Bizarre Ride II the Pharcyde

[edit]

Self Nomination/Support. Like my Enta Da Stage article, I scraped together what little information there is about the album from a few interviews and album reviews, so I'd say I did a good job. Very well referenced, thorough, touches everything about it. And don't say anything about the few little unreferenced sections, because those came from the books listed in the Citations section. --PDTantisocial 10:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had to start playing Officer when I started reading and I probably haven't thought of Del tha Funkee Homosapien in a decade, so thanks for taking me back. Also, when responding here, please indent as you would on a talk page. I had to do a double take when I first saw this FAC before realizing that there was an interaction. Good luck. - BanyanTree 07:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkham Notch

[edit]

Nomination The article is well written, and due to its large number of citations, is verifiable. Sturgeonman 22:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck - Tutmosis 00:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will support if at least the lead is expanded.Joshdboz 13:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fixed the lead section. Let me know how it is. Also, if you see suggestions that I have fixed, strike them out. It's easier for me to see what I need to fix that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturgeonman (talk • contribs)
I still feel the lead is incomplete. Mention; Jeremy Belknap who discovered it, its part of the White Mountain National Forest, how many peeks it has + the most notable, general elevation of the notch, how long the notch is (is that even in the article?), its accessable by New Hampshire Route 16, it was formed by Laurentide ice sheet + when.
Also whats this mean: "Pinkham Notch was developed later than other areas of New England"?
"is an excellent example of a glacial "U-shaped". "Excellent" pushes pov. Adjectives should be avoided unless a publication uses it and you can source it. - Tutmosis 14:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support now, great article. - Tutmosis 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed phrasing of Auto Road sentence
Citation 15 is broked and couldn't citation 7 go into 1? Please fix. - Tutmosis 23:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the nominator should be temporarily banned for making the previous, abusive comment. Tony 06:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the obscene comment, and was just joking around. I was a little frustrated, and will try to control myself better in the future. Sorry Sandy, Tony, and anyone else who may have been offended. However, you must realize that its just a word. Take it easy! -- Sturgeonman 19:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin drive hunting

[edit]

Self-nomination. The article has had a peer review, all issues mentioned in which have been adressed, and has recently been promoted to good article status after correcting a few minor issues. I feel the article is as neutral as possible, especially considering the controversial nature of the subject. Further, it is a subject I suspect many people will find interesting yet do not know much about. BabyNuke 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change it, though I do not believe it matters much. A Sperm Whale is also a cetacean, and dolphins are definatly whales, toothed whales to be exact, but in popular usage the word whale is usually only applied to the larger species so I can understand the possiblity of confusion, but then again, the exact defintion of cetacean is probably also not clear to many. An other option would be saying "other small toothed whales". I'll replace it with "small cetaceans" for now. BabyNuke 16:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Referenced now. BabyNuke 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I'm not the best judge of that, but in the GA review it was stated that the article had compelling prose (see talk page). BabyNuke 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no other option. I only do this twice and only because these organisations have no article here at wikipedia nor are they really notable enough for them to be expeceted to get one. So linking to their websites I find a very reasonable and also the most reader friendly alternative. BabyNuke 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely enough, it does. There is some criticism in all cases, but it all pales in comparison to the criticism the Japanese hunts receive for some reason. Just go look at some of the websites of animal welfare organisations, only a few if any mention any of the other drive hunts and even then, the main focus is always Japan. BabyNuke 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs considerable work. Tony 13:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify as to what the lead is missing? Fixed the other issues you mentioned, though that was only the lead so I assume you could write an A4 with similar problems. BabyNuke 15:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Mission

[edit]

I believe this article meets all the requirements for a featured article. The subject is an important topic, more so with the changing relationship between the United States and the Peoples Republic of China. I believe it clearly conveys the history involved, and is entertaining to boot. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 02:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be an idea to write stubs for the red links if you think they're important enough to link to. I haven't read through the rest of it, but this is something you can be getting on with before other people put their oar in. Terri G 11:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are just random examples from the lead, which suggests that the whole text needs a good massage. Tony 01:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Pittsburgh

[edit]

This article is a good example of a Wikipedia article on the history of an American city. While keeping within article size guidelines, it is a more comprehensive history than can be found in many book-length treatments. Lorant's excellent history, for example, lacks a pre-European section. The article would be of interest to many readers, I believe, because the city has had such a colorful history. The article also has compelling graphics that convey the transformations the city has undergone. Tomcool 22:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's a good subject for a FA and there's plenty of good material in the article, but there are some problems that need resolving. There's no lead section at all, the reader is dropped, without context, into a somewhat fragmentary account of various native nations living in an area that has not been related to Pittsburgh. It's great to have an article suggest that there's much to be said about native history in a particular region of N. America, but a heading like "Native American era (possibly 19,000 years ago to 1747 A.D.)" is too sharply defined (did the Native era come to an abrupt end in 1747? Is it certain that there were no Native people in the area before 19,000 years ago - better to leave the heading more general). More needs to be said about the Native history of the area (e.g. I suspect disease wasn't their only killer). For my taste the article is a little listy, but you may disagree, either way, the layout could probably be tidied a bit - it seems haphazard. There are some copyediting issues to deal with, but nothing that can't be easily fixed, I think. How about working on it a bit more, then I think it will be a very plausible FA candidate. Pinkville 23:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object I've never been able to object to an FAC without reading a single word, but this fails WP:WIAFA criterion 2(a) right off the bat by having no lead whatsoever. The pictures are also very poorly placed- why are the vast majority of them centered on the page? The word "possibly" should be removed from the first heading, as it's incredibly unencyclopedic; perhaps the use of "circa" would be better. I'm with Pinkville on there being too many lists and tables. There are also far too many red links (I counted thirteen in the article); if something is important enough to link to (and, hell, Braddock's Field is linked to twice), at least write a stub for it. Fuinally, there are too many one- and two-sentence paragraphs. This is definitely a very good article- among the high points are that all of the images are fair-use and relevant to the article, the prose is generally good and everything is well-referenced- but it needs some work to be of Featured quality. -- Kicking222 02:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your prompt and helpful feedback. I have addressed your concerns by:

Regarding listiness, I have left in the lists, because they are the most economical and readable way to convey a lot of specific data. I've attempted to create a fact-filled article, using the 1911 EB article on Pittsburgh as a model. Since the contributors have already exceeded WP:LENGTH by 5kb (especially since adding the lead section), the only way to reduce the listiness is to eliminate (rather than put into narrative) some of the lists, with subsequent loss of detail. I hope that in the light of the above changes, you will reconsider your votes. Tomcool 17:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've further amended the article in response to the feedback above. I've eliminated redundant internal links, consolidated short paragraphs into longer paragraphs, eliminated some less important lists and converted others into narrative. I've also futher adjusted the image placements, added detail to the captions, and added an image of an engraving of the Union Deport fire of 1877. Re: moving the ballpark image; I need an image in that section of a Ren. I project, and the 3 Rivers stadium is probably the most famous. I've added detail to the caption in order to make it clear why the image is included in that section. Tomcool 19:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't just fix these; find someone else to go through the whole article carefully. Tony 01:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'd like to withdraw this article from FAC. We'll work on the copy editing and reference density, submit for peer review, and then resubmit for FA later. Tomcool 15:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Ignition Facility

[edit]

The NIF is an interesting (IMHO) big science project that is poised to be the first device to create "ignition" level fusion. A few of us have completely overhauled this article over the past few weeks. We have added a clear description of how the laser works, as well as a separate section on how it is used to create fusion. NIF has not been problem free, and the article also covers these problems in a neutral fashion, complete with plenty of refs in case anyone from LLNL complains. To top it all off, it contains a number of interesting pictures with clear and concise captions.

BTW if the edit history makes it look like a work in progress, it's not. There were a number of specific items we wanted to make sure were mentioned in the article, and the last one went in today.

Maury 20:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ran the auto peer review script (left results on talk page) there is also some minor things that can be done to the article like increasing cross links. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "very high density (many times the density of lead for instance)"— so how dense in gm/cm³?
  • "very center of the compressed fuel"—as opposed to the "center of the compressed fuel"?
  • "millions of kelvins"—"millions of Kelvins" or the more traditional "millions of °K" (yes, I’m old enough to be old fashioned)
  • "extremely symmetrical"— how symmetrical?
  • "single ultrabright flash"—how bright is ultrabright?
Williamborg (Bill) 04:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M1 Garand

[edit]

Last time this was up for FA status it failed, but I think a good amount of work has been done into cleaning up and referencing the page. There are abundant sources, good pictures, and quality, well-written information. Plus, it is a very important rifle (and not just for gun buffs). I guess that's it. Deleuze 07:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pagrashtak 02:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopædia Britannica

[edit]

This article has already acheived Good Article status. Some users suggested that we nominate this for Featured Article candidate. Just imagine featuring this article: with the growing tension between Britannica and Wikimedia, it would show that Wikipedia is a true neutral encyclopedia, capable of featuring its own competitor. Anyway, this article is already in good shape, with sufficient and complete citations, as well as following the Manual of Style. It was recently Peer Reviewed and Auto (Javascript) Peer Reviewed, and the helpful criticism(s) was taken into account. NauticaShades 20:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article titled is mispelled. How do you even make that crazy character? Tobyk777 00:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now, because I haven't looked at this as much as is needed to comment exactly. I will say, having commented briefly re the intro during the PR, that much excellent work has been done in terms of sourcing and organization. Good work Nautica!

Personally, I think the Wiki - Britannica comparison should actually be reduced. We leap from History to CD-roms and then to an elaborate comparison to "us". Now, you may not want to reduce it, b/c other editors will argue otherwise, so perhaps expand sections surrounding it. For example, while the history is long, the 11th edition could be given its own section(?).

Later, we have "Current version" as a level-two and then "Editors" (which doesn't fit) and "Versions" (which is redundant). Fix that sectioning.

Also, I added two fact requests yesterday (important stuff, because it's comparing to other encyclopedias) and those should be taken care of.

This a bit of "macro" comment—I'll try to look at the prose later. This has greatly improved anyhow, and this FAC is a good first attempt, even if the article is not quite there. Marskell 23:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Earth

[edit]

This is a good article and has been a succesful collaberation of religious historians and science historians in the wiki environment. It mirrors the prevelance of straw man argumentation in modern society and the breakdown of dialogue between science and religion while simotaniously prooving that in the wiki environment such discussion can take place and defeating misrepresentations within that dialoguge is something all parties can help to break down. Home Computer 19:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti

[edit]

Self Nomination

Hi everyone,

I came accross this article a little while ago and, after learning that it's a former featured article, I decided to restore it to its former glory. I rewrote it, added refs etc., and it's just gone through peer review. I think that this would a good featered article because it's well-written, covers an important topic, and has lots of useful information on it. What do you guys think? Thanks,

Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 06:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the passive-aggressiveness, but seriously, this needs to be taken care of, and why is the ((citation style)) template still there?--Rmky87 21:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the citation template has been removed, but where is this aforementioned [citation needed] tag? I can't seem to find it. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 00:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here. It's the only one I could find.--Rmky87 13:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's been fixed. Anything else? Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I can see, which unfortunately does not mean that nothing is there.--Rmky87 18:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this wasn't listed on the FAC page, listing now. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spot the Dog

[edit]

I believe this article is as comprehensive about the venerable institution that is Spot as is possible. I want to spread the magic. Lost Number 01:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taichung City

[edit]

Taichung City, maintained by Ludahai, exemplefies Wikipedia's quality standards. It is long, yet compact and deserves featured article status like any other good article. Auroranorth 10:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Solidarity

[edit]

It has been some time since I nominated a FAC, but I hope it was worth it :) History of Solidarity, perhaps the most famous trade union in the world, and one of the most widely recognized Poland-related subjects. Pictures, citations... I hope you enjoy it. Comments, as always, appreciated! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stopping here but there are some other examples as well in the text... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which part of the article do we claim that Solidarity was responsible for the fall of USSR? As discussed above, we have academic refs that it was responsible for fall of communism in Poland and contributed to the Autumn of Nations in the entire region. What is it that you find questionable, exactly - and what refs do you have to back up your case?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations

[edit]

This, from what I have read, is a very good article about an interesting topic and definitely material worth considering later on for the Main Page. My only concern is with the touchy political topics it might and encompass and lack of information in some of the footnotes. Nicholasink 02:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koan

[edit]

This article explains the subject well, is objective, and is thorough.

Pagrashtak 02:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The lead section, as Pagrashtak points out, is long—too long, in fact—and quite unfocussed, rambling rather unsteadily from definition to example to history and back to definition, etc.
  2. The layout of the "Examples" section is quite bad: rather than putting the information in the bullet beneath the example, it would be better to give that info in a footnote.
  3. (And yes, by the way, the footnotes/references need to be redone, as they have been all but destroyed.)
  4. The layout of "Roles of the koan in Zen practice" is also bad: long, unbroken paragraphs; bullets; a bit of unreferenced and possibly original research (the comparison with "Man's extremity is God's opportunity"); etc.
  5. Some other bits and pieces in the rest of the article which I haven't the time to mention now.

Overall—sorry, but it just ain't ready yet. —Saposcat 06:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. Reference section has been fixed and renamed "Notes"; but the article still requires a "References" section to collate all the references into one list. —Saposcat 10:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane David

[edit]

Well-written, long-edited article that I believe, after slow, steady improvements, meets FAC. CrazyC83 17:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Suit Gundam

[edit]

Meets criteria, it's a very popular anime, and yeah, not much else really to say. Jay Kana

Oppose - It fails some of the criteria. Everything necessary needs to be wikilinked (one section has just 2 of them). Lists either need to be completely removed or integrated into prose and the article needs to be referenced like other featured articles. Don't be discouraged though. A bit of hard work and the article will be there in no time. What's there at the moment looks to be good, but just not in the form of a featured article. --mdmanser 21:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Hume

[edit]

Good A-Class. Eyu100 04:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Zvika 15:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shigeru Miyamoto

[edit]

Shigeru Miyamoto deserves a spot on the featured article list because of his amazing work with Nintendo and the Wii

Doshindude 20:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are no inline refs and the article has ((fact)) templates. However much Shigeru Miyamoto may deserve an FA, he won't get one if these issues are not resolved. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: You're right, he does deserve an FA. So it's a shame that his article is so poorly referenced. Rampart 23:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: Articles are featured based on WP:WIAFA criteria, not the merit of the subject. Suggest delisting. Pagrashtak 02:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: per Pagrashtak. Also, it hardly seems comprehensive, it shouldn't have trivia, it is unreferenced and the lead could do with serious work. Mikker (...) 03:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: per above. No references, too short and section naming needs to be addressed. --13:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: References are needed. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no references whatsoever and it has a really, really narrow scope (wouldn't probably pass GA). Hbdragon88 07:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver

[edit]

Self nomination.

It's been a while since the previous FAC, and the article is in better shape. -- Selmo (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please link to the FAC archive. On another note, "The city is consistently ranked within the top 3 cities in the world in which to live" needs a citation in the Social fabric section.—Abraham Lure 01:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The lead section is not well-rounded. It should essentially summarize the article as a whole (or at least the most sufficient points), but it's all statistics here. Also, there is no reference for the claim that Vancouver residents are called "Vancouverites" (which I've never heard of before).#Indication that it will host the 2010 Olympics Games in the lead section seems unnecessary. That should be merged with Sports and recreation.
Strongly disagree that Olympics reference is too trivial for the lead section. This is a huge deal for the city (oddly enough, considering it's just a 2 week sports event), and is having a profound influence on the development and economy of the city. Go figure.Bobanny
I find it hard to believe you're from here yet never heard "Vancouverite." Unless there is competing term for Vancouver residents (Vancouverers?), I strongly disagree that it requires a reference, which is consistent with FA cities and others (Seattleites, Detroiters, Torontonians, New Yorkers, etc.).Bobanny

#The history section is short and the inclusion of two images makes it look messy and unorganized.#In Scenery (a sub-section of Geography) the first sentence ("Vancouver is internationally renowned for its beautiful scenery") is unreferenced. As a matter of fact, the section should be merged with another part of Geography because of its length. #The Air Pollution section is odd; most of it is unreferenced and written in a vague style. #Image:VanPan.jpg is outrageously long.

The image has been replaced with a better quality image of the same view, which is also a much smaller file. It is, however, still a long image, but the thumbnail size has been decreased.Bobanny

#There is no fair use rationale for Image:SamSullivan.jpg. #The Electricity sub-section of Infrastructure is two sentences and needs to be merged. #The first sentence of Lifestyle ("The city of Vancouver has developed a reputation as a tolerant city that is open to social experimentation and alternative lifestyles as well as being willing to explore alternative drug policies") is unreferenced and makes no sense. Since when did Vancouver become tolerant to open social experimentation (or perhaps I've been away for too long)? #Skyline is far too detailed. It needs to be shortened. #Countless POV issues.

I believe POV issues have been resolved. If others disagree, please point out specifics.Bobanny

#Many claims are not sourced or improperly sourced.

There might still be some, but definately not "many." I'll take another look later.Bobanny

#The writing is confusing in most parts and sometimes infactual.

Taken care of now. -- Selmo (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#The contents table is overly long.

I've shrunk that a while ago. -- Selmo (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There are several other issues as well. Basically, it needs a complete rewrite.
This article has many problems, but if its editors can slowly improve it, I would love to support it at a later date. Currently, though, it is not ready for FA status and I recommend a solid peer review. There should be more print sources for a well-known city too. Never Mystic (tc) 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your great suggestions. At WP:PR, noone has a comment, here, I actually get feedback. -- Selmo (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean! Sometimes FAC is the only solution in receiving feedback. If you want more, just ask me. Never Mystic (tc) 01:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine for now. Thanks for your contributions to the article. -- Selmo (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bereishit (parsha)

[edit]

I put this up for a peer review, which has attracted exactly 0 comments. I can only assume therefore, that the article is of a high enough standard that it does not require any further work. So the next step is FA. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 13:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There wouldn't be. All references are included as part of the text. The closest you come to inline citations are the direct links to the relevant parts of Genesis in the summary. I don't think this can be corrected, unless I can find the works of Maimonides online to quote where he says there is one mitzvot. I'll see what I can find. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked and found a list of Maimonides' count of the commandments but felt that the direct link to a copy of the Bible where it can be checked for one's self is sufficent. So basically, this article has no inline citations because it one of the few that doesn't actually need any. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Rabbinic Interpretation is referenced. That's what "(Genesis Rabba 1:4.)" and "(Mishnah Avot 5:1.)" are. The other sections are similar. I have rewritten the stuff in the lead you referred to and [laced it in the main article. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 18:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is better now, but I am still not happy with the article being referenced solely on primary sources. As it is, the article may or may not be in violation of Wikipedia:No original research - I don't know enough about this subject to be certain. See particularly the Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources. I would suggest that this article should be expanded with secondary sources (like those articles or books) before it is comprehensive enough for a FA.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC}
I don't think Genesis Rabba and Mishnah Avot are primary sources - they're rabbinical commentaries interpreting and, well, commenting on the parsha. You can see a copy of the Rabba here. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 08:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a specialist here, but I still think that the article is based on two few sources with evident POV. It needs to be expanded with academic sources I indicated above.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pagrashtak 18:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a summary of the parsha is quite important? The article is on a section of the torah, is not the most vital thing to explain what it is. I'm not sure what exactly I can add to the commandments section: there's only one after all and "be fruitful and multiply" is fairly self-explanatory. I've explained what a haftarah is, is that clear enough for the casual reader? I've removed the creation link from the heading. What do you want in the References in Classical Sources section? I thought it didn't really need anything, as a bibliography. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 18:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you should remove the summary. I'm saying that if you were to remove it, there would be a stub left, and that's a problem. If the commandments section cannot expand beyond what it is, it should not be its own section. If it can, it should be expanded. If you're intending the "References in classical sources" section to serve as a bibliography, it's not clear. Perhaps "Further reading" would be a more appropriate heading? Pagrashtak 01:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've renamed it Further Reading. What I've done to the commandments is I've merged it with in rabbinical interpretation, because Mainmonides was a rabbi. I know it's inadequate as a paragraph, but trying to work it in with the previous two just doesn't seem to fit. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 08:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck two comments, the rest still need work. Pagrashtak 20:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all links in headers, and tried to explain further what unfamiliar words mean without breaking the flow. I'm not sure more more I can expand the article with: it is, after all, an article on a piece of text; naturally a summary would take up a large amount of space. It only has one commandment, which I've expanded, and I've written an overview prior to the summary itself. What else can I add? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is little information other than the summary of the plot, I suspect that it is not comprehensive. However, since I am largely unfamiliar with the subject, I can't specifically say what needs to be added. If Raul feels that this invalidates my point, then so be it. Pagrashtak 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what I'll do is drop a message off at the Jewish Wikiprojects, and see if they think it can be expanded or not. In the meantime, I notice that you have not crossed out "terms for the layman" what else do you feel needs explaining? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 23:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed, just a summary of Genesis. There needs to be a lot more on the specifically Jewish stuff that differentiates it from the Genesis story in the Christian Bible or in the Koran, more about Hebrew, more about Judaism, more categories (at the moment, it is only categorised in Weekly Torah readings). More on the history of it being read out, and why it is read out. Also, the pictures might be specifically illustrating Christian themes (not sure). Can you find specifically Jewish images drawn by Jewish people? Carcharoth 08:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Security Council

[edit]

Nominated by User:Romtobbi

I came across this article while doing other research and have found it to be an extremely useful article and in my mind worthy of feature article status. It meets all the feature article criteria; it is well written and very comprehensive, and as far as I can tell is factually accurate and its neautrality is uncompromised. Romtobbi 06:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose My first concern when I look at the article is the number of "citation needed" tags. That, and the fact that there are only 4 references. It looks like a very comprehensive and to-the-point article but not one that is sorted out in the correct featured article manner. --mdmanser 07:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of inline citations & MOS problems. Suggest a peer review & copyedit are carried out. Alexj2002 10:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, numerous deficiencies as listed above, refer to peer review. Sandy 13:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States

[edit]

Nominated by Sean gorter

You may be looking for a different FAC: see fixing old issues in FAC archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A very good article. Very specific, many images, includes its 41 states and many more reasons. •Sean•gorter•(T) (P) 05:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Support per nom"? But you are the nominator. Are you just trying to bulk up the appearance of support? Tony 13:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. He may think (wrongly) that such a support is standard procedure. —Cuiviénen 20:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't read further. The whole article needs serious copy-editing. Many hours' work. Tony 13:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick response - no, it wouldn't be an upper-case 'u', the original references to the country used "united" as an adjective, not as part of the name. On everything else, you're probably right. --Golbez 16:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha (DJ)

[edit]

I have put a lot of work into this article in preparing it to be a Featured Article. I previously nominated it, and it was opposed due to some relatively minor issues some editors had with it that I have since fixed. Archive here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sasha (DJ)/archive1. This is a stable article, well-sourced, and which I now believe reflects the standards of "brilliant prose" on Wikipedia. This has been through a successful "Good Article" nomination, a peer review, and a previous FAC nomination. I believe it is of appropriate length and the information contained therein is accurate, NPOV, and quite verifiable. Its difficult to find much negative press on Sasha, but I feel its a well-balanced article integrating positive and negative criticisms, stylistic/artistic, and biographical information. Wickethewok 15:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Head scratching - I can't find the archived previous nomination, can you help? --Mcginnly | Natter 16:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Image:Sasha fundacion presskit.gif fails Wikipedia:Fair use criteria #1 and needs to be deleted. Jkelly 17:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to make sure I understand correctly: this image is bad because another image could be created? Is that essentially why it fails? Is there any difference between this case and the lead picture used for Elliott Smith? In any case, I will put in a different (free) headshot, but it will lack the excellent clarity of any promotional photo. I'm putting in a few emails to Sasha's management asking for free-licensing options on a picture. I'm putting in a free image for now in any case... Wickethewok 18:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Nice work. Jkelly 20:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment God I'm loath to do this - It's pretty close this article, but it still seems to have some prose problems - I started editing the last 3 paragraphs (working upwards), and found quite a bit to tweak (I got bored doing it). Sorry about this chaps but could you have another go over it. Also there's one phrase I didn't change because I didn't really understand what it was trying to say. "He most often uses the built-in plugins [of Ableton] due to stability and performance issues." I don't understand this - it sounds like a non-sequitur - you probably need to say what the stability and performance issues are, or "He primarily uses the Ableton's built-in plugins because of their stability and performance benefits." Finally, this article still reads as a tribute to Sasha - Is there really no objective criticism out their of his work? --Mcginnly | Natter 12:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be little criticism of Sasha, as he seems to be at that level of popularity where its only cool to praise him, similarly to The KLF. I'm not a rabid Sasha fan or anything, btw ;-). I'll look through metacritic and will hopefully find some more criticisms. Also, thanks for going over the article and editing it, Mcginnly, it really does need a second set of eyes to go over the small stuff. Last FAC, people just said that the language needed to be fixed up, but they weren't specific and didn't edit the article any, so thanks for the hands-on involvement. I'll fix up that Ableton plugins sentence - its supposed to mean that he uses the built-in plugins because they are more stable/efficient than user-made plugins. Wickethewok 19:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I'm not going to do the rest of the article. Come on man where's your backbone, one last push! The way I do it is to take each sentence one at a time and read it 3 times - aloud if necessary, if it doesn't sound like it's written in an encyclopedia I'll rewrite it. --Mcginnly | Natter 19:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'll go over it again. I'm not giving up on it ;-). In any case, I managed to find some negative reviews and have integrated them. I just went over it again rather thoroughly, but I will do so again later tonight. Wickethewok 20:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the lack of criticism is because you are only looking at pro-dance sources, suggest you might look at criticsm of dance music in general that cites sasha. I know I stopped listening to it in the late 90's because after ten years it just seemed really stale, had lost it's real experimental edge, the scene had become rather cocaine nasty and the rise of the 'superstar DJ' seemed to be run against the original "could be anyone of us" anonymous dj ethos, I'm sure they'll be something out there that says something citably similar. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already added in some negative reviews/comments/criticisms regarding his later albums/styles (Communicate, Involver, ADD). Do you think there needs to be more in there? I'll try to find some regarding his earlier work along the lines of what you've said. Wickethewok 12:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very anti the superstar DJs too, and also stopped listening to new dance music because I felt the genre had done all it could. However, I don't think that just because we hold this opinion it automatically means there will be stacks of negative reviews about Sasha. Sure we could probably find some pieces saying superstars DJs are w*nkers, or dance music is dead long live rock, and perhaps these things could be briefly mentioned. In summary, though, I trust Wickthewok not to have cherrypicked, and unless we can come up with tons of material saying "Sasha is crap" I think we can't accuse him of ignoring any significant critical opinion in this article. --kingboyk 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found a few articles that discuss the commercialization of the "superstar DJ" and what have you. I'm going to try to integrate them now. Wickethewok 18:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I added in a few sentences regarding this. Tell me what ya think.  :) Wickethewok 19:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can you please integrate "personal life" into the main article. Its strange why its relegated to the bottom of the article, which is a biography. Rama's arrow 00:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"As a child, his earliest exposure to music was primarily Motown records" His exposure can't be both "earliest" (1 thing) and "Primarily" (The main 1 of many things). Why not say something like; "As a child, he was exposed to a great deal of music from Motown Records."
The term "resident" and "residency" is used a number of times but is not linked or defined in the article - a link is provided to residency (as in, resident of a house) but not in the dance music sense. My granny will think Sasha lives at the club.
"Resident Haçienda DJ Jon DaSilva helped Sasha get booked at his club". Confusing sentence - logically, it tells us that Jon DaSilva Helped Sasha get booked at his (Jon's) club. This club isn't named and the confusion arises by mentioning the Hacienda in the first part of the sentence.
The article has far too many "due to's", can't we replace some of them with "because of's"?
"He left his residency at Shelley's due to increased gang violence in and around the club. Due to his stay at Shelley's, Sasha was offered performing jobs in London and Australia." - 2 "due to's" in consecutive sentences - I'm confused again; the 1st sentence says he left his residency the second, at first scan, seems to read that he stayed after all but was then offered jobs in London and Australia?
"John Digweed had been DJ-ing for ten years before getting a residency at Renaissance where he met Sasha.[8] Their partnership started during Sasha's final performances at Renaissance.......... " This paragraph needs rewriting - John Digweed is introduced in the first sentence, in the second, a partnership is alluded to that has not previously been mentioned. What sort of partnership? It clunks a bit. "Sasha's final performances" - does this relate to the last couple of records he would play in any given evening or the last few performances of his residency? --Mcginnly | Natter 12:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for getting back to me. I corrected the stuff you listed and have gone through and corrected similar sentences that may be confusing/ambiguous in the article as well. Let me know what you think. Thanks for the help btw. Wickethewok 14:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted - sweet as a nut mate - top article etc. :-)))))))) --Mcginnly | Natter 22:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hiya, Sandy. I touched up the article attempting to make the sentences flow better. While I didn't follow your wording suggestions exactly, I'm glad you pointed this issue out. I revised things like this throughout, and am quite interested in hearing your opinion of the article as it currently stands. Additional looking at "by a fresh set of eyes" is of course welcome. Wickethewok 19:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sincerely apologize, Wikethewok; apparently I overlooked your message. I am traveling now, on a very slow dialup: I will see if someone else can have a look, and check back as soon as I can get on a decent connection. Sandy 14:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This needs someone else who's interested in the topic to go through it carefully. Use the list of copy-editors that you've made over the months (I hope you have). Ask them nicely, and express interest in their work. It's called "collaboration". Tony 14:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verity Lambert

[edit]

Self-nomination. I've done a lot of work bringing the standard of this article up recently and am quite pleased with the result, so I thought I'd give it a shot. It spent a week on peer review here, but attracted only one feedback response, which I feel I have adequately responded to. I also posted asking for comment at two relevant WikiProjects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, getting only one comment, which was positive. Angmering 06:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a bit of a gestalt reply to the last two objections, I'm afraid — I don't mean to seem rude but you both seemed to object along similar lines so one response to you both seemed easiest. Thank you for all of your comments — I have now gone through and done a copy-edit of the article and tried to act on your criticisms and suggestions as best I can. Please do let me know if I have missed things / not done enough, etc. (Incidentally, I'm pretty sure British English allows a hotel to be a who when talking about it as an employer rather than an actual building, but for the sake of clarity I've changed it). Angmering 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just additionally adding that User:Josiah Rowe has agreed to also have a go at copyediting the article, although as he's busy at the moment he'll be unable to do so until Tuesday at the earliest — I hope it's okay to keep the FAC open until then. Angmering 10:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done one copyediting pass, smoothing out some of the clunkier sentences. The article might benefit from another pass by a more experienced copyeditor, but I think it has been improved. I'd be interested to see whether Ambuj and Sandy's concerns have been addressed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back for second look:

I'm still getting tangled up in some of the prose, and would feel better if you had another good copyedit, from a fresh set of eyes. Sandy 22:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go later on today at implementing your suggestions, and finding another user to give it another copyedit. Angmering 06:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have now implemented or adapted most of the specific recommendations you stated above. I have also asked another user, User:BillyH, to bring "a fresh set of eyes" to the article, as you suggested. He has taken a look, and in his edit summary said that he "Couldn't find anything that needed changing except for a few spelling errors." Angmering 23:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that two users have already gone through the article at my request and it still doesn't satisfy your concerns, can you suggest a user who might be able to have a look? Angmering 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Italy

[edit]

It's been a long time since I've done much FAC work, but I think this article has turned out very well. It was largely written by me and User:Jeffmatt, and it's a GA and an A-Class WP:WOMUS article (though WOMUS is largely me, so take that with a grain of salt). It's involved quite a bit of discussion, as this is a bit of a tricky subject. I'm of the opinion that a "music of" should primarily be about the modern country -- how music currently has an effect on the lives of Italians. Of course, to some degree, history is a major part of that, and in addition, Italian music history is extremely notable in the grand scheme of things... So finding the appropriate amounts of content in different areas is a precarious balancing act. It's 83kb with all the frills, but much of that is the references, pics, and other stuff (mostly references).

This article has 59KB of prose as of 30 September 2006

FYI: Jeffmatt's Italian, but he uses mostly British spelling and I use American. In copyediting, I switched it to American so that it was consistent. I may have missed some though, so please fix any British spelling you encounter (or switch it all to British, I don't really care).

No, for FYI, Jeffmatt is American, but lives in Italy. He switches spelling. He once spelled it "theather" amd claimed it was New Zealand spelling. Keeps people on their toes. Or at least off of mine. Jeffmatt 04:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, nevermind then. Sorry. Tuf-Kat 07:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance for commenting, Tuf-Kat 01:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note 10 has empty <ref></ref> tags. -Fsotrain0901:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, an edit conflict from commenting before I officially even launch the nom! I just fixed it, but thanks. Tuf-Kat 01:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is part of the problem that Tuf-Kat refers to above--and he, I, and a few other contributors went round and round for months on this--the balance between history and the present. I am not sure what "Modern history of Italian music" would even mean, to tell you the truth. Or even "History of Modern Italian Music" (which is a contradiction in terms). I think the article has attemped to answer a potential reader's question, "What is the music of Italy like today?" and puts in a reasonable amount of historical information so that a reader is not left completely hanging in the present. Thank you for your comment. Jeffmatt 04:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the question you want to answer, then this needs to be at "Modern music of Italy". Music of Italy needs to answer the question, "What is the music of Italy?" (with no exceptions). If you're not going to at least briefly discuss all of the music of Italy, you should have a good reason (like no reliable sources existing), or change the title. --Spangineeres (háblame) 16:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it covers plenty of music that is not modern. It covers all the most important points of Italian music history -- stuff sufficiently distant in the past is not part of the music of Italy if Italy is defined as the country. If Italy is defined as the penninsula and politically united islands, then this article would need to be expanded to cover lots of topics irrelevant to the country. Gregorian chant occurred largely in what we now call Italy, but that was way before "Italy" really existed, and it is of no more relevance to the lives of anyone that has ever lived in "Italy" (the country) than it is relevant to the lives of people that have lived in France, Sweden or the United States. IOW, we should have an article on the music of the country of Italy, because it's a very notable topic and it should not cover topics tangential to the country of Italy; topics that occurred in the distant past are also notable but are not relevant to the country of Italy, so it makes sense to put them in a different article that can cover them thoroughly and in an appropriate historical context (i.e. music history of Italy). Tuf-Kat 22:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting argument. If that's the definition of "Italy", I suppose it makes sense that this article not cover the old stuff. Personally, however, I would rather see a relatively short level two section that discusses pre-"Italy" music in extremely broad terms. After all, the article on Italy covers all the way back to the Roman Empire, and USA briefly covers the time period before Europeans arrived. --Spangineeres (háblame) 22:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess as I see it, a single section can't possibly hope to cover the old stuff. Covering back to Gregorian chant would be a thousand years of history, and I don't think there's any reason to stop in the 9th century. But maybe I can work in a couple sentences here and there to discuss some of the earliest stuff in the peninsula. Tuf-Kat 03:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As part of a general trim, I added an explicit explanation and a link to Gregorian chant. Tuf-Kat 14:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the major contributors to this article, I appreciate all the comments and admit to being confused, myself. If "Italy" is a general cultural repository (a reasonable view and my own original one), then the article would have to be of the "no exceptions" kind, mentioned above. Such an article might even be called "Italian music" (in a way that "Italian architecture" might be handled differently than "Architecture of Italy"). If "Italy" is a modern nation state (which it is, even though there is almost no place to park) then the focus should be at least similar to other Music of (country) articles. The fact that "Italy" is both—in a way that most other places are not—means we have to have a compromise. We split off a lot of the early history to another article, Music history of Italy, and wound up with, in my opinion, just such a compromise: enough history to support a presentation of music as it exists today in Italy, with enough pointers to other articles to satisfy at least some of the historical requirements of readers looking for more. Thanks again. Jeffmatt 05:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to fill in a few of the "citation needed" items inserted by Spangineer. I'm not sure I agree that they are all necessary, but better to have too many than too few, I suppose. As far as what readers expect and get from such an article: it is a good encyclopedic point of reference for students and general readers seeking information about the Music of and in Italy. It has enough historical pointers for those looking for that information, as well (at least potentially, since some of the pointers go to items that are, as yet, incomplete--the Music History of Italy, for example). If the debate is about the meaning of "Italy," that's a tough one. I still think the article does justice to much of the history and, at the same time, fits the Wikipedia idea that we should have a Music of (nation) series. Maybe I'm beating a dead horse, here. On the other hand, I helped kill it. Jeffmatt 06:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't being unctious. I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia. I thought I was being funny. Loosen your corset. I'm all in favor of fairness and openness. My comments on the points you raise are below. Thank you. Jeffmatt 13:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read that sentence as being so all-inclusive. I thought it meant, simply, that some of the musical developments in Italy spread to other parts of Europe. If it doesn't mean that, it shouldn't be much of a problem to change, Thank you for pointing it out. Jeffmatt 16:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the problem is that it could be read as all-inclusive. If this sentence is retained, it should list specific (and even general) innovations in Italy that spread. That's beyond my knowledge, but recitative and solo-tutti might be candidates, as might certain aspects of opera. I'm worried about over-generalisations in the lead. (Tony1)
Indeed, but we didn't put it that way. With all due respect, you have distorted the context. We don't say, "Innovations in notation led directly to opera." We said that innovations in a number of things--including notation--led directly to a number of other things. That strikes me as a true statement, unless you want to quibble about the word "directly." On the other hand, how could you have had operas and symphonies without precise pitch notation? Jeffmatt 16:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's uncertain as to whether it should be read as "each item, of itself" contributed to the development of opera, or "together, these items did". It's vague, and the experts will kill it as soon as they see such ambiguity. I suggest that you don't refer to notation here, because it's just too all-encompassing: so many musical forms arose from the invention of notation—we don't need to say this here. I don't see this as a philosophical question (below), but a technical, musical, historical one.


didn't these innovations lead to many forms of music in many countries? This grand statement should be withdrawn and replaced with something more useful and focused. And can innovations lead to the origin of something?

Well, I don't know, but I think that last question is a philosophical one that doesn't have much to do with the article.Jeffmatt 16:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, the point of opera being "popular" needs clarification, perhaps along the distinction of upper-case (even though you hate that!) C for "Classical" music (the last half of the 18th century) and "classical" music (all symphonies and operas). Upper-case "Popular" could mean what we undertand when we say "pop" music and lower-case "popular" could mean that which is liked by the people, in which case, "Opera is popular music" is a true statement.Jeffmatt 18:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting complicated. I'd pitch it at music lovers who may have only limited knowledge of the historical and technical stuff. (But that's your call—it just has to be evenly pitched throughout.)
Yes, it could be more orderly.Jeffmatt 18:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have really over-analyzed that use of "remains". How about "is"? Jeffmatt 18:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it has, but in an encyclopedic article, this knowledge should not be casually assumed of the reader.

Not a problem to spruce up the vocabulary. I just got stuck on "range". It's such a nice word.Jeffmatt 18:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm careful about "variety of", "range of" and "includes". Often redundant, and can weaken the impact of a statement.

Not good enough. The problems are on a deeper level than just the language at the clause level; they involve logic, cogency and overall cohesiveness. Tony 06:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article may seem, as one person noted, "strangely disjointed". I think that comes from having tried to tie a lot of things together under a single rubric, but I still think it's cohesive. Thank you very much for the comments. Jeffmatt 16:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jusuf Prazina

[edit]

Self-nomination. I've worked on this article extensively, using numerous sources to write a good-sized text about a fairly obscure topic. I'm more or less satisfied with my work now and feel it's time to nominate it for FA status. Live Forever 06:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few more redlinks than I'm comfortable with, especially in "See Also": two of the three names are redlinks. Please either create stubs or black them. -Fsotrain09 00:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the commentaries in brackets "(presumably in the latter half of 1962, as various media reported him as being thirty-years-old in both '92 and '93)" are they really necessary why not just say born in late 1962 then cite sources. Over all the majority of paragraphs have these, the size of paragraphs needs to be reduced, 10-12 line paragraphs is too much. A see also section shouldn't have Red links it should only list existing articles. Gnangarra 12:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I copy edited the lead, some rewording. Suggest that the use of Juka be limited to quotes and commentary from 3rd parties, he should be referred to more formally. Gnangarra 13:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colosseum

[edit]

Self-nomination. I noticed that this article was one of those for which improvements were invited for Danny's Contest. I've rewritten and considerably expanded it with new sections, new images and better referencing; I've learned quite a lot more about the Colosseum in the process (who knew that it nearly became a wool factory to provide employment for Rome's prostitutes??). Hopefully it now meets the FA criteria. -- ChrisO 12:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this has any bearing on an FAC, but I wanted to mention that this article is almost constantly vandalized. It's not too major, and it is easy to fix, but sometimes vandalism remains for weeks, there is just so much of it. Adam Bishop 15:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it does have any particular bearing on FAC, to be honest, but thanks for pointing it out - the article's on my watchlist. I suspect the vandalism probably comes from kids doing school projects. The article itself is one of the 700 "basic subjects for which the English Wikipedia should have a corresponding featured article", hence this nomination. -- ChrisO 16:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FA?'s section on an article being stable, vandalism reverts do not have a bearing on an article being featured. -- Kicking222 22:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was built on a valley floor rather than into the side of a hill as had previously been the usual practice. I've modified the wording to make this clearer. -- ChrisO 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stegosaurus

[edit]

Hi there, I feel this has most of what has been written about Stegosaurus, thus is comprehensive, neutral and I've tried to write a nice intro. Lemme know what y'all think Support and self-nom. Cas Liber 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Has had Peer Review and I felt we dealt with as much as we could. Cas Liber 14:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, trying to deal with listy feel. Have added a couple of refs to pop culture - not sure how to reference films though. Link to IMDB? Cas Liber 00:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, alot of dinosaurs' postures have changed over recent years and Stegosaurus is one whose tail was held up high and front down low, giving it an odd appearance.Cas Liber 20:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The sections feel all together too short, and I'm not keen on the Plate Arrangement content being a list.—Abraham Lure 22:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If too listy, do people feel, for instance, that one subheading 'Plates' is better than 3 (Plates/Plate function/Plate arrangement)?Cas Liber 00:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy, thanks for making these minor fixes to the article. There are two lists in this article. The first lists the various species, and the second the four types of plate arrangement theory which have been proposed over the years. I'm certainly willing to convert both of these to paragraph form, but our Featured Articles Albatross, Gray Wolf, Jaguar, Orca, etc, use lists for their respective species. Is it really a good idea to convert these lists of species into paragraph form? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention: I will work on the popular culture section later today. Thanks for the comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like lists when the content would make good prose, but recognizing that is perhaps a personal preference, I haven't made that an objection. The fixes to help the article conform with WP:FN's where to place ref tags are thanks to User:Gimmetrow's fabulous new ref fixer. Sandy 17:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've made some adjustments, mostly to the popular culture section, trying to address your concerns. There's still trivia-type information in there, but I tried to present it as more cohesive, with the examples listed to provide support for the statements made about Stegosaurus being one of the more widely-known (or recognized) dinosaurs. If this is still unacceptable, I'll keep working on it.Firsfron of Ronchester 19:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence fixed. The part about the "irritable rhino" has been removed. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative if people still feel unhappy about listiness would be keeping the species as listed but putting the doubtful ones into a text paragraph.Cas Liber 00:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly willing to make the edits, if it's still too "listy" for folks. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Just comparing it with other Dinosaurs FAs, this article (about a popular dino) is of much lower quality. The Description section could be expanded and the prose improved. eg: The fact about the juvenile stego is incorporated separatly in the section, while it should be part of a description about the dino growth or the history of discovery. In addition, could you add the range of the fossile in the infobox? One more thing, if we follow the convention used in other Dino FAs, you should write in the lead: Stegosaurus...is a genus of Stegosaurid, armored Dinosaurs... CG 14:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Consistency is good, but each article doesn't need to begin with the same sentence. I will certainly incorporate your other suggestions into the article, although this nomination has failed. Thanks for your comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazda MX-5

[edit]

This article appears to meet all of the criteria for a FA:

1. It is well written and comprehensive. It covers the history of the car from inception to the current day. It is factually accurate with references and citations where appropriate. It is NPOV, being almost entirely factual. It is very stable, having been so for several months since some major improvements by user user: mafmafmaf.

2. It is MOS compliant, with a short lead section, hierarchical headings and an excellent table of contents.

3. It uses a number of appropriate images to illustrate the topic with which it deals.

4. It is of an appropriate length for an article that covers a topic that extends over a period of 17 years. It is of comparable length to other featured articles on similar topics such as Mini.

I nominate the article for FA status. D-bot 05:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the lead section and replaced some of the colloquial language to take into account these comments. I will address the referencing issues when I have the time.D-bot 00:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Coast, Queensland

[edit]

I think this is one of WP's very best articals that i have seen only at B class and should be a FA. Has plently of info and images making it usful to anyone who needs to to a project on it!!! Nathannoblet 10:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism

[edit]

Well written, comprehensive, full of inline citations, and stable. Deserves to be a featured article. Masterhomer 04:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already spewed into dozens of other articles. I don't think it is a topic that is easy to shorten. As for standard references and headings, I'm working on that and it should be done soon enough. Masterhomer 05:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object in current form.I think this article can be improved, but the improvement can be done in the time frame of this current nomination and should be kept here for the time being.Maxflight 16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Bans on kosher slaughter are given undue weight.
    2. many anti-Semites are pro-Arab. I see no use for that sentence except innuendo.
    3. Little or nothing is said about criticism or controversy on the actual extent of new anti-semitism.
    4. Anecdotes like Hitler's Cross are presented as significant (whereas, no matter how dumbfouding that incident may be, it's more telling of ignorance than anti-semitism). Mel Gibson's DUI incident also does not belong here. It's an anecdote which has zero importance in an article that's supposed to have depth. (although I guess this is not a POV issue per se)
    5. Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism section is a bit "weaseley" opposing a "large variety of commentators" to "critics".

Bad Religion

[edit]

This just seems like a very comprehensive article about a hugely influential band86.132.211.71 14:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, someone just nominated this, but I think that the intro paragraph is going to need some work (right now it's just two sentences), as well as the addition of any additional references if we can find 'em. For the intro PP, perhaps some mention could be made of the lyrical content (both with regards to meaning as well as to the vocabulary)... If I can think of a good way to phrase it myself, I'll post something. m13b 13:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there could be something in there about their trademark 'oozin aahs'

To that I agree. Putting up for peer review instead. Feel free to delist, unsure how myself. m13b 17:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fin Whale

[edit]

I peer reviwed this one first, so do you think it will become a featured article? Daniel10 07:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]




Yes, but I don't no how to make an inline citation. How do you do that?Daniel10 09:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check this page WP:FN :) --Ugur Basak 10:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand. Daniel10 11:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which part don't you understand? - Tutmosis 14:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How to make an inline citation. Daniel10 17:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, see here: [10] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Samsara. Daniel10 12:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What! This is so close to featured, that it is REALLY GOOD! 85.210.27.212 10:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic theory

[edit]
You may be looking for another atomic theory FAC, see Talk:Atomic theory/FAC archive sort SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a lot of work on this article, trying to give an elegant story on how the modern concept of atoms evolved, starting with the ancient Greeks and finishing with quantum physicists. Kurzon 17:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - insufficient references. Pagrashtak 01:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - as above. Add a wider variety of references - there must be many on the subject or similar. CloudNine 16:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - great concise article but it needs to be referenced much more. --mdmanser 07:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've added a number of references. How is it now? Does it need more?Kurzon 18:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POST-CLOSING NOTE: See Talk:Atomic theory/FAC archive sort, this is a dummy FAC created from a file that was overwritten multiple times. First FAC copied from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atomic theory/Archive1 via cut-and-paste. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic theory

[edit]
You may be looking for another atomic theory FAC, see Talk:Atomic theory/FAC archive sort SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurzon (talk • contribs) 19:27, October 15, 2006 (UTC) See [11]

Very short. How about GA? Wiki-newbie 19:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Hurricane Irene (2005)? WP:FA doesn't have a length requirement. This article is already rated A-class on the physics assessment scale, a GA would be a step downBorisblue 06:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree for the following reasons:
  1. How is a reader supposed to know that the history of atomic theory is found in Atomic theory, while the currently accepted atomic theory is found in Atom? (The electron configuration article only describes some aspects of the modern theory.)
  2. The section we are talking about is titled "Modern atomic theory", yet contains only one sentence about the current theory -- the very last sentence in the article.
Perhaps Section 2.4 should be renamed "Early quantum models" or some such, and the last paragraph in it could be expanded to a new Section 2.5, called "Current atomic theory", starting with ((main|Atom)), and having about 3-4 paragraphs summarizing Section 3 of Atom. --Zvika 14:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POST-CLOSING NOTE: See Talk:Atomic theory/FAC archive sort, this is a dummy FAC created from a file that was overwritten multiple times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic theory

[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurzon (talk • contribs) 15:26, October 27, 2006 (UTC) [12]

FAC immediately removed, [13]

POST-CLOSING NOTE: See Talk:Atomic theory/FAC archive sort, this is a dummy FAC created from a file that was overwritten. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hastings, Ontario

[edit]

I have worked on this article for the last few months on and off. I have put a lot of time into it, and have done my best. I believe it now meets the criteria.

All I have to say is, please give the article a good read. I am sure you will find it quite interesting, informative and well written. Thank you.

Dhastings 01:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester City F.C.

[edit]

This article was a mess up until recently but I submitted it for a Peer Review and have address all the issues as far as I am aware. Tried to model it on the Arsenal F.C. article. I have rewritten large chunks so it is mostly a self nom. Jimmmmmmmmm 19:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right think I have addressed the reference problem, and the Hillsborough one. On the grammar etc, I have copied this to word and no grammar errors are visible. As I pretty much wrote this article I fail to see how I'm gonna spot them. Maybe you could point them out. Much apprieciated. Jimmmmmmmmm 23:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still in Peer Review? Would have thought it would have dropped out by now it's been there for two weeks with no new comment. Needs moving along. I understand you Qwghlm may not have time yourself but nobody has reviewed this article since your initial one about 2 weeks ago. Maybe I was a bit quick coming here but it won't get done otherwise. Jimmmmmmmmm 07:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can wait a few more weeks; the article has gone under a massive rewrite and a period of time to stabilise it, iron out any awkward bits is usually preferable. I don't see why there needs to be a rush. Qwghlm 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not very patient. Jimmmmmmmmm 16:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several areas need copyediting and spellchecking. A lot of the history consists of sentences in the form under the management of x the club did y or similar. I'll run through the prose myself at some point, but major work is needed.
  • I find it surprising that the club's two major trophy wins have only a single sentence between them.
  • As mentioned above, references are fairly sparse. Claims such as This change was unpopular, and dropped at the end of the season ("Colours" section) should be cited. Referencing should be in a consistent style, preferably the Cite.php format.
  • The lead mentions rivalries with other clubs, but these are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Oldelpaso 18:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Firstly, Arsenal is a featured article and it's Arsenal F.C. so that should be a problem and the paragraph are not stubby there might be one, but thats it. Your too picky. Jimmmmmmmmm 14:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I honestly can't decipher what you mean. Please rewrite your response so that it's intelligible. I queried F.C. because I found it strange to abbreviate in the title, but I accept that this is a well-known title. I'm very picky, but not "too" picky. Please read the FA Criteria and the instructions at the top of this page. Tony 15:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thiruvananthapuram

[edit]

The article is prepared so as to match it as per the standards mentioned in WP:INCITIES.
So, I am nominating the article for the featured article status.

-- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 11:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thiru - anantha - puram => Th as in Thin.
key => (tĭr'ūvənŭn'təpur'əm).
Also called Trivandrum (trə-văn'drəm) -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 13:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The format suggested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities or [Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities]], is not a mandatory thing. Those templates are created to help the editors in understanding the various topics to be covered. It is not a hard coded rule that only those mentioned in the template should be included in the article. And a WP:FA criteria never says that a city article should be only confined, what the template says. For instance, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities is not stating any thing about other facets of infrastructure (apart from Transport) like water supply, sewage system or electrical supply system of a city. So if a city article is expanded to include these information also, will that article be rejected the WP:FA status ???? !!!!!
We need not be so stubborn on such issues, as it adds more information in the encyclopedia (and thats what an encyclopedia is for, I believe).
The section strategic importance is much relevent to the article about Thiruvananthapuram. It is the first city in India's South. It lies close to Srilanka, Maldives, and the US military base at Diego Garcia, in Indian Ocean. The Southern Air Command HQ is in this city. The military authorities are planning to upgrade it to a Tri-Service Command Station, where the Army, Navy and AirForce Commands will be operating from this area, because of this strategic location. Thiruvananthapuram city is just one Notical mile away from the East-West Shipping Axis. The International air-route fly above this city.
These points are stated in the section "Strategic Importance". The relevant citations are also given. Now, how can we say that the section is just a mere opinion, not a reliable information?? Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 11:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attention. The article is not abiding by another point of Featured Article critreia 2. The article does not follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Please see this section of Wikipedia:Footnotes and place footnotes accordingly. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The same is applicable for all the Indian cities. The reasons are many. I am not getting further into it. Please see the article on Kerala to get the related sources of the figures I mentioned above. Infact, some statements are copy-pasted from that page. --Samaleks


* Just two reverts doesnt means that there is an edit war going on.. The section Strategic importance is not a mere opinion. It is very much informative, and is well tailored with relevent sources. Adding a photo in the education section can be done. But as of now, there are no photos(which is not copyrighted) available. We can fix this as soon as any editor is uploading relevent picture. The section Geography is changed as per your suggestion. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 18:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Education section is cleaned up, and a photo is added. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 22:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comments It is rather late for proofreading but this being a Friday evening and having nothing better to do, I checked the intro and the first four sections. Some questions and comments :

  1. The early rulers of the city were the Ays.  : Ays is currently linked to an Egyptian dynasty.
  2. Thiruvananthapuram was made the capital of Travancore in 1745.  : This clashes with Travancore#Dharma_Raja and Padmanabhapuram both of which says that it was in 1795.
  3. the Observatory (1836), : 1837 as per Swathi_Thirunal_Rama_Varma#As_a_Ruler
  4. A political conference of the Congress was held in the city under the presidency of Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramaiah, in 1938. : What was this ? Just a conference or something bigger than that ?
  5. The first Indian space rocket was developed and launched from the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) located in the outskirts of the city in 1966. : What is the reference for 1966 ? The online sources mention 1963-67.
  6. Technopark has developed into the largest IT Park in India  : The official site says that it is "among the two largest IT parks in India today", which usually means that it is not the largest in India. This news item from last year talks about a larger one which is "in progress".
  7. The park has around 110 companies employing over 12,500 professionals : Elsewhere it is "close to 100 companies" and "about 12000" professionals.
  8. Many references point to the homepage of http://www.keralaitmission.org/ and not to the specific article(s).
  9. The city was rated as the best 2nd tier metro : The list of cities includes Kolkota which is not 2nd tier.
  10. There are around 20 government owned and 60 privately owned medium and large scale industrial units in Thiruvanathapuram : The reference provided is http://www.kerala.gov.in/statistical/panchayat_statistics2001/thiru_cont.htm and http://www.kerala.gov.in/statistical/panchayat_statistics2001/thiru_10.pdf is the link of Large/Medium/Small scale industries. It is not obvious how the figures of 20 and 60 were arrived at. Tintin (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few more :

  1. As someone who is somewhat familiar with Tvm, it would have helped to say clearly what comes under Trivandrum and what does not - a map of the city would be even better. For eg, it is not obvious for a non-Trivandrumite whether places like Vellayambalam and Pappanmcode are in or out.
  2. Ref 17 (http://www.keralaports.gov.in/vizhinjm.htm ) isn't working.
  3. The increase in the unemployment rate was from 8.8(1998) to 34.3(2003) The reference (http://www.sacw.net/Labour/uneployementkerala.pdf ) mentions the unemployment rate in the Thiruvananthapuram district, not Thiruvananthapuram city. This makes the assumption that the urban and rural rates are the same. Is this correct ?
  4. Ditto for suicide rates.
  5. Aaraat of Padmanabha Swamy Temple,  : It is not explained either here or in the temple article what aaraat is.
  6. The literacy rate in Thiruvananthapuram, according to the 2001 census, is 89.36 percent 92.68 percent among males and 86.26 percent among females. This is again for the district.
  7. The importance of the city, apart from being the capital of India’s most literate[36] and socially developed state,[37][38] is a strategically important city in Southern India. : Grammar Tintin (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few Trivandrums scattered around the article - The people of Trivandrum are , (CRPF) based in Trivandrum, Trivandrum also holds the distinction etc. It should use Thiruvananthapuram throughout. Tintin (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... That was a real good proof reading, Tintin. I'm working on your points. Here goes, a few of it :

  1. - Removed the wrong link to the Ays
  2. - Regarding the shifting of capital. Well, this part is quite ambigous. It was in 1745, that the capital was shifted when Marthanda Varma shifted his residence to here. It became more relevent when he surrendered his country to Sreee Padmanabha through an act referred to as 'Thrippadi danam'. But, still the government officers were in Padmanabhapuram. It was during the reign of Dharma Raja, that the entire administrative section got shifted. Any ways, majority historians refer to 1745 as the year when Thiruvananthapuram became the capital. Brittanica also says the same [14].
  3. - Corrected . Observatory was started in 1837 [15].
  4. - It was a conference of INC, that was held under the presidency of Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramaiah.
  5. - Corrected. The first rocket launch in India was from TERLS in 1963. Here is an interesting article for you to read..
  6. - Regarding Technopark, The link you provided says that the upcoming park in Chennai will be having 1.2 million square feet by 2007. In Technopark, the current built up space is 1.5million square feet. This does not include the Phase 3 expansion of Technopark. The office space of the new building Thejaswini is also not taken in to account in this figure.
  7. - Regarding the number of employees and companies; Corrected . It is 12500 employees in 108 companies, as the official site says.
  8. - The site is using scripts to get in to the page. There is no seperate urls for each page, as you notice in html web sites.
  9. - Will reframe the sentence
  10. - i will try to find the source of it.

Rest soon.. -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 00:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 00:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re. Technopark and things whose status may change at any time, it may be safer to add a "as of 2006".
  • Vizhinjam is now working for me too !
  • Suicide, literacy rates etc : In the current form it is misleading. For literacy, I guess the rate in the Tvm city will be a few percentages higher than that of the Tvm district. (To use an extreme simile, it is like taking the literacy rate of the Kerala state and presenting it as the data for the Tvm district !) If it is for the district, it may be mentioned in the article; or if the data is not available for the city, it may be dropped altogether. Tintin (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - The article seems to really requires a thorough proof reading by someone not attached to the project. Sentences like "The importance of the city, apart from being the capital of India’s most literate[37] and socially developed state,[38][39] is a strategically important city..." make little sense to me. Information can be presented without making it sound like an advertisement. What does being capital of blabla state have anything to do with strategic importance? I will not even go into why an entire section on strategic importance is not needed for an Indian city that is farthest located from Pakistan and China. --Blacksun 03:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe that the word "strategic importance" is not to ne equated only to proximity to China or Pakistan. Well, "strategic" has myriad connotations, it could denote vital importance in the military, commercial or even the scientific spheres.

1) Trivandrum is the southernmost major city in India. Its location at the tip of the subcontinent is strategic for its command of the northern Indian Ocean. The airforce base here provides a launch pad for maritime patrols and long range radar surveillance.

2) Trivandrum is the Headquarters of the Indian Air Force's Southern Air Command. The HQ commands air force bases all across South India. The triservice Aerospace Command is likely to be set up here as well, considering its importance. A Recent Update

3) The city is located very close to international shipping channels. Just ten nautical miles offshore is the Persian Gulf/Suez - Malacca ship route which accounts for almost one-third of all traffic on the seas. This is why the upcoming Vizhinjam International Transshipment Terminal assumes so much importance combined with its world class natural draft.

4) Trivandrum is also by far the most important location for the Indian Space Programme with the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre and associated facilities which are responsible for almost all components of the space programme. Indeed, the Thumba Equatorial Rocket Launching Station (TERLS) was one of the first spaceports in Asia and the very first in India.It was only phased out later due to the proximity to the city.

Guess that summarises some of the reasons that sentence was put in. Hope it goes some way in settling the doubts that existed. Cheers! Ajaypp 18:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All things that can be said for many other Indian cities. At end of the day it is really not that strategically important to merit an entire section. Anyways their are MANY other problems with this article. I am shocked at the "strong supports" it is getting. Just a quick glance shows spelling errors. Furthermore, it has illogical things like Ayurvedic resorts under strategic importance section. How exactly is that strategically important? The quality of the prose is inconsistent with some very dodgy sentence structure. This article does not meet the standards of FA in its current state. --Blacksun 06:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support: With a strong list of comprehensive supporting articles and concise wording in the main article, it paints a clear picture of the city, its life and people. I think it should definitely be a Featured Article. Ajaypp 14:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support: A great article which explains the heart and soul of a great city. This document describes all the faces of this cosmopolitan city. Anyone who read this document can come to trivandrum as if to their home. It is that much descriptive. Santhosh J(aka Ponnambalam)21:00, 10 October 2006 (IST)

Strong Support: Excellent article with well organized and concise information about the city and people --Altruist 03:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steely Dan

[edit]
  1. I believe it meets the criteria.
  2. The subject is a major band. Fenrir2000 15:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Some image do not have source information. --Abu Badali 12:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suggest you take another look at the article. The image use has been cleared up and most (if not all) of the problems mentioned are fixed. Devin 15:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Source is ok now. But images violate Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #1, as free photos of living persons can be created (See #8 on Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. Consider contacting them at their website to release some image under a free license. See WP:COPYREQ for tips on doind that. And let me know if any help is needed. --Abu Badali 16:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now pretty good article but I think that any article with a remaining "Trivia" section is short of FAC. Either that information is too trivial and should be deleted or it is relevant and should be incorporated into the article (or the appropriate subarticle, say for that Cousin Dupree thing). Pascal.Tesson 21:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert

[edit]

This article has already been listed as a good article for a living person. It received some positive feedback on its peer review. It's thoroughly researched and includes a lot of different information in NPOV manner.--Twintone 03:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Peer-reviews are not for fun. In the peer review of this article User:UberCryxic made three correct remarks: 1) the lead is short, 2) the Quotes section needs deletion (I agree! Why do we use such a section? It is useless as User:UberCryxic says, 3) Other roles section needs better structure and composition (the prose is not good, since there are incoherent and one-sentence paragrpahs). The problem is that User:UberCryxic made these remarks, but User:Twintone did not do anything to implement them and came straight here without making any improvement to the article according to these suggestions! Not only that but User:Twintone did not even give an answer to the peer-review for the reason he does not materialize these suggestions!
I initially intented to suggest exactly what UberCryxic had suggested. But seeing that these suggestions had already been done and the nominator of this FAC didn't care at all and came here as if nothing important had been suggested, I had no choice but to object. I think that the nominator should first give some answers in the peer-review, then ameliorate the article and then come here. The article as it is now is not ready for FAC and its nominator does not take seriously the suggestions made for the article's improvement.--Yannismarou 18:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking animal migration

[edit]

Very well written article. Gives good detail http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tracking_animal_migration&action=edit&section=1and is defitnley featured article criteria. --Zonerocks 02:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The tone is wholly inappropriate for wikipedia, being written more as an essay than a reference.
  2. The article is far too short
  3. It hasn't gone through peer review
  4. You wrote the article yourself, but didn't specify that it was a self-nom

I'd recommend that you reread WP:WIAFA and take this article to peer review when you feel it's more up to standards; it seems like it needs a fundamental rewrite for tone and a significant expansion before it reaches that point. You should also check out the statements being made over at the AFD for the other article that you mostly wrote, because the issues of essay tone really apply here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Copyvio image
  2. Article is an orphan!

I'd be more likely to vote delete in an AfD than support to FAC. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bucharest

[edit]

I am not sure whether you'll agree yet but this certainly has potential for a featured article. Let me know what you think - it may require slight editing and clean up. If you don't think it is yet keep it under the group of articles that have the potential. It covers all aspects of the city but on reading I think the crime section will need cleanup and citing --Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swabian War

[edit]

The German version, which was inspired by and partly translated from this article, has already become a featured article at the German Wikipedia. In turn, some of Sidonius' work on that German article has found its way back into our English article. Has been through peer review; the suggestions made there have been acted upon. Self-nomination by Lupo 14:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a nice attempt, but with references in such a state, it won't go further. You may want to send it to Military History Peer Review, where you're likely to get more suggestions... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The independence of the Eidgenossen and their freedom compared to the common people in Swabia was a powerful model for the latter
  • Other rivalries had been slowly aggravating, too.
  • Concerning the interior politics of the empire, Maximilian I, like other Holy Roman Emperors before and after him, had to face struggles with other powerful princes and he thus sought to secure his position and the imperial monarchy by furthering centralisation.
Someone in the military history project might be able to help--Peta 02:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased the first, eliminated the second. The third prompted me to do a major expansion of the "background" section; as I have already pointed out on your talk page, such a comment makes it clear that the article did not explain certain things well enough. I hope it's better now. Since you said such problems existed "throughout" the article, would you be so kind to point them out, so that I or others wouldn't have to guess which statements you alluded to? Lupo 10:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Monkeys

[edit]

(Partial self-nom - have done some work on article)

Having been improving steadily for at least a year (having become a Good Article), I feel that it is finally time to nominate this article. The article is : 1(a-e) Well written, neutral, stable etc. and extensively referenced, 2(a) has an appropriate intro, (b-c) well sectioned with a TOC, 3 all images have Fair Use rationale where appropriate, also includes at least one free image, under Creative Commons 2.0, 4 Not too long, with child articles where sections have grown too long. As a result, I feel that it is finally worth nominating this for Featured Arcticle (groan!) status. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; that is probably the better image anyway. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The actual music (style, influences, etc.) is not discussed enough
  2. The band's general image and popularity in the UK are not clearly addressed
I would still like to see a clearer statement about their popularity. The article states sales records, but also "Critics have said that they are one in a long line of largely overhyped "NME bands". So what's their general public image exactly?
  1. What to expect on live performances should probably be mentioned more thoroughly
And there are a lot of style problems:
  1. Quotes should not be italicised, per the WP:MoS
  2. Decide on a style for the dash (– or - or —)
Still a problem ("Emergence: 2002-2005", "Initial releases: October 2005 — January 2006", "Beneath the Boardwalk – a collection of the band's songs")
  1. All songtitels should be in italics without quotes ("Fake Tales of San Francisco", "I Bet You Look Good on the Dancefloor", etc.)
  2. A lot of citations in the middle of sentences, most should probably go at the end
  3. Magazine titles must be in italics (NME)
  4. "General references:" should not be in small font -- EnemyOfTheState 23:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All songtitels should be in italics without quotes... Actually, this is not true. The proper style in English is quotes without italics. Andrew Levine 04:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case all song titles that are in italics have to be changed accordingly then. -- EnemyOfTheState 10:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any, or at least they've been fixed. Andrew Levine 17:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not is an album, not a song, so it is in italics. Songs however are not in italics. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed all of the above with exceptions of the "live acts" issue. Could you clarify what you mean? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the band so I'm not sure if this applies, but if there is anything distinctive about a typical Arctic Monkeys concert then it should be mentioned in the article (e.g. there is an entire article about Pink Floyd live performances). -- EnemyOfTheState 14:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Arctics don't really have very "whizzy" live shows; no pyrotechnics or giant pig-balloons here. The sing-along nature of the shows is addressed, however. Laïka 14:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Further criticism came when the band collected their award for Best British Band at the NME Awards 2006, when Turner said, directing his comments at the NME, "We did the triple, but in all honesty...who else was going to be the best British band at the moment, you know? You can't write about something that much and not give us best British band . . . know what I mean"" - This sentence is ended with a reference. However, the reference does not direct any criticism at the group, and nor does it even say there was criticism. The Independent article simply records what the Arctic Monkeys said. I'd like there to be a citation actually criticising them here, to support the claim.
  2. "On 2 September 2006 it was announced that the band will appear on Sky Sports' Saturday-morning football show Soccer AM the following week, marking what would have been their first ever live interview on British television." This is unclear. Did they actually do the interview, or just say they would and then not show up?—Abraham Lure 01:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to point 2, the next sentance clears this up ("However, the band won the 2006 Mercury Prize four days before appearing on Soccer AM, and gave their first live interview to Jo Whiley on BBC4."). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 09:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you're right about the first point. I've removed the quote as I can't find any direct criticism of the quote.
I'd lose the "it was announced that the band will appear on Sky Sports' Saturday-morning football show" quote. It's fancruft. Who cares that they were scheduled to appear on a football chat show? Whilst it's of interest to note their first actual radio television interview, prereports or cancelled appearances are not enyclopedic issues. Save it for the fanzine. --kingboyk 10:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS Before some bright sparks points out that I've documented a cancelled appearance in The K Foundation burn a million quid :), that's a little more significant as the K Foundation did a runner and then announced "no more talking about this issue". Whether or not the Arctic Monkeys appeared on Soccer AM (!) is trivia. --kingboyk 10:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; I've added a Musical style section. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did some fixing witht the inline citations. It is not nice to have many inline citations within a propositions. It interrupts the flow of the article. Take care of that. Anyway... Although I must notice that I'm not an expert in this particular field, I give you my support and I hope that you will address the concerns of the other evaluators as well.--Yannismarou 13:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both fixed. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 19:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've dealt with the above points. I do however think Internet should be linked once; WP:CONTEXT states "major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully" should be linked, which I believe Internet is, being a major part of their early career. Laïka 09:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at copyeditting the article. I don't understand what you mean by "The bottom of the article suffers from sloppy visual presentation, with varying fonts, italics" though; there's only the one, standard font, and use of italics is that defined by the MOS (Magazine titles and album titles). Laïka 07:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunication

[edit]

A good article on a core topic that can hopefully achieve featured status or, if not, be improved along the way. Cedars 09:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rama,
Here are my responses to your questions:
Are there sections needed on how governments worldwide manage telecommunications? Government regulations are not a major facet of telecommunication. Where government regulations prescribe a particular standard, as is the case with television and radio, it is noted. In fact three paragraphs are spent on radio and television standards. It is possible to mention something about Chinese censorship of the Internet, is that perhaps what you were looking for?
How does the core infrastructure, distribution system for various modes of telecommunications work? This is what the article tries to explain both through the history and modern operation section. I will try to think about how it can be made a little clearer.
What kinds of such systems exist? This is explained in the article. The article talks about optical fibre, the standards for transmission across optical fibre (Synchronous Optical Networking and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy), the various standards for digital broadcasts (ATSC, DVB and ISDB), the various protocols used in LANs and the Internet, etc.
On the economic and industrial effects of telecom? "In 2006, estimates place the telecommunication industry's revenue at $1.2 trillion or just under 3% of the gross world product.[7] Good telecommunication infrastructure is widely acknowledged as important for economic success in the modern world both on a micro and macroeconomic scale.[8]".
Shouldn't cellular phone networks be discussed more? They have a paragraph, but they are really part of the telephone network and use much of the same infrastructure. I will try to make this a little clearer.
Upcoming innovation? The article talks about the analogue/digtal switchover, IPv6 and developments in optical transmission such as dense wavelength-division multiplexing. What specific innovations did you want the article to mention?
Telecom in developed countries and differences with other parts of the world? The digital access index has a whole paragraph in Society and telecommunication and much of the first paragraph in that section is also about this.
Cedars 00:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important topic and has already improved considerably. I hope you manage to get it up to featured status! --Zvika 09:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Jolie

[edit]

Self-nomination. I wrote/rewrote big parts of the article in the last months and I think it now offers a comprehensive look at a very popular topic. The article has been peer reviewed (Wikipedia:Peer review/Angelina Jolie/archive1) in August. The article includes a rather broad section for her children, since it has been decided these articles should be merged into their mother's page (here, here and here). -- EnemyOfTheState 18:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Introducing Jolie as "Academy Award-winning" is POV, because it emphasizes her career-highlights before the reader knows that she's an actress.
    • I will remove it, if that is actually WP policy/consensus, but I doubt it is. There are several FA with such an intro (Henry Fonda, Uma Thurman). Plus, is stating a fact really POV?
  2. The lead informaion box is too long; why is there a field stating her "career milestones"? It's also POV to assume her career-best roles without support from critics or notes/references. Please remove this.
  3. There are a lot of images. The public domain ones can stay, but how many of those fair use-claimed screenshots are required?
    • Using screenshots to illustrate the career of an actor is pretty common. It might be reasonable to remove one or two of the screenshots, but deleting all of them will only hurt the quality of the article IMHO.
  4. Some sentences are obscure, including: Jolie has gone on record as saying that a positive effect resulting from the large number of tattoos on her body is that, while she is not opposed to film nudity, filmmakers have been forced to become more creative when plotting any nude or love scenes involving her.
  5. Please reverse the filmography so that it's chronological.
  6. Are three separate sections chroniciling Jolie's children really necessary?
    • As mentioned above all three articles of her children redirect to Angelina Jolie. So this basically helps people who were only searching for information for any of the children. I doubt that deleting the sub-headlines or combining the section helps the layout. -- EnemyOfTheState 21:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never Mystic (tc) 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Vicente Rama Memorial National High School

[edit]

Self-nomination I have spent a lot of time in this article in order to have our school at least an article in Wikipedia. I asked for pictures and infos about our school. I am very glad that Wikipedia didn't question the intergity of my article. The article speaks a lot about the Don Vicente Rama Memorial National High School. It not too popular on search engines because it's not a private school (it's only a public school) that's why I don't have a lot of sources. But the article is very informative because it is mainly based on the School Improvement Plan of our Principal. I would be very happy if this article would be nominated and hopefully be a featured article. Kevin Ray 08:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean surface wave

[edit]

I found this to be an exceedingly informative and well-written article.Ebzlef 02:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for feedback. I did zero authoring, so I don't know if it makes sense for me to ask for peer review. But I appreciate the feedback regarding both the article and the process.Ebzlef 20:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Reinfeldt

[edit]

Have been totally rewritten latly, and looks good in my eyes. The only criteria that might not be perfect, is that it's connected to current event so the content might change. →AzaToth 01:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term potentiation

[edit]

Really well written, abundant referencing, contains a lot of info, and very comprehensive, especially since it is on a topic that can be very obscure. dr.alf 09:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Good lead paragraph and clear writing. However, some specific concerns.

Thank you, I'll have another look at this over the weekend. TimVickers 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I still intend to make some major revisions (eg, the L-LTP needs a major overhaul), but I'd love to hear feedback about the minor touchups I've made over the past couple weeks. Thanks, David Iberri (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
L-LTP has been rewritten. --David Iberri (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. The two things that would most benefit this article's readability are explicit definitions of what it means to "strengthen" a synapse (the section in the neuron article isn't really enough) and of the difference between "induced" and "expressed" LTP. A few more specific comments:

I agree that a section on synaptic strengthening might help, but I haven't had a chance to add it. Hopefully the distinction between induction and expression is clearer now. --David Iberri (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis 23:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. alf, thanks for the nomination; Tim and Opabinia, thanks for your comments, they've been amazingly helpful in reorganizing and improving the article. I look forward to any additional comments you may have. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Chicago

[edit]

I strongly believe this article should be featured. After two peer reviews and many edits, this page is certainly one of the best university articles on Wikipedia. I am nominating it again to be a featured article. -- Noetic Sage 22:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive of first nomination in April 2006

The student protest activities of the 1960's seem kind of cliche. They occurred everywhere and Chicago was not really an exceptional center compared to say, the SDS' presence at Columbia or peace movement at Berkeley. Meanwhile, as for the urban renewal controversy, I am not saying they don't exist, but in the grand scheme of thing again they are rather mundane. Nearly every major urban university, big ticket or not, gets into fights with its neighboors over how to allocate land.

  • Please don't strike comments from other reviewers: wait for us to come back and strike ourselves. I do not see references for the notable alumni (where are they?), and the article is still very listy. An example of sections heading which don't conform is Faculty and alumni, followed by Notable faculty and alumni.
  • Please sign your posts. If I perceive an objection to be illegitimate and invalid, it is only appropriate to remove it. Furthermore, it does not seem that the author of the original comment has even followed up on my statement. Thus, how can I expect him to strike it out himself? -- mcshadypl TC 06:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is very unsightly in the lead of an article: The University of Chicago is widely recognized as one of the world's foremost universities.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The same thing can be accomplished by combining mention of all sources inside one set of ref tags. For an example of how that was done effectively in an exemplary FA, see Daniel Boone. This article should go to peer review. Sandy 18:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

[edit]

self nom Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is one of the most commonly diagnosed mental disorders. Its also one of the more controversial. For quite some time, this article was subject to lots of bad edits. Myself and other editors have worked quite hard to clean it up. Today it is now stable, comprehensive, and well referenced. Last week it was accorded GA status. It satisfies all of the FA criteria. I think it is time that it be accorded FA status as well.--*Kat* 07:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, but I'm beginning to wish that it had.
  • The article cites work done by Hallowell, Ratey, Zamektin, Wilens and Cohen among others. Those are some of the most highly respected researchers in the field.

Sandy 15:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is *much* more, but I don't believe FAC should be overburdened by listing everything here: it would take too many pages. Re-working a few sections and lists will not address the problems. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note, the templates on the ADHD article talk page for FAC and GA have been altered; the GA template does not include the correct links, so it doesn't seem wise to be writing individual templates when standardized ones are supposed to be used. Sandy 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the articles which should be linked to in the completed infobox:one of the WikiPhysicians should be able to help on that:

As you will see from these sources, the Wiki article still has quite a ways to go.Sandy 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A.C. Milan

[edit]

It's an excellent article! User:Barbagianni Potente

Seinfeld

[edit]

Great article, seems to match all criteria. Good use of images, sources are cited properly, and is overall a very informative, interesting read. Honestly, I'm surprised it hasn't been featured before. 64.135.205.238 18:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note This nomination was incorrectly placed on the page of another nomination: CM Punk. I went through the whole nomination procedure for this user. That is why my user name appears on all nomination procedure related pages. - Tutmosis 19:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EarthBound

[edit]

The game itself is full of cultural references and is a good game, and the article is informative. 68.9.69.63 19:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of benefits of creating an account. - Tutmosis 20:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I HAVE an account. I was logged out for some reason. Sir Crazyswordsman 20:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry for the misunderstanding. :) - Tutmosis 20:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales

[edit]

I've scanned the article, and I must remark that this is one very comprehensive piece of writing. I think it's time Wikipedia gave its creator's article FA status. -- Selmo (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be why I didn't vote support. : ) Dev920 (Tory?) 16:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belgrade

[edit]

Article is close to perfection. I can't see anything that hasn't been covered, so hopefully we'll all agree it deserves FA status.--estavisti 23:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toraja

[edit]

Self-nomination of an article about indigenous ethnic group in Indonesia. The article has been through a peer-review and it has recently been archived. We haven't yet any Indonesia-related article for FA, so it's a good shot with this article. A reviewer said that this article is ready for FA and I've checked the FA criteria, which I think it is. Your critics/suggestions are very welcomed. — Indon (reply) — 12:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Clinton

[edit]

Great Article about a Great President. Deserves FAC. Mercenary2k 03:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't see it already was a Good article. Object still Per Gerdbrendel. Aquafish talk 19:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian Rhapsody

[edit]

Great song and fits all of the criteria. It is also a "good article"

The CW Television Network

[edit]

OK, this may be out of hype, but it's a big page with lots of interesting info for a network that just launched recently. --(trogga) 03:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Table removed). FAC is not a vote. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this table. FAC is not a voting process, and the number of oppose or support votes does not influence the promotion of the article. CG 16:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z

[edit]

Fastnaturedude 01:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Fastnaturedude[reply]

United Kingdom

[edit]

This article is full of pictures, over 60 citations and features a detailed history, politics and geography of the countries. It is rated as a good article and I'm surprised it hasn't already been a FA. (Mattpitt1991 13:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Objection. See literature section and recent associated talk page discussion. The need to convert the random lists of names into a proper UK literature summary was agreed but has not yet been addressed. Viewfinder 14:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object needs reorganization and copyediting. The obvious problem is that there is a lot of UK info to handle, that's understandable. But this size management has killed the "compelling prose" requirement of FAs. The culture sections are very long, as opposed to the history section - there is a lot of imbalance. The "Law" section needs to be compressed into "government," and "cities" should be discussed in a section about "subdivisions," which should talk about counties, burroughs, islands, territories. Rama's arrow 19:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak object needs reorganization and imbalance like Rama said. Content is good though. It is very hard to do an article about a country, there's a lot to say. --Pedro 22:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Lead is way too long, the infobox looks rather messy (the footnotes for the box are longer than the box itself), still [Citation needed] boxes in the prose. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina State University

[edit]

It is extremely well written, good picture use and a very interesting article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AceKingQueenJack (talk • contribs) .

  1. lead is too short and doesn't sumamrize article
  2. longitude is wrong, it is west longitude, not east.
  3. ref format is not consistent, esp numbers 5 and 17. Rlevse 15:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day

[edit]

Previous nomination at archive1.

Anglo-Saxon hunting

[edit]

Great article! One of the more scholarly contributions on Wikipedia. I'm surprised it hasn't been published in the Journal of Medieval History, and should be a shoo-in. Much better than most of the pop cultural crap on here. --Pewlosels 06:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Bear

[edit]

Nomination.The Brown Bear I think is a very well written page. It has many pictures and good illustrations and i hope it will be a featured article. I have nominated it because:

  1. It is a very well written page.

# There are many pictures and they are very clear.

# There are many paragraphs.

# There is lots of info.

Daniel10 14:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for teling me that.

Daniel10 16:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbagianni potente, 8.34, 28 september 2006 (UTC)

"And also I love bears." Are you kidding? Sloan21 12:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The imafge copyright issues remain, anon, don't remove copyright infomation from images.--Peta 01:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen

[edit]

Nomination. This is a page that i feel doesn't have many major problems, and i could easily see it as a featured article. --Trygvebw 08:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now you have some citations, I see. However, the formatting needs fixing so the edit buttons for the Climate, Universities, Commerce and Transportation are in the correct place and not all alongside each other next to the Transportation section. The reason for the fault is the images dominating the entire right of that area of the article. I'd also like to see the citations use templates so the URLs have titles and dates accessed.—Abraham Lure 23:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masturbation

[edit]

Excellent article. Well written and cited and very through. Mercenary2k 12:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object—1a, 1b, 2a.

I'm not bothering with the rest; I get the gist. It's vague and indulges in many sweeping, unreferenced claims. Tony 16:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography in the United States

[edit]

After passing the GA status, the article underwent some more edits and I finally decided to put it. --Brand спойт 19:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence: "Pornography in the United States as a legal term by itself at the federal level, except the generic terms "hardcore pornography" and "child pornography", does not exist since the 1973 Miller v. California case, when the U.S. Supreme Court added a legal significance to the term "obscenity", which encompasses the hardcore and is defined by the Miller test."
To be honest, this sentence was so incomprehensible I had to stop. Give me a few minutes. Marskell 21:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm with Marskell. Um, what? -- Kicking222 22:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is the seal of the US Supreme Court really necessary? How does it improve the article in any way? -- Kicking222 22:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article simply needs some marginal images rather than of nude girls :P --Brand спойт 10:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The current peer review apparently failed, thanks for pointing out here. --Brand спойт 12:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shit

[edit]

Why not? Jay Kana 20:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is a lot of needless junk on this page it needs a good clean up. Jmm6f488 14:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother (UK series 7)

[edit]

Self nomination This article has been reviewed, and the concerns addressed have been met. I think it's time that WP:BIGBRO had a large achievement. --Alex (Talk) 21:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't say the story is "boring" even if you think it is. Firstly "boring" is probably the wrong word to use, and secondly the whole point of this review is to see how it would do as a FA, not what you personally think of the show. It isn't the place for personal opinion, and while I respect it may need rewriting in places, it is only "boring" if you have the opinion that it is. Thank you. --Alex (Talk) 09:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Alex: my "boring" referred to the story line of the show, not your article. But you've still got to work to get compelling, brilliant prose from the material dealt you by Big Brother. Sandy 09:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you thought the show story line was boring, because that is my point above: assess the article not the subject. --Alex (Talk) 09:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm saying that your prose still has to be compelling. Sandy 09:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The differing views of reality TV are probably best left to the main Big Brother UK article. --Alex (Talk) 09:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. But this article is presented without any background or context at all. The first occurence of the word "task", for example, is "Sam and Aisleyne, were introduced[2] as part of the Meal or No Meal task (see Week 2)", and then (Week 1) "The first task was "The Big Brotherhood"". I know the BB format, but assume your readers don't. Sloppy writing abounds: "George walked from the House on Day 13 as he didn't want to be famous.", "All the housemates (with the exception of Bonnie, Dawn and Glyn) became members of "The Big Brotherhood"." (what the hell's that?). "This series saw the largest number of housemates to leave without eviction, with three exiting the House. This beat series 3, where there were a total of fourteen housemates and two people walked;" Is is a contest for how many leave without "eviction"? "Walked"?? --kingboyk 10:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has already had a peer review, where it received mstly positive feedback, and the negative areas were addressed. Could you please provide examples for your above statement? --Alex (Talk) 10:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's currently on peer review (according to the notice on the talk page anyway), and yes I have read the PR. This article is way below FA so I'm not going to give a detailed analysis on FAC. I'll post the above comments and a few other points on the PR. As it currently stands, you should be looking at GA first as the prose doesn't need to be so brilliant. However, even for GA you'll need to provide more context. --kingboyk 10:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but it wasn't helpful that it was only thse who had helped with the article reviewed it. Do you suggest I delist this? --Alex (Talk) 10:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would be best. This article can get to FA, but it's some way off. It needs severe copyediting and restructuring. I think you should aim for GA first which isn't so strict on brilliant prose. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I hope you can use the advice here and on the PR to make a really great article. --kingboyk 11:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Dawg

[edit]

A compelling and masterfully written article on one of the most poignant and heartfelt young philosophes of the contemporary Western World. I don't know how we could have missed this one. Policratus 19:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo Tycoon 2: Endangered Species

[edit]

My FIRST featured article candidate. It is super cool, and also, it hasn't been edited in a while.

Sigeway 17:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are right, Sigeway, the article has not been edited since 27th September (just to be accurate). By the way, I made the article, Zoo Tycoon 2: Endangered Species.

Daniel10 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HSV Senator

[edit]

This is a nominated article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voritecorp (talk • contribs)

Surinam Airways Flight PY764

[edit]

I have recently done a lot of expansion work on this previously rather poor article, and I believe it may now be at a level where it reaches the Featured Article criteria. Self-nom, Blood red sandman 06:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, will work a bit on lead. What is an inline citation? - Blood red sandman 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And with regards to expansion, could you tell me what is missing from the article (with a source, if at all possible, though I'll try to find one if you can't), so I can add it to the article? Thanks! - Blood red sandman 16:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As above - I would love to do something to sort out the lack of inline citations, as there are plenty of cited sources, but, again - what is an inline citation? As for the photo, is it possible to find a fair use rational for a photo of the accident aircraft from when it was in service? It would definatly be possible to find such an image. - Blood red sandman 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An inline citation is like this.[1] A photo of the aircraft in service would be great, but that's not a condition to get FA. If you just want to improve the article it would be good though. A photo of the crash scene would be even better. --kingboyk 19:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and get an image of the aircraft shortly before the accident, then. I originally thought I had enough of those citations in (I didn't want so many that it just looked silly), but evidently not. I have nothing better to do tomorrow, so I shall spend some time searching for more references and for a crash site picture. - Blood red sandman 19:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Some author, some book or newspaper, page. (See the wiki code to see how this is done.)
More