Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 1968

[edit]

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

Hubble Space Telescope

[edit]

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

  • Thanks for the comment - I checked all the links and they all seem to work for me. As for the numbers in the text matching the refs, this is a bit of a tricky one to fix because I've quoted several times from a couple of my references. I can make all the numbers match but then it won't update automatically if things are switched around; or I can remove the numbers from the refs section - then there's no disparity between the superscripts and the reference numbers, but it's still no good for a printed article. Any ideas on how to improve this?
  • Adjusted the lead section, hope I've addressed this now. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Changed the section title as suggested. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Have to say I'm not sure I agree with making inline external links into refs and notes, as there would be one more click between the reader and the external link. What would the advantages be? Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
Space telescopes are still essential for observing wavelengths which are absorbed in the atmosphere. In particular, Hubble has been increasingly used for observations of the near-ultraviolet wavelength range, for which no new telescopes are currently planned.
If information about Hubble's current usage due to it's strengths over current and proposed land-based and space telescopes were included I'd be happy to support. Other than that it's a great article, though I think the Conception, design and aims section could easily spawn a daughter article and be trimmed. CheekyMonkey 10:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've added a bit explaining more about Hubble's unique advantages in the section about the final serving mission, hope that covers everything you think it should. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
You say "its successor telescope will not be launched until possibly several years after Hubble's demise". I presume you mean successor as in the next telescope to perform observations of near-ultraviolet wavelengths and not as in the successor to the Hubble (i.e. the James Webb Telescope which the original statement in the future space telescopes section seemed to suggest wouldn't perfom observations at this wavelength). Can you please clarify? CheekyMonkey 29 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! I'm not sure, though, about converting inline external links to footnotes - it would mean readers have to click twice to reach the external link rather than just once, and I can't see what advantage it brings. Will be glad to convert it if it's generally seen as desirable though. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)

The Giver

[edit]

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

All citations are now done using footnotes instead of inline hyperlinks. Anville 18:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
More: I believe there's a strong connection between the lack of external/societal context and the weak structure. Such a context is exactly what could give a master plan for the page, and avoid the impression of random order. There's good stuff here, if it were better organized and contextualized. For instance, the themes section needs context (with inline references) showing that not only the book, but the ways of reading it, come out of a particular time and place.
Now I've been able to access the Morningstar essay, and I have no quarrel with its quality, but I'd change "tangential" for "utterly irrelevant": what it's doing here is a mystery. The paragraph starting "The prolonged and arduous journey" is also irrelevant, with an "oh, that reminds me" effect.
It's very teasing to have a spoiler warning, plus references to the mystery and ambiguity of the book's ending in nearly every section, and yet never be told what the mystery ending is. The boy and the baby either die or don't die at the end, that's all I'm getting--is that all there is?
References seem good on the whole, but technically, I have trouble getting my mind round the way the footnotes work--not sure they do, in fact. Also, see here for how to format online references. I've done one example ("Award-winning book frequent target in schools") to demonstrate. Also reverse authors' names to surname-first name for alphabetizing and make a separate alphabetical references list, please, as well as the notes list. I know it takes extra space, but the reader needs it for orientation. Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 28 June 2005 12:43 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace

[edit]

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

  • Image has been removed. Giano | talk 28 June 2005 10:43 (UTC)
  • Regarding the footnotes: I and "an other" are looking at this, the problem is quite what is the best way to achieve it, most facts on the palace are easily checked, where I have thrown in an oft repeated story for interest's sake i.e. Eleanor Roosevelt in the Blitz and the Sheik barbecuing in his bedroom, I think it best to state instantly in the text that this is just part of the palace's folklore so there is no excuse for it being taken as undisputed fact. Giano | talk 28 June 2005 18:36 (UTC)

Captain Marvel (DC Comics)

[edit]

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

I didn't want to delete the American Dad! reference (I didn't add it, and it seems notable enough), so I just switched the "Cultural influences" and "Apperances in other media" sections; I actually think the flow works better that way. As far as making sub-articles for the various spin-off plots, I only did it for one The Power of Shazam! because that one was the most notable--and longest--revamp. The other two revamps were easily summarized into a few sentences which explained just the most notable aspects, which is what I went ahead and did. --FuriousFreddy 11:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Antarctic krill

[edit]

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

thanks for your comment, Phoenix2, I moved images out but others moved them back in Uwe Kils 18:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Support, ready to be featured after lots of hard work. Phoenix2 00:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's a potential FA, just wait to see what others think. Phoenix2 18:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thank you for the comment - I added to the captions where senseful - I agree with Lupo on the numbering of refs - we will kep on putting more in (maybe change it in the end) - best greetings to Australia Uwe Kils 12:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Big improvement on the captions, and adding the bullet poitns to the references list has made it much easer to read, Support--nixie 00:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I also like the images better on the right - change them back Uwe Kils 11:37, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
hallo Morven - we still collect more (see comment of Lupo, who did most of the ref work) later we might change it Uwe Kils 12:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
thank you for the comment - I added some more, will later add some on the whales Uwe Kils 14:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
added whale birds squid seal fish consumption data from Hampton Uwe Kils 17:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • thank you for the extensive comment, I will work on it - direct: means not over the traditional food chain phytoplankton small copepods, large copepods, mysids, little fish - biomass: this is much disputed, in lack of methods and because of the huge area we do really not know much - I was on a venture with 11 research vessels fron 10 nations, and we still have only a vague idea of the stock in Scotia Sea alone - and much krill lives under the ice - Uwe Kils 14:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I understand that even less than I understand what is in the article. You mean that instead of going to progressively larger organisms a 6cm organism eats the phytoplankton? Well then just say that! Actually part of the rest of the article does I think, so just explain it a little more. The whole of the text is rather terse, so explaining some biology bits with very short (a few words sometimes) bits of context goes a long way and wouldn't be too wordy. - Taxman Talk 00:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
is this better?: "The size-step between krill and its prey is unusually large: generally it takes three or four steps from the 20 micrometer-tiny phytoplankton cells to a krill-sized organism (via small copepods, large copepods, mysids to 5 cm fish)KK79. The next size-step in the food chain to the whales is also enormous, a phenomenon only found in the Antarctic ecosystem." Uwe Kils 02:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • it says not largest biomass but animal biomass Uwe Kils 14:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, I saw that, but didn't specify. - Taxman Talk 00:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
The "Kils79" ref should have been "KK79". Fixed it. The system for deriving the symbols is pretty simple: if there's only one author, use the first few (3 or 4) letters of his last name. If there are multiple authors, use only the first (upper case) character of each last name. If there are many authors, use the first and add a "+". In all cases, append a two- (or for short symbols, four-) digit year. Break ties by appending lower case letters, beginning with "a". Lupo 14:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've never heard of that system but it sounds standard. Could you either explain it at the bottom or link to an article explaining it? As for the rest, it sounds like you guys will work that out well. - Taxman Talk 00:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
It's the "alpha.bst" style from BibTeX, used widely in Computer Science publications (and maybe in other fields, too). For an example where it's used, see Design Patterns by the "Gang of Four" (Gamma et al.). I do not know if that style corresponds to a recommendation by some style guide (it's neither APA, MLA, nor Chicago), but I somehow doubt that Patashnik just made it up. Lupo 07:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On the biomass: the FAO05 reference gives estimates from 1985 as ranging from 125 to 725 million tonnes. Surely there must be a more recent estimate? The CCAMLR upped its catch quotas significantly (from 1.5 million tonnes to 5 million) after a change in the methodology of arriving at such estimates in the 1990s. I would also like to see a reference for the recently added statement thatCrabeater Seals supposedly eat 120 million tonnes of Antarctic krill each year. Even with the highest estimates, that would be one sixth of the total biomass! I find that hard to believe. Lupo 14:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BONNER B 1995 Birds and Mammals - Antarctic Seals. in Antarctica Pergamon Press 202 - 222 I gave that on the crabeater page - the Antarctic is hard to believe - the high biomass estimations are based on what the whales once took (details are in Nicol, S.; Endo, Y.: Krill Fisheries of the World, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 367; 1997) Uwe Kils 15:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I looked it up, Bonner writes at least 63 million tonnes, so lets change it to this figure, I have in my notes 120, will try to find the source or call colleagues about it, but even 63 off one species is astounding, taken that the whole yield from all oceans and all species, fish, mulluscs, cephalopods, srimps ... is only about 100 million tonnes a year - some say the ants are the biggest, but that would be a collection of many species, others say the copepods, but that too are hundredth of species - E. s. is one species all over the Southern Ocean - Uwe Kils 15:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Fixed. Lupo 06:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Indian Railways

[edit]

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

I now see that Indian Railways is a company, not an overview of railways in India. Phoenix2 18:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Done =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
By merging the two sections the article becomes too long. In this way we can move the technical details to another page and expand that further. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
The discussion on the talk page was to split the article into Indian Railways and Rail transport in India, not to merge them. slambo 10:47, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
And then there was some about putting them back together again! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Order of Canada

[edit]

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

If I may also sound in, Canada Day is just around the Corner on July 1st. This is the day that new members are announced Dowew 00:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey, there is no need to apologize. I will take care of the references. As for the reverse of the medal, there were pictures I have seen online, but no law to back it up. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As for the number of living C.C. and O.C., this is what me and others did. We went to http://www.gg.ca/Search/honours_e.asp?Search=2 and filled out sections needed. We checked off the grade, then living, then search. We cannot save each search, since there is no special website that displays each search, unless you wish for us to link to the above site and call it a reference. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above comments by Phils have been responded to, and if there is anything that I missed, just let me know. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My mistake-- I read the article earlier, missing the recent changes. Excellent work. 172 18:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Second Crusade

[edit]

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

Well, probably not...it's mostly a summary from Runciman and Setton, with relevant bits from the various sources. Adam Bishop 05:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I know, it's a pain to go back and add them, been there and done that :) Since that's the only "objection" I had (and the references used ARE quite clear), I change my vote to Support. --JohnDBuell | Talk 14:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago)

[edit]

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

Architecture of Btrieve

[edit]

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

The Ashes

[edit]

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

Australia

[edit]

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

Well ALoan, if they lose to lowly Bangladesh like they just did, England might win! :)  =Nichalp (Talk)= 17:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Changed to Brisbane skyline since its the fastest growing city.

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

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

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

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

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

1. The date of the first human habitation is estimated to be between 42,000 and 48,000 years ago when a period of massive ecological change, believed to be a result of human action, occurred although there is a footnote referring to this, I highly doubt that this can be accurate. 2. The agriculture and natural resources sectors contribute 3 and 5 per cent of GDP and make up the bulk of Australia's exports. this is a smaller nitpick, but as far as I know, there are traditionally 3 economic sectors - agriculture, industry and services. That Australia's industry sector encompasses the expoitation of natural sources should be mentioned, but within a paragraph on Australia's industry sector (that is currently missing). Themanwithoutapast 03:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. Added a desrciption of Aboriginal and TSI culture
  2. There is a description of the genocidal policies toward Indigenous Australians, added a link to the Stolen Generation
  3. I added back info on the 1967 referendum (it keeps getting lost)
  4. I added native title
  5. I also extended the demographic information on the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians
  6. I added the following sentence Racial inequality is an ongoing political and human rights issue for Australians, I don't think editorial comment on the current governments policies and action (or lack of it) toward reconcilliation are necessary. (Apartheid gets about a pragraph in the equivalent South Africa article and most of it is about the ANC.)
  7. Immigration is mentioned, both in history (I added an explicit link to the white Australia policy) and demographics;
  8. I have added some info on mandatory detention of illegals, once again editorial comment is not necessary or NPOV.
  9. I have added explicit mention of multicultual policy since the end of the white Austrlaia policy.
  10. I am not qualified to make comment on the extent of racism in Australia, and I can find no recent publications that discuss it.

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

Panavision

[edit]

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

Convention on Psychotropic Substances

[edit]

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

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

Commodore 64

[edit]

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

So how old are you? 30? 40? :)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[edit]

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

In what way about the spoiler warning? (My vote has to be neutral, I've made many major recent contributions to the page myself). --JohnDBuell | Talk 17:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, it's just a bit of an eyesore, occuring right after the lead like that. --Scimitar 22:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Restoration literature

[edit]

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

Possibly so, but we're up against two things, here. The first is that the damage, such as it is, was done in the English literature article, and I wanted to be consistent and name the break-away article in the same way as the section. The second is (and I know this sounds precious) that I don't know of another national literature that has a "Restoration" period, quite. In general, though, I do favor greater specificity. Geogre 04:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with your dislike of that image, nixie. Both Bishonen and I hunted high and low for a better picture. I had wanted one showing Charles in his court (an English "Sun King" imitation, as such paintings and prints were certainly made) to suggest a radiant "king covers all" image, but I could find none in my print sources. As for the web, the pickings are slim, and the best things are already on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that I've been sort of stuck with low-res. I'll see if I can get anything better. As soon as I do, I'll replace the image. Geogre 15:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The new image is great. --nixie 00:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yep. Thanks ever and again to bishonen, a highly regal Charles II now stares back at us from the first picture. Geogre 00:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David Helvarg

[edit]

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

RMS Titanic

[edit]

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

Anschluss

[edit]

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

I haven't forgotten you, Themanwithoutapast. I will review this FAC in a few hours. Phils 16:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As for the dense writing, just looking at the intro - examples: "The prospect of an Anschluss had been the subject of inconclusive debate prior to the Austro-Prussian War of 1866": debate where, between whom, why inconclusive? "Bismarck deliberately excluded Austria because he believed the Austrian elite would be a harmful counter-balance to the Prussian landed aristocracy — the so-called Junkers — in the reunified Germany." What does "harmful counter-balance" mean? Why harmful? Why would this matter to anyone? Why would it matter to Bismarck? In what way was the aristocracy of Austria different from the Prussian aristocracy? It all needs to be unpacked, and the intro is not the place for it. Is all this directly relevant to Hitler's decision to invade?
Regarding your footnotes, it's a shame you were forced to use these. Just to repeat my earlier question: is the link given in, say, the second note actually the source of the information in the sentence or paragraph, or just some further reading in relation to that sentence? SlimVirgin (talk) 13:21, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Island Fox

[edit]

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

Now it's excellent. Support. --Scimitar 13:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For how to use the "ref" and "note" templates, the way they were intended to be used, and how to organize the "Reference" and "Notes" sections see, for example, Gangtok below. The "ref" and "note" templates are designed to occur in pairs, and typically they have matching numbers, and each member of the pair links to the other. And the "note" template instances are expected to be collected together in a numbered list in a "Notes" section, in the same order as it's associated "ref". The way they have been used in this article, there are multiple "ref" templates associated with a single "note template, and the "note" templates are a bulleted list. This means for example that there is no way to tell, for a bit of noted text, which "note" it is associated with (linking on the bracketed superscripted numbers jump to the correct section but you can't tell which entry there it is associated with) and backlinks generated by the "note" template (Indicated by the "^" symbols), don't work correctly. This article is also confusing "references" with notes. There should be a "References" section giving complete bibliographic information (e.g. Smith, John The Big Book, So and So publishers, (2005) ISBN 12345678) for each source cited. Then if you want to further granularize your source citation you can have inline-citations of the references listed in the "References" section using parenthetical citations (e.g. Smith pp. 34-36) or use footnotes or endnotes, typically indicated by small font superscripted numbers in the text, and referring to a matching numbered note in a "Notes" section. The note can then be some explanatory text, or a citation (e.g. Smith pp. 34-36). Paul August ☎ 05:27, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Much better. Paul August ☎ 13:07, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Vanilla Ninja

[edit]

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

There is frequent mention of how each single sounded, and I believe that comparisons to other artists are made along the line. As for the music videos - detail is important, and I think its something that is good to include. Hedley 23:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think that "pop-rock" is a useful description of how particular tracks sound. It doesn't convey very much. As for detail, the featured article criteria say that articles "should stay tightly-focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail"; and I believe that such extensive summaries of individual videos reach an unnecessary level of detail -- for this or any other artist. Monicasdude 00:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gangtok

[edit]

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

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

BC Rail (formerly titled British Columbia Railway)

[edit]

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

The photos of the electrics being dismantled and of the centerbeam flat car are ones that I created, so I've got the originals. I'll see what I can do with them tonight in Gimp. slambo 15:25, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Well, that wasn't quite as difficult as I feared. I've lightened and re-uploaded the three photos that I created. slambo 22:20, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
I've brightened up the two that I thought were way too dark.--Bcrowell 02:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

United States Senate

[edit]

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

I think this is your best so far!

Yom Kippur War

[edit]

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

Isaac Brock

[edit]

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

Added. --Scimitar 18:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I've changed the wording to "an extensive formal education" to avoid confusion. --Scimitar 19:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I acutally haven't been able to find a painting (who wants to paint a battle scene from a battle that wasn't really a battle, eh?), and I'm not sure about the veracity (or for that matter copyrights) of the maps I've found, or else I would include them. --Scimitar 13:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geography of India

[edit]

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

I've read through it now and can lend my Support. One additional comment, however, on measurement units. Most of the article uses metric units, but there are a few conversions to imperial units scattered throughout the text. If you're going to show conversions, show them all or stick with one set of units. slambo 00:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Units work done.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 09:32, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
The Template:note is for inline referencing. The others are references for the article as a whole. I've tried to differenciate it somewhat by using bulleted lists for the non-inline refs.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
I sorted out the notes/references myself. --Theo (Talk) 16:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting it out. I wasn't aware of this system.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 04:29, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that one is based on where the rivers originate and the other on where they flow. The second section was added independently of the first, so we still have to bring the sections to line. Any proposed solutions would be welcome--IMpbt 02:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with nixie; removed the extra text.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:32, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Be bold! and fix whatever is wrong. Such infelicities though are hard to spot, I agree. you've done great work, thanks.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 11:27, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
I've corrected the colour, but since I've rasterised the layers, I can't align the key. I've also removed the snow image.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 09:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Fixed; added inline and non-inline references under =References=.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Well this is better, but I'm not particularly happy with the mixed format of the "References" section. Also why is this reference "The Land (.doc), The Great Mountains of the North" be considered reliable? Who is the author? Where is it from? As far as I can tell it is just some random page from the web. Paul August ☎ 15:48, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there might be some issues so referenced it from an official govt of India article. BTW, the previous reference was credible, as they publish texts for schools (See: [9]). I've crosschecked other references in the original article. The references also have been sorted.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 17:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Now there is both a "Notes" section (using "ref/note" style notes) and a "Footnotes" section (using "mn/mnb" style notes). They should be combined into one section (preferably called "Notes" and placed after the "References" section) and a single note style chosen (I happen to prefer the look of "mn'mnb" over "ref/note" — actually I like "rf/ent" style notes the best). Every reference mentioned in the notes should be listed in the "References" section with complete bibliographic info (currently I think they all are, except for the "Physical Divisions" reference mentioned in note 1). Then each reference mentioned in the notes can be shortened to just a citation (and link, if the citation is to an online source — which all of them are currently). Paul August ☎ 20:09, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
1) I've displayed all references in the =note= section according to a template so I can't shorten that. 2) I don't support merging the =footnote= with other sections as it is a clarification of a point, not a reference. I'd prefer to leave it as it is. Thanks for your suggestions.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 12:14, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Well it will be very confusing to have both a "Notes" section and a "Footnotes" section. For example when readers see: "Afghanistan1" how will they know whether it refers to note 1, or footnote 1? If an editor wants to annotate a piece of text, where should it go, in the "Notes" section or the "Footnotes" section? As used on Wikipedia, these two terms are virtually synonymous. I think this is essentially unworkable. From your comment, I think you might be confusing notes with references. As I use the term, a reference is a source which is used to write the article, and all references should be collected together in a bulleted list in a "References" section, with all the bibliographic information necessary for a reader to easily identify and find the source. Notes (also called footnotes or endnotes, depending on placement) are for any information that you want to associate with a piece of text, but which you don't want inline, for example some clarifying text, and/or to cite (i.e. point to) a reference listed in the "References" section, in which case, since the reference is already listed completely there, the note doesn't have to repeat all the bibliographic information — and consider you may have several notes which cite the same reference. Thus for example the text for Note 2 can be shortened to just be "Deccan Plateau", since the first item in the "References" section has the rest of the source information. Also a citation given in a note can give more specific "chapter and verse" information (e.g. Smith p. 5) to point the reader to a specific part of the cited reference work. For an example of how all of this can be done see Attalus I. Paul August ☎ 14:26, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Ok. I finally get what you mean. I wasn't aware that inline references were also considered to be notes. User:TheoClarke has addressed the problem. Thank you for enlightening me on the differences. I'll do the same for my future articles. Regards,  =Nichalp (Talk)= 04:29, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad to have been able to help. I think the article is better now. Paul August ☎ 16:32, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Will support once this is addressed. Good article, and well illustrated, BTW. Phils 20:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

George F. Kennan

[edit]

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

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

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

Architecture of Windows 2000

[edit]

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

Xiangqi

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nichalp, thanks for your suggestions! However, I believe that the ToC, though with some sub-headings, is pretty clear right now. Is there any policy that I'm unaware of that states there should be less sub-headings? What do others think? Let me know, I'm always open to suggestions! Thanks. Flcelloguy 00:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A heading having a single subheading is considered bad style. I've modified the headings which I didn't like so that it remains invisible in the ToC; this addresses my objections.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 20:52, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
I have responded to Fazdeconta's concerns on the article's talk page, and other people are having input as well. Feel free to offer suggestions or comments! Flcelloguy 20:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Fazdeconta! Upon a second look at the article, he has commented that the wording is clear. Also, it seems like the majority of people support keeping the literal translation of the phrase xiangqi in the article. Again, as always, I'm open to suggestions. Thanks once again! Flcelloguy 00:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sandy Koufax

[edit]

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

  • Several of the external links were used for some of the stasticical information, but I left them under external links instead of moving them to references. When doing the actual rewrite, I used his biography mostly. Gorrister 01:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could a Sports Almanac be used to verify those statistics, and then added to the references section? Spangineer ∞ 10:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Somebody is trying to get all the infoboxes standardized. Besides, the infobox is a template that is used for all baseball players (or at least the ones I've gotten to). Gorrister 10:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've taken care of this. I only used four direct quotes - and they were actual quotes that Leavy quoted - and made notes of them. Let me know if this satisfies your conditional support.Gorrister 13:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Riot of 1879

[edit]

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

I've never seen a photo or artist's impression of the SCG from this era. The later ones all show a stand that wasn't there in 1879, jguk 12:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was just suggesting that these two bodies may have something that they could share. I do see that it is unlikely, however. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 12:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dealt with, jguk 07:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a comment on what caused the riot and when the overriding dispute was resolved, jguk 07:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the letters, a summary, or abridged version and a link to the full text in wikisource would be better, Minor object for now--nixie 03:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. At least, the letters should be indented (was the original not indented?) for readability. Conditional support. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 07:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC) Looks better now, but I still would prefer shortening. -- Sundar 08:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
I too agree with mav, and will object until the letters are abridged significantly (especially the first) or summarized. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:53, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
I've ummed and ahed over the letters for a while. Overall the bias appears to be in favour of keeping them. Since they tell much of the story, any useful précis of them is likely to be fairly long anyway. Also, they are of particular historic importance in the dispute - so much so that Wisden Cricketers Almanack (despite the space they took up) saw fit to print them in full. In an article that is 30kb, they look ok - if the article was much longer, I'd probably agree with you though, jguk 07:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is a policy page, and all FAs need to follow policy. In the realm of having full letters, this article does not follow that policy. So if the whole letters are not abridged or summarized, then this article can not be featured (irrespective of the number of supports this FAC gets). --mav 04:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What part of WP:WIN does this article contravene? I can't work it out. The article is certainly more than a mere collection of public domain or other source material. smoddy 11:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
'Complete copies of primary sources should go into Wikisource.' The two letters are complete copies and Wikipedia is not a place to host those. --mav 12:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That to me is intended at excluding these article from existing on Wikipedia as articles in themselves, not as stopping the whole of a source being shown. smoddy 13:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And yet 'Complete copies of primary sources should go into Wikisource.' See also the associated guideline, which explains this in more detail. --mav 16:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I understand from your comments on other pages that your opposition to including sources in articles has always been that the source remains editable. I would have no objection if the source was placed into a template that was protected and transcluded into the article, jguk 08:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No offense to Mav, but does this mean that if I fire off a two line email that causes WWIII then we would not be able to include it in a Wikipedia article? I think this sounds a little off-putting. If the entire letter is significant to the article, then we should keep it. If the letter should clearly only be quoted in part, then we should only quote that part. I have no real opinion as yet on the letters, btw, as I haven't read the article (in as great a depth as I should have - clarification). - Ta bu shi da yu 03:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, they were not indented - however, I've added some paragraph gaps to improve readability, jguk, jguk 07:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blitzkrieg

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

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

Images from the early 1940s are most likely to enter the public domain c. 2050. The assumptions here are that the photographer is in his/her 30s and died aged 70 c. 1980. 75 years from creators death still gives us another fifty years to copyright expiry. --Theo (Talk) 11:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. German pre-nazi era stuff (til like 1936 i think?) is still validly copyrighted. however once the nazi regime took over (new govt... new rules...) copyright is free and clear from everything i have read in my research. Copyright afterwards was split depending on east/west (most east german stuff til 1965ish is also free of copyright, whereas west germany was copyrighted up through). obviously anything post reunification is under copyright. Due to the way Nazi Germany was an "empire" as opposed to an actual political "state" there are severe ambiguities in the copyright conventions. The way its been interpreted by me and by several others I have discussed this with, is that there is basically a short 9 year span of a copyright loophole. Doing more research will likely find you agreeing with this, (I had to, i'm writing a non-fiction novel on Colditz Castle now ;)  ALKIVAR™ 19:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote in several places - I'd apreciate a FAQ clearly answering what is the deal with Nazi copyrights, this problem is recurring again and again. Please use the artcle talk page to list copyvio or problematic pictures, so we can start dealing with them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 2000

[edit]

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

Sudoku

[edit]

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

What is gatti 5 Su Doku? There is a mention of time limits in "The Challenge" section. As to the last point, a "feeling" is rather difficult to address. Can you be more specific? OpenToppedBus - Talk 09:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Reading again I see that "gattai 5 Su Doku" is mentioned, in the "Variants" section. OpenToppedBus - Talk 09:35, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not certain how this objection can be addressed. "The puzzle is played on a grid, most frequently a 9×9 grid made up of 3×3 subgrids (called "regions"). Some cells already contain numbers - the "givens". The goal is to fill in the empty cells, one number in each, so that every column, row, and region each contains the numbers 1 through 9 once." This seems pretty clear to me - what do you find confusing, and what would help to make it less so? OpenToppedBus - Talk 09:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Robert A. Heinlein

[edit]

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

Are you sure you put your objection where you intended? Phils 20:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Opps! Damn slow wiki made me do it. :) --mav 21:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Stilgar135! The lead section now contains some remarks on public perception.--Bcrowell 17:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support! I think the selection of photos may have to do with legal issues. The book Grumbles From the Grave does contain a lot of photos of him, but the ones before 1923 are likely to be of interest only to fans, and I'm not sure how far we want to stick out necks out in terms of fair use for post-1923 images.--Bcrowell 17:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good comment on the lead -- it was very vanilla, and would probably not have interested people who didn't already know about Heinlein. I've expanded it to two paragraphs, and tried to add some zip to it.--Bcrowell 17:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... a lot better, but would still suggest that more summarisation be done of the main article. That's what I tried to do for Windows 2000, and though that article's lead section may be a little long I think that it might be helpful. As I'm really interested in reading about this individual I will attempt to assist. My vote is still to support. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! I've tried to make the suggested changes regarding references, influence, and more pictures.--Bcrowell 17:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent comment, Meelar! I've added some documentation in a footnote.--Bcrowell 04:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but the only on-line source is the bio on the heinlein society web page. We're already treading dangerously close to a copyvio on that source... Rick Boatright 23:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's a much, much longer online biography of him, by the same author, at [18]. I've added it to the references. I've added the names of his parents.--Bcrowell 04:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Changed the citation of the Patterson Bio to the original publication in the Heinlein Journal, with an "available here" link to the aol.com page. Rick Boatright 22:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, on the topic of "treading dangerously close to a copyvio" on the Patterson biography, I just found a long phrase in the article that was lifted verbatim from there by an anonymous user on 28 Dec 2004. I've deleted the phrase. Baylink helped me find another couple of those a few days ago, and I edited them out --- they were put in there by an anonymous user in February 2004. I hope this is the last of them. --Bcrowell 04:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Swedish language

[edit]

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

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

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

  • Intro: perhaps a brief explanation of what's meant by prosody - I know readers can go to the link, but would be useful just to have a couple of words here as well.
  • Geographic distribution: would be nice to have a link or a cite for the claim of Swedish-speaking communities in South America
  • Former language minorities: similarly, a citation for details about the Swedo-Ukrainians would be nice, especially as there are 'no reliable reports' on their number.
  • Both riksvenska and rikssvenska appear - I'm guessing the latter is correct but not sure
  • The 'sje-sound' is described as a 'difficult and complex issue', but I don't see what the issue exactly is. Also, somehow describing for English speakers what this sound is would be very helpful.
  • Phonotactics - unlike the rest of the article I am baffled by this bit. What do all the C-subscripts mean? And some of the jargon could be reworded more generally, like 'morpheme-initially'
  • Would it be desirable to mention how Swedish pronunciation of letters differs from English? Eg sk -> sh, y -> u, g -> y etc.
Once those things are looked at, I'm sure I'll be able to give the article my fyll suppåt :) Worldtraveller 13:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Much oblige for your pointers, Worldtraveller.
I added a source for the number of Ukrainian Swedes, though it seems hard to find any written references for the amount of native speakers. I had to call and ask the chairman of the "Old Swedes"-association myself to get a figure of native speakers that was "around 20" and I made the phonotactic section a bit less oblique. As for the Swedes in South as well as North American, I've had my doubts about this myself and when Googling for it, I could find no information, so I hid it with a request for someone to provide references.
As for the infamous "sje"-sound, the wording is very intentional. The complexity surrounding the pronunciation of this sound (and especially the phoneme) is very complicated from a phonetic perspective. At least two doctoral dissertations have been written on the subject and the issue of the exact vocalization of the sound seems quite uncertain as per Ladefoged and Maddieson. It would simply not be possibly to go into any detail because it would turn the article into phonetics cruft. More information is available at voiceless dorso-palatal velar fricative and Swedish phonology.
I have intentionally avoided any attempts to map orthography to pronunciation since it's usually a great way of getting bogged down in minutiae, over-ambitious generalizations and plenty of contradictions. To make comparisons to even more inconsistent English spelling doesn't seem worth the effort. I believe it would only serve to reinforce popular, but very questionable and confusing ideas about orthography being anything but a very rough and all too often misleading approximation of spoken language.
Peter Isotalo 17:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Great, many of my points are now answered, but I still have a couple of thoughts: first, I'm still a little bit unsure as to what the issue is with the sje-sound - hard for me as a non-linguist to understand how entire doctoral theses could be written about one sound! Would it be possible to add more detail about this?
And second, I'm still a tiny bit confused by the phonotactics section: is it really saying one syllable can have six consonants? And what defines the nucleus of a syllable? Worldtraveller 11:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The nucleus of any syllable is a vowel (as far as I know). And, yes, a single-morpheme syllable in Swedish can have up to six consonants, for example: skrämts, supine passive form of skrämma ("frighten, scare").
Again, about the sje-sound, have you read the two other articles? I am still very hesitatant to elaborate on this issue. What with the qualified reference, I think that would suffice as to the claim of its complexity. Do you have any suggestions as to what aspect should be explained? Is it perhaps just a matter of rewording?
Peter Isotalo 19:31, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I was just being a bit dense reading the phonotactics section and not appreciating that the V represented a vowel (it's a very abstruse connection I'm sure you'll agree:)). Hope you don't mind, I reworded that sentence a little bit, hopefully it's still accurate but more foolproof. As for the sje-sound, I'm sure just a little bit of rewording would do the trick - you say it's "still debated among phoneticians", but what exactly are they debating? What are the differing opinions? Worldtraveller 11:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A good rewording as far as I can see. I've noticed that it's really easy to get caught up in overly linguistic typology as a self-taugh amateur...
Whether the alleged simultanous velar and alveolar articulation of the "sje"-sound is actually physically possible is as far as I know not been resolved. Ladefoged and Madiesson (1996) have claimed that it was unlikely, but I've not seen any references to responses and the IPA still has the ɧ, despite the objections. And Ladefoged is as far as I know a very influential figure in the IPA. Adding to this complexity is the fact that most of the realizations are labialized, in some cases even labiodentally so. Off the top of my head I could imitate at least five different pronunciations of /ɧ/, that while sounding fairly similar (especially to non-natives) are articulated very differently.
Peter Isotalo 20:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Eventhough Raul generously promoted the article, I'm going to adress this one pronto.
Peter Isotalo 13:00, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Our Gang (The Little Rascals)

[edit]

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

*little Farina,[...] eventually became both the most popular member of the 1920s gang and the first true African-American child star.
  • though some historians do not look favorably upon the characters of the African-American children today. The words "some historians" should be enough to instill dread in anyone who believes in verifiability on Wikipedia.
  • The most important African-American child actors in the series were [...]. Most important in what sense? In terms of screen time? "popularity"? number of appearances in the series? later career achievements? influence?
    • I will reword it to "the four main," since those four were the only major black characters in the series. There were plenty of black guest stars and bit players, but those four were main characters. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*After Sammy, Mickey, and Mary left the series in the mid-1920s, Our Gang declined slightly in popularity, although it remained financially successful. Figures to back this would be great, if available.
  • Spanky [...] popularized the expressions "Okey-dokey!" and "Okey-doke!" I doubt you can find a convincing source for this one, so I suppose this is an assumption the author made. I recommend toning the wording down a bit.
  • As the profit margins declined due to to double features, [...]
    • Also from Maltin/Bann book.
  • The new Our Gangers recruited by MGM were more in the vein of the "cute" kids that Roach had despised than the original gang. Who says this? If the author believes it and has no quote (from an art/film critic with a minimum of respectability) to back it, then its POV.
  • The series dropped in both popularity and financial success after 1939,[...]
  • The Little Rascals was a moderate success for Universal, and for a short time a sequel and a television series were planned, but nothing came to pass. Screams for box-office figures and source about the planned series.
    • Should be able to be found. If not, will delete the mention of it being a "moderate success". There should be articles on the projected sinoffs available online, however. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only remittances they received were their weekly salaries during their time in the gang, which ranged from $40 a week for newcomers to $300 or more a week for stars like Farina, Spanky, and Alfalfa. Precise figures require precise source citations.
I'd like to say that apart from that, this article is clearly above average; I congratulate the authors. I will gladly support when my concern is adressed. Phils 20:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out, the source for nearly everything you mentioned is the Maltin/Bann book; a few of the items about the African-American kids comes from the Bogle book. I can take care of the footnotes within a few hours. Should I be using page-specific footnotes? --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have added citations to all of the above-mentioned items, and other places where they appeared to be needed. I used paretheticals, since nearly all of my sources are print-based, not web-based. --FuriousFreddy 03:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thank you for adressing the objection so quickly, and good work. Now some others might want you to use a footnote system, but the way the article is referenced right now is ok by me. Phils 05:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how exactly to go about doing a footnote system for a Wiki article like this. Would I just be using superscript reference points, and a long list of footnotes at the ewend? If anyone decides a footnote system is neccessary, I will alter it. --FuriousFreddy 10:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no such thing as "absolutely needs footnotes", your parenthetic references are fine. I'm not sure there are enough of them (don't have time for a really good look tonight) and they want just a little formatting (I'll fix that tomorrow), but they're fine. In some special cases footnotes can work better than parentheses, but that's not the case here. Please don't anybody let the very proper requirement for sourcing of particular statements drift into a requirement for footnotes! They're optional. Ample and exact sourcing is valuable, but a "learned" or academic look has no special value in itself (on the contrary, IMO). Bishonen | talk 02:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear! I've never seen another call for footnotes. This is an encyclopedia article, not a term paper! Quill 03:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category