no objection if the source was placed into a template that was protected and transcluded into the article, jguk 08:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No offense to Mav, but does this mean that if I fire off a two line email that causes WWIII then we would not be able to include it in a Wikipedia article? I think this sounds a little off-putting. If the entire letter is significant to the article, then we should keep it. If the letter should clearly only be quoted in part, then we should only quote that part. I have no real opinion as yet on the letters, btw, as I haven't read the article (in as great a depth as I should have - clarification). - Ta bu shi da yu 03:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, they were not indented - however, I've added some paragraph gaps to improve readability, jguk, jguk 07:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a good candidate for the main page. Very well written, interesting, should be chosen. --Igor 04:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I know nothing of cricket and little of Australia, and I still found the article enjoyable. --Scimitar 18:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Although I have a couple of transcription queries which I have inserted into the letters as comments. --Theo (Talk) 21:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments. I have now done a thorough check back to the original source and amended as approprate. Your transcription queries turned out to be correct:) jguk 09:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Tintin 11:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. As below please eliminate the one and two sentence paragraphs. Also the lead in this case is really too short. Also I'm not sure if it is cricket terms or Brit/Aussie idioms that I am failing to parse, but the lead has a couple things that I don't get: "controversially given out" and "lead an England representative side". Is "given out" cricket terminology similar to "called out" or what would be said as "given an out" in baseball? What is involved in leading a side? As a player, captaining the team, or what? The article has another one "...refusal of an appeal for caught behind against Lord Harris...". That is also either tortured english, or cricket lingo. - Taxman Talk 21:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • A fine criticism. I have wiki-linked the confusing terms to afford succour to the bewildered. --Theo (Talk) 00:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok that helps, but the lead is still too short, and there are still two one sentence paragraphs that need to be merged or expanded. Also that last sentence I mentioned above still seems tortured after the link was added. Can you really say "of an appeal for caught behind"? Even if "caught behind" is a cricket phrase, doesn't that still need a verb like "being" in there? And further, I don't see anything in the article you linked that tells what caught behind is. I apologize if this is all horridly obvious to those familiar with cricket, but to those not, it's baggling. - Taxman Talk 13:06, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • I am leaving the structural stuff for JGUK to address. As to the rest: Essentially, "yes", syntactically, one does say "of an appeal for caught behind". There is an element of elision here but it is not quite where you appear to imagine. The unelided phrase would be "an appeal for [an umpire's decision that the player be given out according to the circumstances known as] caught behind". I have added an explanation of "caught behind" to Dismissal (cricket). Even if this might make sense to those of us in the know, it is good to test the piece against the intelligently unfamiliar.Theo (Talk) 07:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I've merged a few paragraphs so there are fewer short ones, although I have kept the one that says "Independent witnesses said Coulthard's decision was close but fair" as I think it's reasonable to let that one stand out, leaving a sort of irony there by its starkness. I've also changed the reference to being "caught behind" so it only refers to an appeal for a catch to dismiss Lord Harris being turned down (that the catch was taken by the wicket-keeper is a detail that's not relevant here), jguk 09:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I've now increased the lead section a wee bit too, jguk 16:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. References are good, but including the entire reference in the article is not good style and not something an example article should have. Even on just on readability, a long passage in italics is hard to read. A more significant objection is that this is plagiarism. No Account 01:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not plagiarism: the letters are fully attributed. The letters are particularly significant in the history and aftermath of the riot, so much so that they were quoted in full in Wisden despite their length. There has been quite a bit of discussion before as to whether they should stay, and the general feeling is that they should remain - they are an integral part of the story. I did at one stage attempt to précis them, but found that in practice I would either have to omit much information, or come up with something that's not much shorter than the original - so I think it's better to give the full documents here - as you can see from the messages of support, a clear majority is happy for them to remain. I'll try moving the quotations out of italics. Let me know if they look better, jguk 08:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Bigger question is are they allowable to be used at all? Using the whole letter would fail under fair use, or citation exemptions to copyright protection. Forgive me if this has alrady been covered elsewhere, I'm in a bit of a rush. - Taxman Talk 17:16, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • They are very clearly old enough to be public domain now. smoddy 17:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • They are more readable now. Still, including the whole letter is plagiarism. Not because of lack of attribution, but because the article is not an original work. A featured article should be a great example of an original encyclopedia article, not a collection of primary sources printed in full. Still object on that basis. No Account
        • I think you misunderstand what plagiarism is. Also, this is clearly an article in its own right, it isn't just a collection of primary sources printed in full, jguk 18:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I do know what plagiarism is, I assure you. If a student of mine submitted this as his own work, quoting two long letters in full, even if fully attributed, I would require it to be redone. As it stands, this is not an example of a great encyclopedia article. It should not be featured. No Account 02:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • We should be able to agree that it is not plagiarism - as it's not. On your other point, WP articles are not academic papers - they are articles telling a story that imparts some facts to an (at least partly) interested reader. They therefore adopt a different style - one that should interest the reader (and from the 12 support votes above, it is clear the article achieves this). Of course, in a different context, a different style would be adopted (eg when writing a paper for a client I would include all detail in one or more appendices, and I'd adapt my choice of language too), so I am not surprised that in the context of your work. My guess is that neither of our work styles would be appropriate - but the article is not written in the context of our work, it is from the context of providing an interesting encyclopaedia article to readers. Finally, please note that here the letters are a large part of the story (as well as telling it). This is similar to what happened in our article on Samantha Smith, which was similarly promoted to FA status. I fear we are not going to agree on this, and I appreciate you are not alone in your concerns - and you will see from the talk page I have ummed and ahed on this myself, but most readers of the article are happy with the letters staying as they are both historically significant and they help impart the tale, jguk 07:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • I should have added that no WP article ever claims to have only one author - it has many. We do not claim it to be one person's work - and indeed that is untrue here as, although I have contributed greatly, so have many others: the article really is a true collaborative work, jguk 07:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Thorough treatment of the subject at hand. Don't see any problems with the letters, I think they're needed for informational purposes. Sam Vimes 21:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - a great article. The letters (in toto) should stay. For appearance I would have preferred them to be in italics also (as in Samantha Smith) contrary to what someone said above, but that's a minor issue. - Ian 03:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the letters. Oh, no. Are you serious? The article is very nicely structured apart from the letters, why ruin its proportions with a lot of redundant Victorian prosing? Please note that the narrative part of Harris' letter is obviously the basis of the section "The riot" above, which gives the exact same details with much of the same wording. If the whole letter were to be used, the "riot" section would become redundant. But AFAIC we don't want to use the whole of these prolix, comfortable Victorian-style accounts, to kill all interest—who are we, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica? Let's give a professional presentation here. By that, I mean: any material that has already appeared should be ruthlessly slashed, most of the rest should be concisely summarized, and quotes interspersed of those sections of the letters that are a) reasoning and argumentative, rather than merely narrative, and b) interesting. I have done a version of this for the first letter, please check it out and give me feedback. (If it's approved, I'll do the same with the second.) My version isn't necessarily the best we can do, but I do believe the principles are sensible. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. This is a change of opinion because I am concerned about the reversion of Bish's proposal without discussion or acknowledgement. I do not share Bish's objection to Victorian prose (indeed, I am rather partial to it) but I thought that the changes that she made showed a way to make a good article better. To my mind, retaining substantial portions of the letters while eliminating material duplicating more appropriate sections combines the period flavour with efficient communication. --Theo (Talk) 00:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I discussed this with Bishonen on IRC at the time - as well as other amendments to the article so it's not true that there was no discussion, jguk 05:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      Imprecise phrasing by me: I should have said no discussion or acknowledgement here on Wikipedia. Either way, I see the redrafted form as an improvement and the subsequent reversion as a retrograde step. My objection remains. --Theo (Talk) 20:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • In this case the letters are key to the subject - they were printed in full in both the English and NSW press at the time and reported in full in Wisden despite its limited space. Without the letters the article would just not be comprehensive - it would be the same as one of the many ordinary accounts of the riot that abound. Here, our WP article is taking a lead - adding information from a wide variety of sources to recount the riot in a way that no one of the sources can do on its own. In short, without the letters the article quite simply would not be comprehensive - that is why they have to remain, jguk 18:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I think there's a good reason no other references include the letters—because they don't work in an encyclopedia article. Bish is right; there's too much victorian prose that is verbose and includes superfluous details. The letters in full are on wikisource; if someone wants to read them, they can. But to leave essential parts of the story in such a difficult to digest format is unnecessary and unhelpful for the average reader. Summarize them mercilessly to include the important information, quote them periodically, and link to wikisource. BTW, newspapers nowadays (I don't know about back then) often include original stuff (i.e. speeches, court decisions etc.), but we don't include those verbatim in their respective articles. Those articles can be considered comprehensive, and similarly, I think this article can be perfectly comprehensive without the letters if it summarizes the key contents of the letters and links to them on wikisource. With the letters, it is not completely "well-written" and thus cannot in my opinion be wikipedia's "best work". --Spangineer (háblame) 19:34, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
        • No source is an encyclopaedia - so they are writing with a different aim than us. Also the better ones do quote very extensively from the letters - always leaving me (as the reader) wondering why they don't go the whole hog. The sources - and I have read a fair few - they tend to be short and not comprehensive. We have a real chance to offer a full article here on an interesting side-topic to the history of cricket. We shouldn't lose it, jguk 20:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - if you don't like the letters, just skip over them... – ugen64 20:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg[edit]

Blitzkrieg relied on close cooperation between infantry and panzers. Here, infantry use a panzer for cover as they attack in Ukraine during September of 1941

I nominated it once (see here for past FAC discussion), but - long story short - it didn't pass, although I adressed the objections during the FAC procedure. Peer Review seems positive (if sparse). It was good earlier, it has been improving steadily and I think it is much better now. Your comments? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. A lot of very constructive work has gone into this article. —thames 14:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Comprehensive, follows all wikipedia conventions.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. --Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, at the risk of being a bore. Some of the pictures don't have source information, and some (such as the one to my right) claim PD on the basis of a misunderstanding of copyright law: see [16]. Mark1 08:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object until picture copyright is cleared up. Harro5 04:02, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: You can't have Blitzkrieg in Peer Review when it is on FAC. Please archive the Peer listing.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 09:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I think the image controversy is a tempest in a teapot. These images in question clearly appear to be from Nazi era Germany and therefore are more than likely PD.  ALKIVAR™ 07:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Images from the early 1940s are most likely to enter the public domain c. 2050. The assumptions here are that the photographer is in his/her 30s and died aged 70 c. 1980. 75 years from creators death still gives us another fifty years to copyright expiry. --Theo (Talk) 11:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. German pre-nazi era stuff (til like 1936 i think?) is still validly copyrighted. however once the nazi regime took over (new govt... new rules...) copyright is free and clear from everything i have read in my research. Copyright afterwards was split depending on east/west (most east german stuff til 1965ish is also free of copyright, whereas west germany was copyrighted up through). obviously anything post reunification is under copyright. Due to the way Nazi Germany was an "empire" as opposed to an actual political "state" there are severe ambiguities in the copyright conventions. The way its been interpreted by me and by several others I have discussed this with, is that there is basically a short 9 year span of a copyright loophole. Doing more research will likely find you agreeing with this, (I had to, i'm writing a non-fiction novel on Colditz Castle now ;)  ALKIVAR™ 19:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote in several places - I'd apreciate a FAQ clearly answering what is the deal with Nazi copyrights, this problem is recurring again and again. Please use the artcle talk page to list copyvio or problematic pictures, so we can start dealing with them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. This is brilliant prose with just one exception: "drastically superior German military doctrines" in the second paragraph. Doctrines are beliefs or fundamental principles. Asserting the superiority of beliefs or principles is POV; the 'drastic' modifier makes it more so. In this case I imagine that what is meant is that the German army was more effectively organised than its opponents (such organisation being a consequence of its doctrines), but I recognise that I may have misunderstood. --Theo (Talk) 11:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right. I removed 'drastically', should read better now. Are there any more grounds for this objection?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 'drastically' was only part of the problem. Asserting the superiority of doctrines is to assert the superiority of beliefs or fundamental principles; it is essentially POV. The German doctrines differed from those of their opponents. Reporting the consequences of those differences is NPOV. --Theo (Talk) 13:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 2000[edit]

Another of my focus articles. Have been working on this for quite a while now. I think its now a lot more comprehensive (see diff). I'm hoping that it's featured article quality! Also hope that this shows that I still believe in Wikipedia and can edit in good faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said in peer review I think this article is great. However it is now unwieldy and too long for most causal readers. A more efficient version is needed. The larger sections should be summarized and the detail spun off into daughter articles. This will allow readers to zoom to the level of detail they need and allow for more expansion of the spun off parts. The ==Architecture== and ==Common functionality== sections look ripe for this. Just give the word, and I will help. Until then I must object. --mav 02:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's fair enough... but my problem is that I have no idea how to sort this out. Luckily I've used extensive footnotes so this will help with sourcing stuff when placing into daughter articles, but I really need assistance on this one. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Deal. I'll work on this in about 10 hours. --mav 11:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Argh. Too darn tired. Will try again tomorrow. --mav 00:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    S'ok :) I appreciate you doing this for me Mav. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Phase 1 done: Architecture of Windows 2000 created, good-sized summary in its place, and notes still work. Please check reference sections of both articles to make sure they are still accurate. Phase 2 will see a similar treatment for the ==Common functionality== section. --mav 04:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent work :-) The size just dropped from about 59K to 47K when you did that! Now, if you drop out the notes section and the references section the size drops to 40K. I think this should be OK? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Physical size alone is just an indication that parts of the article may be more detailed than necessary. As is, the ==Common functionality== section looks like it falls in that category. It will take a couple hours, but I am sure I can transform that into its own article and leave a more than adequate summary at Windows 2000. That section already has its own small lead section. --mav 11:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I've shifted a lot of the NTFS stuff into the NTFS article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)][reply]
    Much better. The ==Common functionality== section still needs to be spun off, but overall the article is much more streamlined. Support. --mav 14:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Just as thorough as the XP article which is already FA, and arguably a better candidate as there is less info on W2000. Good work to the editors of this piece, and nice to see TBSDY back on track. Harro5 03:05, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment We've only managed to say "kernal mode" five times in para 2 without defining or linking from it once. I appreciale the hybrid kernal and microkernal links, but I'm left wanting more info on kernal mode and user mode ... and wondering if P2 should plunge quite to recklessly into this arcane area. Nice article, though. --Tagishsimon (talk)
    • Have attempted to clarify kernel and user mode. Look OK? For more detailed info, it's best to refer to the article (one of which I'm afraid is a stub). - Ta bu shi da yu 07:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this article is very in depth (if perhaps a bit too so) and as much as I hate Micro$oft, I have to say this is their best product to date. Good work tbsdy!  ALKIVAR™ 07:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Know thine enemy :-) Windows 2000 has lots of features! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Cool. JuntungWu 09:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I've also simplified the lead in. I do think the windows 2000 logo should be present on the page. I'd have to object for the moment. 1) The second paragraph goes into unnecessary technical detail regarding the user and kernel modes. Considering that there is a better written section below, I think it is redundant to have a slightly complex topic right at the start. 2) Unnecessary text on the NTFS 5 is detailed here. NTFS is only the file system used here. It would be advisable to just highlight the key features of NTFS instead of having such a high level of unnecessary detail here. 3) Disability support too has been around for sometime and is not new to Win2K. Highlight the new functions.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 16:41, May 29, 2005 (UTC)  =Nichalp (Talk)= 09:33, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Two things: disability support is still a core part of Windows 2000, and so must be addressed. The section it is included in is not "new features of Windows 2000" but "Common features". Secondly, I agree about the lead section. As most of that section got moved to Architecture of Windows 2000 (a good thing!) then we should probably condense some of that bit of the lead section. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have attempted to improve the lead section, reducing the stuff on the architecture and coalescing it in to the first paragraph. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We now have numerous logos of Windows 2000. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Beautifully done. The things that can be improved are minor at best, and I like the general layout of it. Great job! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:53, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Nichalp addressed most of my concerns with the article. But my remaining concerns are: 1) The author mode and user mode are not well explained for the MMC. 2) The Windows TCO section - this focuses on a Microsoft-funded report which set about quantifying something which varies considerably depending upon individual circumstances and is very difficult to measure. As such I don't think it is deserving of the last two paragraphs of what should be a factual article about Windows 2000. I would encourage this to be moved to another article such as "IDC Linux/Windows TCO Report" and then referneced from the main article or alternatively just removed altogether. Maybe a new section called "Windows 2000 Alternatives" or something that mentions Linux, BSD and other Unix-like systems such as Solaris and HP/UX as well as the TCO report might be just as informative and far more in tune with Wikipedia's NPOV? - Cedars 10:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • An alternatives section would be much more appropriate in the Microsoft Windows article. --mav 15:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Mav about including alternatives in the much broader Microsoft Windows article (this article is too large as it is...). I was debating whether we even need the TCO report in the article, however I've kept it in. Perhaps that could do with spinning off into another article as there is also a TCO study done against Solaris. The MMC stuff should probably be moved into an article Microsoft Management Console. Will work on this later tonight. As always, Cedars advise is most appreciated :-) Ta bu shi da yu 00:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-organized and referenced. The footnotes are particularly nice. :) Nathan Larson 04:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sudoku[edit]

There has been something of a craze for the puzzle in the UK with most national newspapers now offering a daily puzzle. This follows on from the popularity of the puzzle in Japan and has been a precursor to its popularity internationally. It has been variously described as addictive, a mental exercise, a Rubik Cube of the 21st Century, a classic meme, etc. The purpose of featuring the article is to respond to this interest and may encourage people to contribute further to the subject. The art of solving the Sudoku puzzle is far from perfect. Sudoku lends itself well to the Wikipedia community because the article is international, combining several disciplines in which contributors are often very strong: mathematics, computing and diagrams. In addition the article traces the history and terminology of the puzzle - something which is rare in the world of puzzles. JPF 21:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: but a few quibbles. First of all, this paragraph: "Sudoku is recommended by some teachers as a mental exercise. It has also been suggested that it can slow the progress of Alzheimers. However, some people may find solving the puzzle addictive."--this seems a little flip to me, and should probably be reworded. Secondly, the reference used in the mathematics section [17] isn't listed in the references section. Also, I'd like to know if larger puzzles (e.g. the 16-by-16 grid mentioned) are harder or easier to solve than the standard 9-by-9.
    • Addressed apart from the final point on hardness of larger puzzles.JPF 13:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, althought I have edited it too recently, so more outside opinions would be welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nothing on gatti 5 Su Doku, or the habit of giving time limits, etc. Also, has a Japanese more familiar with its history looked this over? I just get a feeling that something else might be missing, jguk 13:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC) OK, didn't see those bits. I'm still uneasy, so will stay neutral. Has a Japanese reviewed the article though? I do think this is a must, jguk 19:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is gatti 5 Su Doku? There is a mention of time limits in "The Challenge" section. As to the last point, a "feeling" is rather difficult to address. Can you be more specific? OpenToppedBus - Talk 09:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Reading again I see that "gattai 5 Su Doku" is mentioned, in the "Variants" section. OpenToppedBus - Talk 09:35, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I'm still confused how you are meant to play this game. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain how this objection can be addressed. "The puzzle is played on a grid, most frequently a 9×9 grid made up of 3×3 subgrids (called "regions"). Some cells already contain numbers - the "givens". The goal is to fill in the empty cells, one number in each, so that every column, row, and region each contains the numbers 1 through 9 once." This seems pretty clear to me - what do you find confusing, and what would help to make it less so? OpenToppedBus - Talk 09:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the article is written pretty well, and is pretty informative, and pretty interesting.--Fangz 23:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As an enthusiast I found this clear, informative and (to the best of my knowledge) comprehensive. --Theo (Talk) 17:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Robert A. Heinlein[edit]

I'm nominating this as a featured article because I think it meets the criteria, and I'm proud of it -- I've worked on it a lot myself, so this should be considered a self-nomination.--Bcrowell 21:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Very detailed and comprehensive. One thing that I think might make the article better would be something on the public perception of Heinlein: the way that some people thought his support for the military marked him as a fascist. Besides that, great job. Stilgar135 16:50, 30 May 2005
    • Refer to peer review - Overwhelming TOC, bad section organization (find better ==Level 2== themes and organize the current sections under those), no references, lack of inline cites, and goes into more detail than needed (the more detailed text could be in daughter articles). --mav 17:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you put your objection where you intended? Phils 20:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Opps! Damn slow wiki made me do it. :) --mav 21:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Stilgar135! The lead section now contains some remarks on public perception.--Bcrowell 17:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, excellent biography, great use of explanatory notes. The grainy photo Robert Heinlein (photo by Virginia Heinlein) doesn't add much, have you got anything you could replace it with?--nixie 23:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support! I think the selection of photos may have to do with legal issues. The book Grumbles From the Grave does contain a lot of photos of him, but the ones before 1923 are likely to be of interest only to fans, and I'm not sure how far we want to stick out necks out in terms of fair use for post-1923 images.--Bcrowell 17:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, wow! amazing. However, tricky as they are, the lead section should be expanded somewhat - this article is large enough for it. Right now it doesn't have that catch-your-eye-and-hold-the-reader feel to it. There is some wikification to be done still I think (no time to do it myself, sorry!). - Ta bu shi da yu 08:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good comment on the lead -- it was very vanilla, and would probably not have interested people who didn't already know about Heinlein. I've expanded it to two paragraphs, and tried to add some zip to it.--Bcrowell 17:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... a lot better, but would still suggest that more summarisation be done of the main article. That's what I tried to do for Windows 2000, and though that article's lead section may be a little long I think that it might be helpful. As I'm really interested in reading about this individual I will attempt to assist. My vote is still to support. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Expand lead to at least two paragrahps (see Wikipedia:Lead). Format online references so they have 'last accessed on' date. Biography and 'Ideas and themes' sections are impressive, but I'd like to see a subsection dealing specifically with his influence on other writers, culture, and homage paid to him by next generations of sf writers. A few more pics (book covers) wouldn't hurt as well, although this one is just a comment, not an objection. I am pretty sure you can easily adress those points - let me know then and I will change to support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! I've tried to make the suggested changes regarding references, influence, and more pictures.--Bcrowell 17:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- although I _still_ think the bio echo's way too closely the bio from the Heinlein society web page. But considering just how LITTLE biographical material there is available, I don't know we have a choice at this point. (which is, in and of itself amazing. Ginny did an ASTONISHINGLY GOOD job of protecting his privacy.) I looked through all my old files for a better snapshot. -- Nothing comes to light, which is sad. Some comment may be appropriate about the Heinlein's and now the estates _vigorus_ defense of it's IP rights, -- to the extent of reclaiming ARC's that were offered up for sale. Rick Boatright 18:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry to say I must object--there was one flaw in this article (but it's easily fixed). The article says in his "works" section that "There has been speculation that his intense obsession with his privacy was due..."--but prior to this, there had been no indication that he was obsessed with his privacy. Add detail on this, and I'll support. This flaw is so glaring precisely because the rest of the article was so good. Very, very fine work--just one minor fix is needed. Meelar (talk) 15:02, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Excellent comment, Meelar! I've added some documentation in a footnote.--Bcrowell 04:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support although I would like to see more about his early life; is nothing known of his parents? --Theo (Talk) 22:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but the only on-line source is the bio on the heinlein society web page. We're already treading dangerously close to a copyvio on that source... Rick Boatright 23:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's a much, much longer online biography of him, by the same author, at [18]. I've added it to the references. I've added the names of his parents.--Bcrowell 04:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Changed the citation of the Patterson Bio to the original publication in the Heinlein Journal, with an "available here" link to the aol.com page. Rick Boatright 22:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, on the topic of "treading dangerously close to a copyvio" on the Patterson biography, I just found a long phrase in the article that was lifted verbatim from there by an anonymous user on 28 Dec 2004. I've deleted the phrase. Baylink helped me find another couple of those a few days ago, and I edited them out --- they were put in there by an anonymous user in February 2004. I hope this is the last of them. --Bcrowell 04:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I see significant problems with details here. Examples -- RAH not first sf writer to hit "mainstream" magazines, what about HG Wells? View of RAH as "fascist" not just based on Starship Troopers, probably as much if not more from Farnham's Freehold and nonfiction writings and speeches. I don't know what the source is for the story about why Rocket Ship Galileo was rejected, but it'e either wrong or summarized in a misleading way -- lots of stuff that was further out had been published at the time. RSG not RAH's first published novel, but his first that was an original hardcover rather than a magazine serial. Starship Troopers wasn't his last juvenile, but the last he submitted to the Scribners line, it was published as a standard trade. If ST is a juvenile, so is Podkayne. The division between early and "mature" work strikes me as dead wrong; RAH wasn't publishing the Scribners juveniles because his work wasn't sufficiently mature, but because he was reaching a larger/more lucrative market than the sf mags allowed him too. I think the comments about critics and Heinlein's later work aren't sufficiently NPOV; much of the technical criticism of the novels is well-founded, and there are serious questions as to whether the self-parodic elements are designed virtues or inherent conceptual failings. I don't think the article distinguishes sufficiently between his earliest work (mostly for Campbell, as I recall), particularly the "Future History," and the post-Astounding phase; lumping everything from 1939-1960 together as a coherent grouping strikes me as thoroughly misconceived. I'm not saying this is a bad article -- there's a lot of good work in it -- but execution doesn't match ambition yet. Monicasdude 14:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Swedish language[edit]

A comprehensive and well-rounded description of the Swedish language. Personally I'm especially fond of the dialect map with its many sound samples and the extensive history section. This is mostly a self-nomination, but has certainly been a collaborative effort.

I'd like to thank Alarm, Fred and Wiglaf for their additions to the article, bish for her tireless copyediting and mark and mav for their insightful comments and creative criticism at the reguest for peer review. I would also like to thank everyone who made solid groundwork on the article before I got here; users like Steverapaport, Johan Magnus, Ruhrjung and Tuomas. And special thanks to IceKarma who provided the dialect map and the vowel chart.

Peter Isotalo 21:29, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, seems accurate and complete. I had to stop to do bits of copyediting while reading through, though. Fredrik | talk 22:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this has to be one of the very best resources on the web on the subject. Disclosure: yes, I copyedited it, but only from the viewpoint of the ignorant. Thank you for the nice compliment, Peter. (It was better before Fredrik's vote, I guess. ;-)) Bishonen | talk 02:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The dialect map is an excellent idea. Let me read the article completely before voting. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 04:28, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. Excellent article. Comment:Though personally I'm not against long articles, this one is too long (~45K). Should consider condensing and exporting sections to satellite articles. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:08, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Definite support, also noting that while I think subarticles would be nice to have, I don't consider it necessary to reduce the article size; 45KB is not unreasonable for an article on this topic, in my view. Everyking 05:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've had language FACs ranging from around 20 to 80k previously, so I have to agree. No section has been overlooked, but neither has any of them been focused on more than is appropriate. / Peter Isotalo 17:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • comment - a veritable smörgåsbord of information, interesting and very readable - great work. A couple of things I'd like to see though:
  • Intro: perhaps a brief explanation of what's meant by prosody - I know readers can go to the link, but would be useful just to have a couple of words here as well.
  • Geographic distribution: would be nice to have a link or a cite for the claim of Swedish-speaking communities in South America
  • Former language minorities: similarly, a citation for details about the Swedo-Ukrainians would be nice, especially as there are 'no reliable reports' on their number.
  • Both riksvenska and rikssvenska appear - I'm guessing the latter is correct but not sure
  • The 'sje-sound' is described as a 'difficult and complex issue', but I don't see what the issue exactly is. Also, somehow describing for English speakers what this sound is would be very helpful.
  • Phonotactics - unlike the rest of the article I am baffled by this bit. What do all the C-subscripts mean? And some of the jargon could be reworded more generally, like 'morpheme-initially'
  • Would it be desirable to mention how Swedish pronunciation of letters differs from English? Eg sk -> sh, y -> u, g -> y etc.
Once those things are looked at, I'm sure I'll be able to give the article my fyll suppåt :) Worldtraveller 13:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Much oblige for your pointers, Worldtraveller.
I added a source for the number of Ukrainian Swedes, though it seems hard to find any written references for the amount of native speakers. I had to call and ask the chairman of the "Old Swedes"-association myself to get a figure of native speakers that was "around 20" and I made the phonotactic section a bit less oblique. As for the Swedes in South as well as North American, I've had my doubts about this myself and when Googling for it, I could find no information, so I hid it with a request for someone to provide references.
As for the infamous "sje"-sound, the wording is very intentional. The complexity surrounding the pronunciation of this sound (and especially the phoneme) is very complicated from a phonetic perspective. At least two doctoral dissertations have been written on the subject and the issue of the exact vocalization of the sound seems quite uncertain as per Ladefoged and Maddieson. It would simply not be possibly to go into any detail because it would turn the article into phonetics cruft. More information is available at voiceless dorso-palatal velar fricative and Swedish phonology.
I have intentionally avoided any attempts to map orthography to pronunciation since it's usually a great way of getting bogged down in minutiae, over-ambitious generalizations and plenty of contradictions. To make comparisons to even more inconsistent English spelling doesn't seem worth the effort. I believe it would only serve to reinforce popular, but very questionable and confusing ideas about orthography being anything but a very rough and all too often misleading approximation of spoken language.
Peter Isotalo 17:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Great, many of my points are now answered, but I still have a couple of thoughts: first, I'm still a little bit unsure as to what the issue is with the sje-sound - hard for me as a non-linguist to understand how entire doctoral theses could be written about one sound! Would it be possible to add more detail about this?
And second, I'm still a tiny bit confused by the phonotactics section: is it really saying one syllable can have six consonants? And what defines the nucleus of a syllable? Worldtraveller 11:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The nucleus of any syllable is a vowel (as far as I know). And, yes, a single-morpheme syllable in Swedish can have up to six consonants, for example: skrämts, supine passive form of skrämma ("frighten, scare").
Again, about the sje-sound, have you read the two other articles? I am still very hesitatant to elaborate on this issue. What with the qualified reference, I think that would suffice as to the claim of its complexity. Do you have any suggestions as to what aspect should be explained? Is it perhaps just a matter of rewording?
Peter Isotalo 19:31, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I was just being a bit dense reading the phonotactics section and not appreciating that the V represented a vowel (it's a very abstruse connection I'm sure you'll agree:)). Hope you don't mind, I reworded that sentence a little bit, hopefully it's still accurate but more foolproof. As for the sje-sound, I'm sure just a little bit of rewording would do the trick - you say it's "still debated among phoneticians", but what exactly are they debating? What are the differing opinions? Worldtraveller 11:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A good rewording as far as I can see. I've noticed that it's really easy to get caught up in overly linguistic typology as a self-taugh amateur...
Whether the alleged simultanous velar and alveolar articulation of the "sje"-sound is actually physically possible is as far as I know not been resolved. Ladefoged and Madiesson (1996) have claimed that it was unlikely, but I've not seen any references to responses and the IPA still has the ɧ, despite the objections. And Ladefoged is as far as I know a very influential figure in the IPA. Adding to this complexity is the fact that most of the realizations are labialized, in some cases even labiodentally so. Off the top of my head I could imitate at least five different pronunciations of /ɧ/, that while sounding fairly similar (especially to non-natives) are articulated very differently.
Peter Isotalo 20:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have to say that I really hate that "lawngreen" color. Paul August ☎ 15:23, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Enthusiastic support I love the samples, also think the table in "Consonants" is great :-) However, I do have a condition on the support, as the following need to be addressed:
    1. "As of 2002, about 5.6% of the total population are Swedish speakers, according to official statistics." - reference please
    2. "The Swedish linguist Ulla-Britt Kotsinas, who is a scholar frequently cited on the subject of Rinkeby Swedish, argues that these varieties are primarily spoken by teenagers from suburbs where immigrants and immigrant descendants are concentrated. According to her, these varieties are best to be understood as expressions of youth culture: The language is a marker of belonging to a certain subculture and at the same time of opposition against a perceived mainstream non-immigrant culture that seems not to value the immigrant descendants." - reference please - Ta bu shi da yu 08:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eventhough Raul generously promoted the article, I'm going to adress this one pronto.
Peter Isotalo 13:00, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • OBJECT! For one thing the box at the top of the screen lukes like PUKE! My what a nasty color. Table of contents is way too complicate for this country boy. Box of vowels and constants looks wierd on my browser. And im going to watch grass grow. Its more exciting than this article. -GENERAL ENDICOTT RULES!
    • Unactionable objections. A look at the user's talk page makes one suspect his/her intent. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:54, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Though I am an avid fan of fellatio, I took the liberty of striking Endicott's objection after receiving this on my talk page. / Peter Isotalo 14:51, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article, and my remarks on Peer Review have all been adressed. One minor quabble though: under Phonotactics, I would not only expect to read about the possible syllable structures, but also about the most common kinds of syllables ('canonical syllable structure') — open or closed, what kind of onsets are most common, etc. — mark ✎ 15:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • And I should add that I have no problems with the size; I thinks it's reasonable. — mark ✎ 15:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • As with Tbsdy's minor objection, this will be addressed later today. Peter Isotalo 13:00, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, an excellent article. However, I'd like to see either explanation or removal of this apparent non sequitur: "The introduction of mandatory education in Swedish was chiefly intended as a step to avoid further Finlandization." - Mustafaa 17:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, although I am partial as one of the cited contributors ;-).--Wiglaf 17:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object to this excellent article on two grounds:
  • The infobox is too bright. As I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages: "Although I cannot source this claim, I recall from my studies of human-computer interaction that a small patch of bright colour on an otherwise monochome screen such as one full of text will hold the reader's eye so strongly as to interfere with their ability to assimulate the text. The choice of such bright colours in the infobox is hindering readability. --Theo (Talk) 18:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't really accept this as an actionable objection since it's part of a widely accepted infobox standard. Please discuss changes of the standard at Project Languages. / Peter Isotalo 20:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • The featured article criteria calls for the article to follow the standards set by the relavant wikiproject, which this article does. Take your objection to the project page and try to convince them, but this objection here is markedly invalid. →Raul654 11:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, I have withdrawn that part of my objection. I understood the infobox standard to be a proposal. I had not appreciated that it had been accepted as policy. --Theo (Talk) 11:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The various assertions such as the ratios of Swedish speakers among various populations need specific sources. --Theo (Talk) 18:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks like they're referenced to me. Anything missing? / Peter Isotalo 20:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have now inserted comments to show where I seek sources in that section. --Theo (Talk) 11:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: An excellent article, plenty of colour, nice length. Wragge 21:19, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Our Gang (The Little Rascals)[edit]

Self Re-nomination. This is the third time I've nominated this. There have never been any outright objections, just minor comments to correct. This is a well-written, comprehensive article about one of the most popular film properties of all time. --FuriousFreddy 03:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, third times the charm. Good work. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. How'd you feel about including the poster for the 1994 film too?--nixie 08:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I'm sorry, but this article absolutely needs footnotes. Passages like Roach's anecdote of how he supposedly got the idea for the series' concept are next to useless if not explicitly attached to a source using a note. You cannot possibly expect readers to search through all the references mentionned at the end of the article to fact-check/source the anecdote. Other strong statements that either require backing by a quote from a source or de-NPOVing/rewording include:
*little Farina,[...] eventually became both the most popular member of the 1920s gang and the first true African-American child star.
    • ...mentioned in both Maltin/Bann and Bogle. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • though some historians do not look favorably upon the characters of the African-American children today. The words "some historians" should be enough to instill dread in anyone who believes in verifiability on Wikipedia.
    • ...perhaps reword it to just "some", as there are plenty of laymen who feel the same way? (and it should be easy to find a source to verify that). --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most important African-American child actors in the series were [...]. Most important in what sense? In terms of screen time? "popularity"? number of appearances in the series? later career achievements? influence?
    • I will reword it to "the four main," since those four were the only major black characters in the series. There were plenty of black guest stars and bit players, but those four were main characters. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*After Sammy, Mickey, and Mary left the series in the mid-1920s, Our Gang declined slightly in popularity, although it remained financially successful. Figures to back this would be great, if available.
    • Exact figures aren't available. Review snippets are, however, as well as mentions from the Maltin/Bann book. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spanky [...] popularized the expressions "Okey-dokey!" and "Okey-doke!" I doubt you can find a convincing source for this one, so I suppose this is an assumption the author made. I recommend toning the wording down a bit.
  • As the profit margins declined due to to double features, [...]
    • Also from Maltin/Bann book.
  • The new Our Gangers recruited by MGM were more in the vein of the "cute" kids that Roach had despised than the original gang. Who says this? If the author believes it and has no quote (from an art/film critic with a minimum of respectability) to back it, then its POV.
  • The series dropped in both popularity and financial success after 1939,[...]
    • ...can be verified using figures from the Maltin/Bann book. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Little Rascals was a moderate success for Universal, and for a short time a sequel and a television series were planned, but nothing came to pass. Screams for box-office figures and source about the planned series.
    • Should be able to be found. If not, will delete the mention of it being a "moderate success". There should be articles on the projected sinoffs available online, however. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only remittances they received were their weekly salaries during their time in the gang, which ranged from $40 a week for newcomers to $300 or more a week for stars like Farina, Spanky, and Alfalfa. Precise figures require precise source citations.
I'd like to say that apart from that, this article is clearly above average; I congratulate the authors. I will gladly support when my concern is adressed. Phils 20:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out, the source for nearly everything you mentioned is the Maltin/Bann book; a few of the items about the African-American kids comes from the Bogle book. I can take care of the footnotes within a few hours. Should I be using page-specific footnotes? --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have added citations to all of the above-mentioned items, and other places where they appeared to be needed. I used paretheticals, since nearly all of my sources are print-based, not web-based. --FuriousFreddy 03:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thank you for adressing the objection so quickly, and good work. Now some others might want you to use a footnote system, but the way the article is referenced right now is ok by me. Phils 05:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how exactly to go about doing a footnote system for a Wiki article like this. Would I just be using superscript reference points, and a long list of footnotes at the ewend? If anyone decides a footnote system is neccessary, I will alter it. --FuriousFreddy 10:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no such thing as "absolutely needs footnotes", your parenthetic references are fine. I'm not sure there are enough of them (don't have time for a really good look tonight) and they want just a little formatting (I'll fix that tomorrow), but they're fine. In some special cases footnotes can work better than parentheses, but that's not the case here. Please don't anybody let the very proper requirement for sourcing of particular statements drift into a requirement for footnotes! They're optional. Ample and exact sourcing is valuable, but a "learned" or academic look has no special value in itself (on the contrary, IMO). Bishonen | talk 02:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear! I've never seen another call for footnotes. This is an encyclopedia article, not a term paper! Quill 03:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent. Quill 03:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, lovely. With a subject like this, it's impressive that the author manages to not assume all readers are Americans or even native English speakers, and makes the rest of us welcome, too. Great work.--Bishonen | talk 00:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, whilst putting in footnotes, I noticed the following:
    In later years, a large number of adults falsely claimed to have been members of the popular group. A long list of people, including persons famous in other capacities such as Nanette Fabray [19] [20], Tony Dow's mother Muriel Montrose [21], Gloria Winters [22], and Jimmy Weldon [23] have had biographical write-ups that falsely claimed that they were Our Gang kids. Eddie Bracken's official biography was once altered to state that he appeared in Our Gang instead of The Kiddie Troupers, although he himself had no knowledge of the change. The obituaries of some of these people, such as Lucille Brown [24] and Sara Jane Roberts [25], stated falsely that they were in the series. Ms. Brown's obituary claimed that she had played Farina, who was actually played by Allen Hoskins, a male.
  • There are wikilinks to old revisions of Wikipedia pages, which is most definitely a no-no. We don't refer back to ourselves. Also, the other websites given are, IMO, rather dubious. I think it would be better to remove this section altogether or find more notable examples of false claims. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand. I revised the section so that it refrences the Maltin-Bann book alone, removing the links back to ourselves and the other websites in the section. The only info that remains is drawn from pages 241-242 from the Maltin-Bann book. --FuriousFreddy 14:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Enjoyable, informative and well-illustrated. --Theo (Talk) 18:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/June_2005&oldid=401891992"