Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2005

Tamil language[edit]

This is almost a self-nomination. I did a major rewrite, content addition and formatting according to the standard template for language articles. Had earlier put it for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tamil language/archive1. Had converted the alphabet chart into image format to avoid browser incompatibility on Bishonen's suggestion there. I feel that the article is mature enough and is of featured-quality. -- Sundar 06:56, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

comments: a map would be desirable. the "Dialects" section is a list without commentary. We would at least want a map to show their distribution. I'm not sure about the tablea-as-images: I cannot render Tamil Unicode, but I would use something like the table on Tamil alphabet, with a small image of each letter on top of the Unicode glyph). "Writing system" looks a bit orphaned, at the bottom there, it should probably come before "Phonology". A short section about Tamil literature would also be nice. The detailed explanation of the example sentence is very nice. dab (ᛏ) 07:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I've requested for help with maps from User:Nichalp. "Writing system" moved above. Pjacobi has offered to work on the tables over the weekend.-- Sundar 05:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - Vadakkan has rectified most issues pointed out. -- Sundar 12:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

~~Object~~.

1) No references. This is a basic requirement of a featured article. Please do not nominate articles that do not meet them.

- Will add references. -- Sundar 05:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - Done by User:Vadakkan. -- Sundar 12:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

2) There are many sections with only a few sentences or a single paragraph, or merely a summation. This indicates that either more can (and should) be said about the topic, or that the structure of the article should be revised.

- User:Vadakkan has merged/copyedited many sections to remedy this. -- Sundar 05:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - Done by User:Vadakkan. -- Sundar 12:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

3) Some (at least one) sound samples of spoken Tamil are needed.

- Will add soon. -- Sundar 05:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - Done by User:Vadakkan. -- Brhaspati 01:03, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

4) Some of the section jump from topic to topic, notably the Grammar section. Text flow needs to be improved in these sections.

- It has improved after Vadakkan's edit, but the grammar section still needs improvement. -- Sundar 05:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - Done - the grammar section has been totally rewritten and now flows quite well. Ditto the section on phonology. -- Arvind 17:40, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

5) I think mentioning Tamil as a language spoken in for example the Netherlands is ridiculous. I looked it up, and there are an estimated 2000 Tamils (7000 acc to ethnologue) living in the Netherlands (on a population of 16 million). Even if all of them speak Tamil, that's not a significant number. Jeronimo 08:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- Done. That part is removed in the box and rephrased in the geographic distribution. -- Sundar 05:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

My objections seem to have been resolved. Support. Jeronimo 08:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- Thanks to both of you for the comments. I'll try to rectify soon. -- Sundar 08:28, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Support Awesome article... Conditional Support When the references are added, then this is a support vote. If not, it's a neutral vote. Squash 09:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Will do that soon. -- Sundar 11:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Someone shall acquire relevant papers from this list or shall try to get authoritative books from the library on this subject and reference them. -- Sundar 11:54, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  - Done by User:Vadakkan. -- Sundar 12:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Layman's conditional support, I fear there's still a lot to do, starting with the literature references. I have the article on my watchlist since I'm on Wikipedia but unfortunately without much ability to enhance it myself. Some thoughts:
- The "spoken in" table entry just went nuts in a lot a language articles, there should a serious clarification, where to draw the limit. And some volunteers watching all these boxes. Fortunately nobody added Tamil to Category:Languages of Netherlands (yet).
  - I've no problem in removing non-obvious entries from there. Feel free to remove them. -- Sundar 11:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
    - Done. -- Sundar 12:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I hope (and wait for the experts' judgements) the dates in the history section are in accordance with current scholarly opinion, as they were often targets of edit ambushes in the past of the article.
  - Newer evidences are coming to surface as latest as today. Please refer to this news item. -- Sundar 11:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  - Done - the section has been checked, and a reference to a source has been inserted. -- Arvind 17:40, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- It's a plus that the alphabet tables are converted to graphics and include IPA pronounciation, but:
  - IPA should be written with brackets, not slashes
  - The IPA column should be given the header "sound", the current "sound column" better replacved with romanization columns
  - Both ASCII based and scientific romanization should be given
    - I'll wait for some time till someone else does this as I'm somewhat busy with work. If noone does that, I'll try to do that myself. -- Sundar 11:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
    - Done. -- Arvind 17:40, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Don't we have the ability to upload and link audio clips? That would be most cool for language with a rather different phonem inventory than most readers are used to.
  - I know of audio clip sources for Tamil, but have to see the license conditions. -- Sundar 11:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
    - I was more thinking along the line of you speaking the example phrases and recording that. --Pjacobi 12:26, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
      - Oh. Me, of all the people, with my horrible voice. Let me try to get it done from one of my friends. First of all, I need a Windows machine with the whole setup. Also, it appears that I may not be able to contribute to the article in a big way for the next couple of weeks. So, if nobody else helps with the objections, I may be withdrawing the nomination. :-( Meanwhile, I've requested comments from Prof.Hart through mail. -- Sundar 12:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Pjacobi 10:28, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Support. The references had been used properly, just had not been added to the article. Sound samples would be great to. The more the better. Especially that alphabet song :) ~~Object. No references.~~ As a courtesy to other editor's time, please make sure the article you nominate meets all of the featured article criteria before nominating it. - Taxman 14:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- I apologise for not doing so. I thought a brute force method of receiving quick objections and rectifying the errors in one go might work as the article didn't get much attention in Wikipedia:Peer review/Tamil language/archive1. Now, a few contributors like Pjacobi, Vadakkan etc have started working on the article. Let us see if we can bring it to FA status or else I'll withdraw the nomination. -- Sundar 15:34, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, now you know. Please follow that advice in the future. This looks like it will pass FA if not this time, then the next. Peer review is improving, as more editors are commenting, and more people are implementing the suggestions. It will take time, but it is becoming a more valuable process. Now as to references, as has been pointed out to me by multiple people, adding references solely in response to a request for them carries the risk that they were not properly used as references and they are just being added to check off another requirement. I have asked Vadakkan to confirm their proper use. - Taxman 15:08, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I've added a tongue twister as a sample of how the language sounds. I'd be very happy if someone with a better voice than mine can sing the first few alphabet verses from the atticudi (or just recite/chant it). Arvind 19:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment — On an 800x600 resolution the horizontal scrollbar is extremely irritating. Consider moving the offending table to another page. Nichalp 19:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Should I presume that you meant the table in the Examples section? If so, what can we put there as a summary? By the way, can you help with creating a map showing the Tamil-speaking areas around the world? (I know your expertise in maps ;) -- Sundar 04:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - Btw, I've reduced the font size of the table. Feel free to format it further to make it even more smaller. Once the phoneme charts are modified, made smaller and inline with the paragraph text, the article should be shorter. -- Sundar 06:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    - After putting a lot of thought into it, I don't think the table can be compressed further. What you can do instead, is put up a simple example, a very basic example on the page and move the table contents to a new page. This would clean up the current mess. Nichalp 18:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
      - User:Kaal compressed the table horizontally by combining three columns into one. This issue seems to be fixed for now. -- Brhaspati 01:07, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Most of the concerns have been addressed. -- Sundar 12:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- All have now been addressed, as far as I can see. -- Arvind 17:40, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Support. All the concerns have been addressed. This article is now awesome. -- Kishore 03:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the wonderful edits by Vadakkan which were well supported by Brhaspathi, Kaal, Nichalp and others. Now the article has reached featured-quality. -- Sundar 04:48, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Support. This article is fantastic, but I have one doubt in this. The character "akh" is called as Aayidha Ezhuththu not aayudha ezhuththu, I believe. The image of the shield is put in the Tamil books for school children to visualize and remember it better, but we seem to associate the shield as weapon and call it as Aayudha Ezhuththu. It is also called saarbezhuththu, since it cannot be used separately. Correct me if wrong, and if I'm right correct the article. -- Santhoshguru 07:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- AFIK, it is called aayutha ezhuthu, may be, I'm wrong. The association with a shield may be because of what you say. If you find any references or any info regarding the name do add that. I agree on the saarbezhuthu part. We should add it to the article. -- Sundar 08:36, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be appropriate to list all the different saarbezhuthukkal of which only(?) 'akh' has a visual representation. I think characters undergoing elision are also called saarbezhuthukkal. In fact, ezhuthu in Tamil may not correspond entirely with a character, lexeme or phoneme. -- Sundar 08:45, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - Take a look at my edit to the section which, I think, fixes the problem. I don't think we need to discuss all the saarbezhuthukkal in this article - although we perhaps could do that in the article on the Tamil alphabet. -- Arvind 13:01, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
    - Your latest edits are fine. And I do agree that such detail as saarbezhuthukkal belongs in Tamil alphabet and not in this article. -- Sundar 14:55, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
    - The change is good. But still I have one small issue in that, article says "The āytham is also called ahenam or āyutha ezhuthu ". I think it must sound something like this "The āytham is also called ahenam or ஆய்த எழுத்து, but people pronounce it wrongly as āyutha ezhuthu due to the association of shield with it". May be the structure of the sentence is bad, but I think you people can get what I want to say. -- Santhoshguru 09:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - It's not really a mispronunciation - ஆயுத எழுத்து has become one of the names which people use for the letter, thanks to the association with the shield. I've reworded the section a little bit more - see if you agree with the present. And this is really a very small niggle which doesn't have much to do with the article's FAC, so we probably should move this discussion to the talk page rather than continuing it here. -- Arvind 13:59, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
        I agree with you, this really is a small niggle. Lets move forward. -- Santhoshguru 15:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bicycle[edit]

Although I've done just minor copyedits on this article this year, this qualifies as a self-nom, as I put it up last year, when it narrowly missed out. Several people have suggested that it be put up again. I believe all the objections raised then, and on a long since past nomination, have been resolved, except for one from a person who wanted a person along with the bike in the top photo. FWIW, we put out a request for more photos, and got several with people, but none which show the detail seen in the current lead photo. Sfahey 02:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Article is well written, referenced, and has great pictures. The objection that the lead picture needs a person in it is frivolous anyway I think. - Taxman 14:35, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. Interestingly, I think I recall that that "objector" was actually very knowledgeable on bicycles, and had excellent input on the previously shaky "bicycle physics" section before that bizarre vote. Sfahey 03:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Good. ~~However, in my browsers (Safari v125.12 and Firefox 1.0), the "MTB parts" picture overlaps with that under "Legal requirements".~~ Phils 15:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object. Image:BikePartsEnglishAndSpanish.jpg should be replaced. It is likely a copyvio, and even if it's not, it is of too low quality (too much JPG blur, and text shouldn't be in the image). Fredrik | talk 16:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Now that I have a solid (copy vio.) reason, to go along with its being too big, inappropriately bilingual, and kind of ugly, it's gone. A replacement, along the lines of the "reflector" diagram, would be great. BTW, can anyone fix it so you can get to the "edit" version of this page from the wp:fac page. It now mis-links. Thanks. Sfahey 03:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Now the link works again. Go figure.
Support. A nice detailed overview of the bicycle. --Jcmaco 22:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support but I think with the bicycle being such an important part of modern Chinese culture, there should be a photo of its use there. I recall having seen a photo of Tinnamen Square with hundreds, if not thousands of bicycles taken in 1980s or 1990s which was quite impressive. Revth 04:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object. As with my previous objections to this article, this article needs at least a section on bicycle racing (giving an overview and referring to a specilized article). Furthermore, the "Types of bicycle" section should be made to prose, I think. Many of the bikes mentioned here deserved a little more text, while several more obscure bikes need not be mentioned here and could be removed from the list. A separate list article can be made with all the bikes. 82.161.112.78 08:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You are certainly correct on the "bicycle racing" suggestion, and this has been rectified just as you suggested. Regarding the "Types of bicycles" section, I considered those changes last year, but elected to keep this as a sort of "appendix", because MANY had contributed to it in this form, and it contained just enough "whimsy" (exercise bike, unicycle) to make it interesting. Also, if it were put in text form, it would eventually become dreadfully unreadable, considering the number of writers chipping in. I did shrink "clown bike" and some other sections, and hope the article now merits your (apparently knowledgeable) support. Sfahey 18:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - I'll withdraw my objection, but I'll not give my support, as I still think the "types" section can be improved. Jeronimo 12:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. It's a great article! One of the best I've seen, sincerely. --Neigel von Teighen 18:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Because I love bikes ;-) (Also contributed to this article so am doubly biased) --Sf 10:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Buddhist art[edit]

A scholarly and well-illustrated approach to a broad artistic and religious subject spanning many centuries and cultures.--Pharos 04:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment. The references in the article are somewhat strange. Apart from the format being non-standard, I suspect two of the references are incomplete. For example, the first (“National Museum Arts asiatiques- Guimet” (Editions de la Reunion des musees nationaux, Paris, 2001).) is actually the name of a French museum[1]. Does the article refer to a museum catalog? a yearly publication issued by the museum? Another reference does not indicate authors (“The Times Atlas of Archeology” (Times Books Limited, London, 1991)). Phils 17:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Done PHG 12:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Excellent. I withdraw my comment and support. Phils 15:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
support I thought this was an excellent article. I liked its format, telling the story of Buddhist art through historical sections and national sections. Examples are also chosen tastefully.Dinopup 01:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object. This article is very close. Just a few minor things. 1) The lead section should be longer, and give a better summary of the article. 2) The "Southern art" gets a long and useful introduction (but please remove the italic there), while the "Northern art" doesn't. 3) It would be useful to annotate the external links so it is more clear what the pages they link to describe. Jeronimo 08:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Done PHG 12:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Great, support. Jeronimo 21:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. I will try to add a list of artists who contributed to its history and write couple of articles along the way. Revth 04:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object. A lot of what is there is very good, but 1) It needs some copyediting. I have eliminated the ones I felt I could, but the article still suffers from poor flow of the text in places due to one and two sentence paragraphs. Those highlight areas that either need to be expanded or merged nicely into other paragraphs. The ones I did fix need a bit of improvement still too. 2) many statements are presented as facts when they should instead be attributed to a source. For ex "Korean Buddhist art has been characterized by sobriety, a rightness of tone and a certain sense of abstraction." I could disagree and say x, but that is not the point. Wikipedia articles should not make claims like that, primary or secondary sources should instead be cited. With those fixed I would definitely support. - Taxman 22:58, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Replaced the Korea comment by an equivalent quote. Thank you for your improvements on the flow. PHG 22:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Steve Dalkowski[edit]

Resubmitting this article. It was previously nominated but failed and has since gone through an extensive peer review which hopefully addressed all issues! Zerbey 05:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support All the issues have been resolved, the trivia section is gone, properly referenced, very informative article! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support looks good now that we've got a halfway decent photo. Way to go Zerbey ;) ALKIVAR™ 05:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support, looks much better now. JYolkowski 18:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would be surprised to find that he was born in Connecticut in 1938 and yet his actual date of birth was not recorded. Is this the case, or is it just omission by neglect? Everyking 21:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Working on that. Zerbey 22:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - OK, neutral for now, support once it's added. Everyking 22:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - It's added. Zerbey 03:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Fun article, and perhaps the best first paragraph I've read in Wikipedia. One thing that should maybe be addressed: the article says that his manager discovered he had an IQ of 60 by administering a test and that this result made him realize that Dalkowski needed simpler instructions. I think an IQ of 60 means he's really retarded; wouldn't that have been obvious without a test? Actually, a lot of the article sounds like folklore, and could be improved with more solid refs, but there's enough refs to convince me that it's at least mostly true. Zashaw 00:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: IQ, the figure comes from multiple sources. An IQ of 60 is moderate retardation, see Mental retardation for more. Zerbey 00:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wait: the picture says it's not to be distributed to 3rd parties. Doesn't this conflict with the GFDL, which should allow anything in Wikipedia to be copied? Sorry in advance if I'm being ignorant... Zashaw 00:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We have permission, see the talk page. Zerbey 00:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Sadly however he's right, this image does go against the GFDL, and Wikipedias policy of allowing distribution. Although its a great image, this will eventually be deleted. To Quote from [Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags]:
  General non-free licenses
  Do not upload images for which one of the tags in this section applies.
  - {{copyrighted}} - permission is given for use on Wikipedia only, and does not include third parties.
- You can claim fair use on this, since its related to him. Which does allow it to be kept, however Fair Use images are on shaky ground longterm also. Your best bet is to get them to release this to GFDL or CC-by-SA. Likely they will listen as this requires attribution of original source for reproduction. However a noncommercial restriction goes against Wiki's idea and written rule. ALKIVAR™ 00:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Sadly, I don't see the BHOFL releasing it to the GFDL (not for free), I am still on the search for a free picture however. Zerbey 17:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - I'm not sure if this helps, but it might be relevant to them that the GFDL seems pretty restrictive; it seems like it'd be difficult for someone to use Wikipedia content for a commerical purpose (like an ad related to baseball, or an exhibit in a competing museum or whatever), given the requirements that it be editable, and that other people can use the content. I'm no lawyer, though. Zashaw 22:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - They've made it clear that they will not release the picture, already had an e-mail conversation about this. Our hope lies in finding some other person with a free picture. Zerbey 22:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support Giano 07:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Well done. Object. The lead section should be a better summary of the article. Currently it only mentions the speed and lack of control and a film about him. Something about his life and life after baseball would be important. Also, isn't calling Randy Johnson a future hall of famer a little POV? I think it is unless that is absolutely unamimous opinion. If it is, so be it. Otherwise article seems fine, though avoiding the three one or two sentence paragraphs it now has would help the article flow. - Taxman 15:41, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

All fixed, Randy Johnson will almost definitely be a hall of famer one day (especially if he helps us win the series this year!) but he isn't yet.

Well he is considered a great in the game, so if you can find a simple source supporting that claim, the reference to him would be better if it kept at least something directly explaining he is considered a great player for those that don't already know. But, yes I think it is better without saying he is something he is not for sure. - Taxman 16:08, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Support. This has much improved since the previous nomination, nice work. Jeronimo 21:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hm. Reluctant objection. Gee, there is a lot of prevarication here with regards to pitching speed. In various places we have "experts estimate", "may have", "likely to be exaggeration", "observers agree" etc. etc. but the only real data presented supports none of the estimated numbers given, and none of the "experts" are named or their relationship to the guy explained. I'd really like to see this tightened up some more, and some attention given to the difference between what is known and what is folkloric. Also shouldn't the US variants on words be used in an article on baseball? Jgm 00:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is pointed out in the article ("How fast did Dalkowski throw") that there is no direct evidence of him being able to pitch 100mph+ beyond the anecdotal, some quotes are given. Continuing research is going on to find out more anecodotal evidence, so it is in progress :)
I wrote a lot of this article, I'm British (yep, a British baseball fan) and received a British education so please forgive me if there's some British-English stuff in there. User:Michael Snow did a good job of converting the article to US standards but that was a while ago so more may have crept in. Please provide specific concerns and they will be addressed. Is this really that big of a deal, though??? Zerbey 01:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

James K. Polk[edit]

Self nomination. -- Emsworth 21:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well done! Support. Minor quibble: you might want to give a quick definition of "dark horse" in the introduction--the term might not be familiar to all readers. Meelar (talk) 21:49, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Support. This is really a well done page, although I'm not a professional dictionarian Wim van Dorst 22:39, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
I'm impressed. I fixed a couple date issues by fully wikifying them, even though the years were linked previously – it allows the user preferences to take effect when they are fully linked. One tiny detail - why the See Also link to U.S. presidential election, 1844 when it's also linked in the title of one of the sections? Anyway, support. --Spangineer ∞ 22:40, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Support Peb1991 02:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support, but the first line of the article is "{{Infobox President/{{{dead}}}|date of death=June 15, 1849|place of death=Nashville, Tennessee}}" (in Firefox/WinXP). However, I can't see the error in the source text. Jeronimo 07:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. 11th president of the US? Never knew the guy, but the article looks sound. Agree with above minor quibbles. Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Got to this article first via link from a list I've been working on and was considering nominating it myself. Filiocht 09:40, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Support - "the factions soon agreed, he's just the man we need" ... [2] I'm not sure the TMBG song (on Factory Showroom, incidentally) is really "educational" though. Are you doing James Ensor, "Belgium's famous painter", next? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support - Excellent article! --SFoskett 18:17, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
Support. A well written article worthy of nomination. --GRider\^talk 23:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Renomination --Otheus 15:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Stree Journal editorial board's book list for 15:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC) includes a biography of James K. Polk. I thought I'd update the article, and indeed, fixed a few things.

Canadian Pacific Railway[edit]

Self-nomination, as well as my first FAC. It's been on Peer Review for a few weeks and I think it's ready for FAC now. JYolkowski 21:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support - Ta bu shi da yu 10:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. I commented on this during peer review already so have nothing further to add. --JuntungWu 16:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment - Could do with a good shot of a modern locomotive in the current red livery. The CPR locomotive is relatively iconic in towns across Canada, and were this to make the front page box I could only see the corporate logo serving as a halfway-useful accompanying image. -The Tom 19:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- To clarify, are you more interested in having a picture of a modern locomotive added, or in having a picture of a modern locomotive added so that the image can be used on the Main Page if/when the article is there? The reason that I ask is that I don't have any photos of CPR locomotives in my personal photo collection (and it would be somewhat inconvenient to get one right now) and I can't find any suitable PD/GFDL images on the Internet. I probably could find an image at http://www.trainweb.com/ or find something to claim as fair use at CPR's corporate website but neither would be suitable as Main Page images. Also, I'm getting ahead of myself here, but personally I think the photo at Craigellachie would make a better Main Page image. JYolkowski 22:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Since I'm modeling the former Milwaukee Road's LaCrosse Division (which was purchased by Soo Line and is now CP's mainline across Wisconsin), I've made a few trips to the line to take some research photos. I know I took some photos of CP trains on my last trip. I'll see if I can find something suitable this week... slambo 15:16, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
    - Cool! Thanks in advance, JYolkowski 22:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - I do have a couple photos that would work, but don't have electronic copies of them. I'm a bit busy this weekend displaying my models at the Mad City Model Railroad Show, but if I can get to a scanner, I'll upload a couple. slambo 14:58, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Seems ready to me. Support. Edeans 02:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support This is a great article!--User:naryathegreat (t) 18:51, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Support --Spinboy 21:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support --DanielNuyu 07:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Virutally all of the remaining red links have been eliminated, remainder will be gone within hours. This is a rich and fascinating history, well documented - especially JYolkowski's efforts. Definitely feature article worthy.Fawcett5 05:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Ammolite[edit]

Found this through a "what links here". Well-written, comprehensive and interesting. Rmhermen 15:46, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

A sleeper. Support -- ALoan (Talk) 16:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Impressive. Support. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 16:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support, with the proviso I know nothing about this so I don't know if it is missing anything. One thing I saw was inconsistent British and American spelling. Shouldn't it be consistent one way or the other? Or does Canada use the British spelling. Ex's: uncompromised and Aluminium, mixed with fossilized and pyritized, etc. - Taxman 19:48, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I can say in confidence that the article contains more information than any gemmological treatise, if one excludes the book produced by Korite International (which I suspect is not scholarly). I don't have the book, so I cannot use nor judge its content. But as you can see from the references I included, I've tried to collect all published data. As for the spelling discrepancies, that's my fault: I (a Canadian) was working with DanielCD's original material when I expanded the article, and tried to preserve his spellings. The one exception is aluminium, which is spelt the British way because that's its official IUPAC spelling (see Aluminium#Spelling). If you see any British spellings, please Americanize them. :) -- Hadal 03:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Abstain for the moment - There are photos of the raw material and there's mention of processing it into finished products (such as jewelry) in the article I'd like to see some photos of the mineral either during (maybe some of the machinery or someone working with it) or after processing (like a stone set in an item of jewelry). I don't think this is enough for an objection, but it's holding my vote right now. slambo 20:33, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Since there is only one commercial supplier of the material, it'd be kind of tricky to get images of the processes—especially since they may consider some of it (e.g. the impregnation process) to be a trade secret. I might take up lapidary some day, but until then I can only offer what I have. I don't have any ammolite jewellery on hand, but as soon as I do I'll take a photo for the article. That won't likely happen soon or within this nomination period, and I regret that. I'll try asking Korite for an image; perhaps they'll oblige, since they seem keen on promoting their product through any avenue. -- Hadal 03:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I confess to writing most of this article, so I'm not sure if I'm allowed to support it (but if so, I do). I would however like to thank Rmhermen for nominating it, DanielCD for his solid start to the article, and for everyone's supportive feedback. I've expanded the article even further since the nomination, including more details on extraction (which will hopefully compensate for a lack of images concerning the process). Cheers, -- Hadal 06:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. slambo above raises a good point, although I don't believe images should be a reason for an article not to be featured (except in the case of grossly inappropriate or complete lack of images). Phils 08:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Hadal has done a great job again. Just a couple of comments. First the ironstone mentioned leads to an ill-defined article, maybe goethite or limonite concretions would be better - I'm not familiar with the geology of the area though. Second, if there is only one commercial supplier, then this is free advertizing - especially if featured. I assume Hadal and DanielCD aren't connected to this company ;-) -Vsmith 05:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I found a mention of "ironstone (siderite)" so perhaps that is the mineral? Rmhermen 01:59, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  - After again looking over every source I used, I've replaced "ironstone" with siderite as that seems to be the only ironstone-type mineral (besides pyrite) mentioned. As for the "free advertising" angle: perhaps it is, but I'm in no way involved with the company. And honestly, a complete article on ammolite must mention Korite and its operations prominently. I did ask Korite if they'd donate images for the article, but as of writing they've not responded.-- Hadal 04:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. This article, like all of his others are a parragon of encyclopaedic entry. Methylsoy 05:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support, a-stone-ashing article! Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Timpani[edit]

Well written article that demonstrates the merits of Wikipedia: it goes beyond the traditional encyclopedia article by providing information for readers with different levels of musical knowledge. Comprehensive without being overly technical. – flamurai (t) 20:17, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

A joy to read. Support slambo 21:40, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Excellent Strong Support EggplantWizard 21:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support: Fantastic Giano 22:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object. The introduction refers to their use outside of the orchestra: "Today, they are used in many types of musical ensembles including concert, marching, and even rock bands." However, except for the early history, the body of the article is entirely devoted to an orchestral context. With respect to marching bands, needs to address how timpani fit in, since they're generally large and stationary; most marching bands use other drums instead. Examples of notable timpani use in rock would be helpful to provide that angle. --Michael Snow 23:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm glad you raised that objection. This was something I meant to include, but never got around to it, and eventually forgot about. I just included a section including information about timpani in marching bands and popular music. – flamurai (t) 01:28, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - And I'm glad it's there now, because this is an excellent article that I definitely wanted to support, it just needed that last bit to make it more complete. Support now. --Michael Snow 06:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. An excellent article that deserves to be featured. Carrp | Talk 01:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support Good work. For that new section, though, I've got an additional factoid if you want to use it: Ringo Starr played the timpani on a Beatles record: "Every Little Thing" off of Beatles for Sale. Might be worth mentioning, seeing as how the Beatles are so influential.Ryan Anderson 17:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will definitely include that fact. – flamurai (t) 05:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Object. This article needs one or more sound samples. (Note: I'll review the rest of the article later on, but I thought this was a rather important issue). Jeronimo 08:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I See samples have been added. I have just one question - are there any particularly famous timpanists? The article doesn't mention any, but there web link to a page about famous timpanists. Jeronimo 08:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Depends on what your definition of famous is. There really aren't any famous timpanists because it's not really a solo instrument. The only one that would be known to non-percussionists is probably Vic Firth, and that's only because of his drumstick company. – flamurai (t) 08:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Needs information on the sound and acoustics of the timpani. Ideally this would tie in with the performance techniques, explaining why the various techniques produces their various qualities of sound. Hyacinth 16:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I've identified some journal articles dealing with the acoustics of timpani. Now I have to find a library that carries them. It's definitely a subject I think deserves some exposition. I myself am interested in what makes timpani produce a definite pitch, while cylindrical drums do not. – flamurai (t) 21:46, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Great article, pleasure to read. Raising the bar for other music instruments' articles.--Zappaz 03:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support ALKIVAR™ 12:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Excellent article. →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 15:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Jeronimo - sound files are really a must-have to call this comprehensive. →Raul654 16:04, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I added a few fair use sound clips to the page. If I think of more that illustrate other things mentioned in the article, I will add them. – flamurai (t) 22:52, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Now the article has clips and can do nothing but support. Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Support excellent article! Tuf-Kat 22:55, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

BZFlag[edit]

I am nominating this article because it informs every aspect of the game, has a good amount of photos, tells a lot of references, and is well-written grammar and spelling wise. It does not leave readers still wondering about the game, and tells more than enough just to inform them about the current state of the game, or simply the game itself. It was on Peer Review for a week and turned up only one comment. This is a self-nomination as I wrote the majority of what is there. --Lan56 05:06, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Support ~~I support on the condition the spelling mistakes are fixed (e.g. Theif, Rogue) Did you even read my message on peer review?.~~ Excellent article. I used to play the game myself, but I quit because it was too addicting... Squash 11:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I just now read it, and have corrected a lot of the grammar, and the word "Thief" as well as many other spelling mistakes, however, the game uses the name "Rogue" exactly like that. I respect your comments, despite how I am a bit late towards seeing them. Thank you for pointing it out. --Lan56 00:39, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  - Good job! Squash 02:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Great article. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:09, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Support →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 22:16, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Support I love articles like this! I thought I'd never heard of it before, but then when I saw the pictures it looked kinda familar. Support, anyway. Everyking 08:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support Ta bu shi da yu 08:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object. Good article, but not quite there yet. The "what it is" section could really do with a rename, and being placed above the history section. I'd also like to see a bit better coverage of the gameplay - it's hard to really wrap my head around what exactly this is. The translations section takes up more space than it needs to because of the bullet-style, rather than prose, list. It has a few overly small sections at the end, which could perhaps be merged somewhere else. Finally, larger pictures would be nice, and putting at least one of the gameplay-related ones at the top, rather than having the two title-images side by side - I had to dig to see what the game actually looks like. Ambi 09:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments, Ambi. I added several more photos, added and changed things in the former "What it is" section (which I renamed), and combined the small, bottom sections. I did not know what to do in regards to the Translations section, as if I were to put all the languages into a paragraph, it may look messy and unorganized, and it doesn't have enough for a table, therefore I just left it the way it is. I also rearranged the title pictures and replaced their spot with a screenshot. As for larger pictures, I took those screenshots as big as my monitor. I didn't scale them down, therfore I cannot make them any bigger. Or do you mean the thumbnail? As for the actual full-size image, they are as big as my monitor can take pictures of. Thank you very much for the tips, please tell me any improvements to make, should there be any in the future. --Lan56 10:10, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  - Thanks for making the effort. I haven't re-checked the article, because I just don't have the time to go through it properly, but I've crossed it out - I don't have the time for FAC matters at all at the moment. Ambi 13:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain article is fine and full of good information but I don't think the writing and writing structure is great or remarkable, no offense though. The article focuses a lot on gameplay and the coverage of the project and development is too limited. I don't think it needs much more volume of material, but something about the development structure, pace, number of active developers, is there a lead developer, etc need to be covered. - Taxman 22:16, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I added a lot about development, per your suggestion, but the development strategy and attributes (from the way things are run to, especially, the amount of developers) is constantly changing, therefore I did not go heavily on things I know will change too often to keep a static article. --Lan56 05:23, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  - That sounds quite reasonable to me. Now the list of flags, versions, and map objects seem out of place and trivia. They may be fine for a separate article to link to, but I think they need to be removed from this main article at least. - Taxman 22:59, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
    - I understand what you are saying, but I disagree on moving the flags, map objects, and versions table. I feel they are what makes up a significant portion of the article and make it seem complete, and are on topic entirely. It would seem difficult to create a new article and place all the above-stated tables there, and make a complete article out of it without just listing the tables, like storage space. This is simply my opinion, and I will respect any further objections/comments/etc... that you may have. --Lan56 03:31, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
      - I'll still say the list of map objects is too detailed to be necessary. It is not bad information of course, but distracts enough from the flow of the overal article that its inclusion in the article costs more than its value. If you move it to list of BZFlag map objects, and link to it, there is no loss of information in the article, but the readability is improved. You don't have to feel like that subarticle needs to be fleshed out into a full article. It is just there to support the main article, which is perfectly acceptable. Though it doesn't seem important enough to continue objecting. - Taxman 20:15, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Object, though much of the structure and detail is good. Needs a lot of editing/proofreading. The text isn't close to being great writing yet, and is distinctly confusing in places and ungrammatical in others, full of repetition and odd word choice.
Ex: This release took a new turn compared to older versions as a cheater inspired Schoneman and his friend (co-developer) to add "super-flags" -- a cheater? who is this friend? (Schoneman is the only person listed as a developer in the article) plus a mixed metaphor.

- The list of translations, and of team colors, should be inline in a single sentence. The table of versions by date along the side is definitely TMI, and the date-linking there isn't terribly useful (deep links to that month of that year might be better).
- It would also be nice to see more comparisons of the game to similar games, and similar Open Source projects. +sj + 07:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - I clarified many things, including your example from the History section. I will look over parts several times, and correct any future things I see. I also have grammar checked it using Microsoft Works (Windows XP), but I know I can't rely on this entirely, but it did correct a great deal. I also inlined the translations and team colors. I did link to the months in the versions table rather than the specific dates, but I extremely disagree in regards to removing it (as you mention it is too much information). I feel it is both a brilliant reference, and too much information is better than too little. I agree about comparing it to similar games, this would be a great thing, unfortunately, I do not know of any such games that I am familiar with enough (or even know a single thing about) to give a useful, educated section about it. I hate to say this, but I must hope that someone can cover this part. I sincerly apologize. --Lan56 05:26, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Great article. Bart133 (t) 22:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great Lakes Storm of 1913[edit]

I started this article a week ago and have been working on it quite a bit. It was on the main page in the "Did you know" section as well. A couple people have told me that it should be featured, and this page gets more traffic than Peer Review. So here goes... --brian0918  23:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support:

Pmeisel 23:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
68.81.231.127 19:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Carnildo 20:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Jeronimo 22:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
mav 19:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Taxman 16:30, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Object:

Comments:

supportPmeisel 23:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Most of the images still aren't correctly tagged. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, specifically the entries on {{PD-US}}, {{PD-USGov-Interior-USGS}}, and {{PD-flag}}. It's also worth adding a short explaination of why the tag is justified on the image description page, especially in the complicated cases (where you made alterations to map made by someone else, or where that flag came from). 68.81.231.127 00:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think I've fixed the image tags. The flag was created by me. If there's still a problem, let me know specifically what's wrong. --brian0918 01:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Looks good. I also did a copyedit, standardizing units, smoothing a little wording here and there, and so forth. There might still be too many pics in the foundering section... it might be worth keeping the best and spinning out a separate image gallery. 68.81.231.127 19:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Thanks for the help!! I was also thinking of doing an image gallery, as I generally like images in articles (especially historical ones). Should it just be a link in the "See also" section to a gallery on wikimedia commons? --brian0918 19:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - I 'm not sure, though using the Commons is always a great idea. And it looks like a couple of minor questions I added later got deleted: What was the duration of the economic impact mentioned in the first paragraph? (a cite would be good, since it's an unsupported generalization) What's an arctic outbreak? Is there a difference between a carrier and a bulk carrier? The weather bureau... are all references to the USDA weather bureau? During the prelude, is the reference to the US weather bureau and coast guard, or both countries? 68.81.231.127 20:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        I've added a gallery and will be adding several more pics. As for your questions: not sure of the economic duration, I'll read up on it; I think "arctic outbreak" is just a generic term for a cold front moving into a region, such as what occurs as the season changes to winter; all occurrences of "carrier" have been changed to "bulk carrier", as "carrier" also refers to the shipowner; all USDA weather bureaus are weather bureaus, but not all weather bureaus are USDA weather bureaus -- in this case, however, all references are to USDA weather bureaus :) ; I don't understand your question about the prelude. --brian0918  21:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        The CG ref is under Nov 7 (not the prelude :)... is it USCG or CCG, or both? (Very minor.) 68.81.231.127 18:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        In the text that I read this from, it just says "Coast Guard stations and weather bureau offices in ports along Lake Superior...", so I'm assuming it's both. --brian0918  18:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object for now. The images at the end of the "On the lakes" section overlap and interfere with the drawing of the table in Mozilla 1.7.2, and my attempts at fixing it apparently broke it in Internet Explorer. See Image:GreatLakesLayoutProblem.jpg for what it looks like to me. --Carnildo 00:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It looks fine on Mozilla 1.7.5: screenshot. Maybe you need to clear your cache? --brian0918  01:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I've tested it in as many browsers as I can get my hands on. All tests are at 1024x768
  1. Opera 7.5 for Linux, "Classic" skin: The five images are in two rows above the table: 3 on the top line, 2 on the bottom line.
  2. Opera 7.5 for Linux, "Monobook" skin: The five images are in a column beside the table.
  3. Mozilla 1.7.2 for Linux, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row overlapping the top of the table, the fifth is beside the table. See screenshot.
  4. Mozilla 1.7.2 for Linux, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside the table.
  5. Mozilla 1.7.5 for Linux, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside the table.
  6. Mozilla 1.7.5 for Linux, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row overlapping the top of the table, the fifth is beside the table. See screenshot.
  7. Internet Explorer 6, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside the table.
  8. Opera 7.0 for Windows, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row above the table; the fifth is to the right of the table.
  9. Firefox 1.0 for Linux, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside the table.
  10. Firefox 1.0 for Linux, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row overlapping the top of the table, the fifth is beside the table. See screenshot.
  11. Konquerer 3.3, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside the table.
  12. Konquerer 3.3, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row overlapping the top of the table, the fifth is beside the table. See screenshot.
  13. Internet Explorer 5.2 for Mac, "Monobook" The five images are in a column beside the table.
  14. Internet Explorer 5.2, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row above the table; the fifth is to the right of the table.
  15. Safari 1.2, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside the table.
  16. Safari 1.2, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row overlapping the top of the table, the fifth is beside the table. See screenshot.
- At 800x600
  1. Internet Explorer 5, "Monobook": The five images are in a column above the table.
  2. Internet Explorer 5, "Classic": The five images are in two rows above the table, 3 in the top row, 2 in the bottom. There is whitespace as large as one of the rows between the preceding paragraph and the images.
  3. Opera 6 for Windows, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside and overlapping the table.
  4. Opera 6 for Windows, "Classic": The five images are in a row above and overlapping the table, and are displayed in reverse order.
  5. Netscape 4.5, "Monobook": The five images are displayed in a left-aligned column above the table, with the images overlapping their captions. The layout is completely borked.
  6. Netscape 4.5, "Classic": Unknown. I couldn't find the "login" link.
- At 82x26
  1. Lynx, "Monobook": The five images are displayed as linked "alt" text in a column above the table. The table is shown as a list
  2. Links, "Monobook: The five images are displayed as linked "alt" text in a column above the table. The table is shown as a table.
- The problem browsers so far are Mozilla, Firefox, Konquerer, and Safari with the "Classic" skin. Any other browsers I should test in?
- Carnildo 07:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Thanks for the help, but does this problem really need to be fixed for all browsers? No page is going to look right on every browser, and definitely not on outdated versions of the browser. If I was going to arrange it another way, I would probably try and put them in a couple rows above the table, with a br above them and a br below them. If that didn't work, well then the minority browsers would just have to be ignored, as I doubt they display much of wikipedia correctly. There's nothing wrong with my code on wikipedia; it's just a problem with how those browsers interpret the code. --brian0918 15:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - The concern comes from the specific browsers that have trouble: the most common browser on Mac, the most common browser on Linux, and the second most common browser in Windows.
  - I've removed the table, replacing it with a short list, and have rearranged the pictures. This problem should be fixed now. --brian0918 17:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - The current version looks good in Monobook and ok in Classic. --Carnildo 20:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
support. Write some more for us. alteripse 04:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object. Looks good, needs some minor adjustments. 1) Could you tell the non-US reader in the lead section where the Great Lakes basin is? 2) I'm not sure we need this many external links; several seem to be redundant. 3) A large portion is taken by the table of shipwrecks, which, frankly is not all that interesting to the article. I think a condensed version of the table (maybe only giving total figures) would be good enough for the article, moving the full table to a separate article. Jeronimo 11:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- 1) Replaced "Great Lakes basin region" with "Great Lakes basin region of mid-eastern North America". 2) I've removed some of the links, but I think the ones currently listed are all important. 3) I think the shipwrecks are more important than you claim, as that is where the lives were lost. Most texts on the storm focus almost exclusively on the shipwrecks. But, I understand the problem and I'll replace the table with a list of ships and lives lost, and move the table to its own article with a link to it in "See also". Sound alright? --brian0918  16:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, I've moved the table to its own article, replaced it with a much shorter list, and rearranged the pictures. --brian0918 17:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Lookin' good. Support. Jeronimo 22:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support - Very good work. Could you write some more storm articles please? :) --mav 19:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Looks good, and I don't see anything else wrong with it. Question: This article looks very well written and referenced, and is quite interesting, so I would like to support. My great grandparents lived in Calumet, MI at the time and most likely were affected at a minimum by the weather. However, after reading the article I couldn't help but wonder why we have this article, and why this storm (which the article says sunk 19 ships) is more important than the 1905 storm that destroyed 111. If it destroyed that many ships is it possible that less people were killed in it than the 1913 storm? If so, can you offer some citation for this storm being the "deadliest natural disaster to ever hit the lakes"? Anything from one of your sources would be good. Is this storm more prominent just because of more snow and covering a larger geographic area than the 1905 storm? Thanks - Taxman 16:30, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- The 1905 storm only killed about 70. Ships don't have to be manned to be sitting at port waiting to be destroyed, and people could have stranded the majority. Every reference I've read (books, newspapers, official forecasters) considers the 1913 storm to be the worst (deadliest, most damaging)to hit the region, as well as the worst maritime disaster to hit the continent (using the traditional definition of "maritime" as dealing with marine shipping). --brian0918 17:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Ok, sounds good, you've done your research. Though it would be ideal to cite something as central as that directly to the most reliable sources on it. You can put a superscript note next to the fact and then list the specific reference that backs up the fact. Not a requirement, but would really help with the reliability and trustworthyness of the article. - Taxman 15:41, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
    - The full title of White Hurricane is: White Hurricane: A Great Lakes November Gale and America's Deadliest Maritime Disaster. --brian0918 15:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - Ah, yes well thats pretty clear. I added a direct citation to that book for that fact. You can do more along those lines if you like. - 22:29, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Also, 19 ships were destroyed, but only 12 of those were sunk. --brian0918  17:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm not so sure about the 111 number anymore. It came from the "storm breeding ground" reference, but if you read this newspaper article, it makes it sound like there were much fewer deaths and ships destroyed. --brian0918 18:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - I've removed that information. --brian0918  22:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Names of God in Judaism[edit]

This is my first attempt to fac an article. I have worked on it for several months and I think it is in great shape. Many have contributed to it. It has had substantial research, refs and bibliography, some compelling photos of ancient scrolls and manuscripts, and some fascinating information. --Zappaz 16:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Jeronimo 22:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. This is one of my favorite articles. However, I think it could be enhanced by the addition of some ogg files with the hebrew pronounciation →Raul654 23:22, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Support. An article of pleasing quality. Phils 00:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support as long as the sentence The name Shelomoh (from shalom, Solomon, שלומו) refers to the God of Peace, and the Rabbis assert that the Song of Solomon is a dramatization of the love of God: Shalom to His people Israel is thus thought to be the meaning behind the name Shulamite. is clarified. I lose the train of thought between the colon and is thus. Otherwise, the article is a pleasure. - BanyanTree 02:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

~~Comment appreciated. I'll work on it.~~ --Zappaz

Support. All the Wikipedia:Peer review/Names of God in Judaism/archive1 feedback was incorporated, and it's a very interesting article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. I second the point about ogg files made by Raul654. --Solar 17:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support CGorman 23:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support, now that it is clear many more than two references were used. ~~Question, since the word bibliography is ambiguous, were any of those sources used to add material to the article or fact check it?~~ If so, they could be included in the references section. If not, it is less ambiguous just to call that section "further reading" to make it clear they were not used to add material, but are also available for more information for the interested reader. Also, there are a number of inline references in the text, but those sources either don't seem to be listed in the references section, or I can't understand the notation in your inline citations, or both. You could collect the inline citations in a "Notes" section in an endnotes format if you want. With that cleared up this is a great article and I would also support the call for the addition of ogg sound files. - Taxman 15:54, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have use the standard distinction used in research papers: References contain only those works cited within the text. So, I use the term References to cover works cited, and Bibliography to refer to works read as general background. The Bibliography is a list of references, whether cited or not. It includes texts I made use of in the research for the article, not only texts referred in the article itself, but my own additional background reading, and any other articles or books I think the reader might need as background reading. I was under the impression that this is the standard to be used in WP as well.

Thats certainly an ideal definition of bibliography, but I don't believe it is the standard. The dictionary definition says it could be just "A list of writings relating to a given subject.". That is the ambiguity I was referring to. If you did actually use all of those sources for background information, it seems current Wikipedia policy is to call them references. Works mentioned or cited in the article could be additionally denoted in other ways if needed, but I don't think that distinction is nearly as important as whether the resources were read or used properly by the editor or not. - Taxman 20:05, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

As to the inline citations, I will comb the article to find these and refer them properly.
Regarding the ogg sound files, I admit it is beyond my ability ... Is there an editor amongst us with that ability? That will be most welcome.

--Zappaz 17:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy to give you technical assistance. I can't do the recording myself because I don't speak hebrew, but I could lead you through the process to the point where I could take over. →Raul654 17:57, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) (You will need a microphone, though)

League of Nations[edit]

A previous Collaboration of the week and a previous FAC (archived nomination from a month ago, immediately after it was the COTW). Looks pretty good to me. I can't honestly call it a self-nom, although I have recently restructured, copyedited, formatted, etc. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Last time it was almost ready, I think all previous objections (including mine) have now been adressed. Looks ready for big time for me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object. This looks good, but there's still some work to be done. 1) The lead section is relatively short given the length of the article. Adding another paragraph would give room for giving a better summary of the entire article. As a minor point here: why are the French and German names mentioned? Do they have any particular value? 2) The league's failure are discused in detail, but it is not discussed how these failure were addressed when the UN was established. As the UN is more or less the successor to the LoN, I think it is relevant to this article. 3) The "Successes" and "Failures" sections should be more specific. For example, the "Greece and Bulgaria" section has no time reference - it could have happened yesterday. Similar problems for the other successes (the failures have more lines and context). 4) The "Other failures" section needs to be expanded. Many historically significant events are discussed here only with one or two sentences, while others get entire sections. Even the section itself writes that one of these events is "most remembered in history". 5) A more chronological ordering of the failures and successes could give a better image of how the failure of the League developed. 6) The "General failures" and "Specific failures" sections have a lot of overlapping text. Maybe they should be merged, or it the separation should become clearer. 7) The article needs a copyedit - I found several weird things (e.g. "Greece and Bulgaria share a border." is a weird way to start a section; "Representatation"). 8) There is quite a bit of speculation in the article. "Perhaps the key point was that the United States never joined.", "Perhaps the most important weakness", "would have been far more wary of crossing it" etc. 9) The conclusion that the failure of LoN was (in part) responsible for the outbreak of WWII is a bold one. More is needed on this. Is this a view shared by many (all, nearly all) historians? What is meant with "responsible"? How exactly was it responsible? Jeronimo 18:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the helpful comments. (1) I have augmented the lead; which French and German names? (2) Isn't the addressing of the League's failures a subject for the article on the United Nations? Arguably, structures such as the Security Council and the vetoes of permanent members, have brought their own problems. (3) Good point; (4) Are you saying that each failure (Chaco War; Spanish Civil War; Italy's invasion of Abyssinia; German re-militarisation of the Rhineland, occupation of the Sudetenland, and invasion of Austria; Winter War) needs its own section? (5) I thought it was useful to present Successes and Failures separately - the League is often thought of as a total failure, so I thought presenting Successes on their own was useful: however, the failures break down into two main groups (early ones and later ones) - perhaps it would be better to do early failures, then successes, then later failures? (6) I see what you mean and have attempted to correct the separation (they were one section until yesterday). (7) Fixed those - any more? (8) I've removed the "perhaps"s - any more? (9) "These failings were, in part, responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War." - do you really think this is a overly-bold conclusion? Are you saying that the failures of the League had no causal influence on World War II? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Some replies; I'll have to look at your fixes. 1) "The League of Nations (French: Société des Nations, German: Völkerbund)" 2) Maybe so, but I think it could get just a bit more here; the description of the demise is only 5 lines. 4) Not a section per se, but they should get more attention than they do now, especially if they are so important (which the article itself notes). 5) I was thinking about a chronological ordering within the successes/failures; this would be especially useful for the failures. 7) Not that I know of, but it might be a good idea to through the article once or twice to comb these out. 8) Again, not that I know of, but the removal of the perhapses was not what I was after; speculation is OK as long as you can attribute it: scholar X thinks this, nearly all observers say, etc. 9) I'm not so sure the failure was responsible for the outbreak of WWII. I think the failures meant WWII was not stopped from happening, but being a cause, I don't really see it that way. However, if this is a common view, this can certainly be in the article, if only it is discussed in more detail, and not presented as a undisputable fact but an opinion (and by who it is held). Jeronimo 07:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Thanks again - I appreciate your comments. I have addressed a few more points. I'll think about the others. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Reviewing my issues. 1) Resolved. 2) Sufficient. 3) Several successes are still undated. 4) Resolved. 5) Resolved. 6) This is better now. 7) Has improved. 8) The last example statement is still in the article. 9) Although the statement in the article was been weakened, I still think it is an opinion, not an (undisputed) fact. So it should be attributed properly. Given the improvements, I change my vote to "minor object", as the article looks pretty good overall. Jeronimo 07:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Many thanks. (3) I have added dates; (8) I have refactored this statement; (9) I think we will have to agree to differ. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support Good article. I note there's a consistency problem with -ise versus -ize. I think in most instances -ise is used, so it might be sensible to standardise on this version, jguk 20:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wholehearted support. I must apologise if the perhapses were mine (they probably were). In response to Jeronimo, I think the French and German names (first sentence) are relvant, as they are the official names in those countries. There is a significant chance that such terms would be searched for if found in a French or German text. I would fully defend my conclusion about WWII – if you can find me evidence to the contrary I'll back down, but I seriously doubt it. Smoddy (t) (e) (c) 22:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 01:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support I especially appreciated, and learned a lot from, the "Successes" section. Like ALoan said, many people simply dismiss the League for its failures without discussing any of the good it accomplished.Ryan Anderson 02:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
'Comment: Needs a map of what countries the league consisted of at the top of the article. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:07, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
Object until we have a map of the League's nations. Neutrality^talk 15:06, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- When? It started with 44 members; 28 stayed throughout, and 35 came or went (League of Nations members) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Not to mention the United States, whose President spurred its creation and yet failed to join. :-) James F. (talk) 17:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Thinking about it again, a map showing permanent members in one colour, and temporary members in another, possibly with labels showing the periods of membership, wuold be a good idea. Anyone like to volunteer? The information is at League of Nations and League of Nations members. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Something along the lines of [3]? I'm not so sure how easy it would be to replicate this. If there were a template map file to edit... Am I dreaming? Smoddy (t) (e) (c) 21:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 17:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Object. Informative but in need of a copyedit and grounded language.
1. The language is unnecessarily wordy, such as The League, in attempting to act as a neutral party for all, driving diplomacy, made itself hugely indecisive. and This, to a great degree, took much of the League's potential clout away.
2. ~~The entries under "Other bodies" should be in complete sentences.~~
3. ~~Every entry of "Successes" needs to have a date for important events.~~
4. Swedish culture and traditions were preserved in "Åland Islands" might imply that the Finns were planning some sort of ethnic assimilation, rather than wanting the land for strategic purposes.
5. Lines like "The League worked to combat the international trade in opium and sexual slavery" are put under "Successes" but, as far as I know, successes are measured in results, not attempts. Quantify the results to remove the "Well, they meant well" subtext.
6. ~~The paragraph describing the departure of the fascist states needs to be separate sentences rather than joined with semicolons.~~
7. After reading the article, despite learning a lot about specific incidents, I still didn't have a clear view of the broad arc of the League's development and demise. Was there a lot of effective action in the beginning and then a slow collapse? Was it crippled from the beginning and every success thus a heroic achievement? Perhaps this overview could replace the current structure of the second and third lead paragraphs, which are currently in the A and B happened, and then C happened format, as opposed to a more interesting The League did A and B, but was unable to halt C because of D, leading to E.

- BanyanTree 18:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- Well, I've had another go, but another pair of eyes would be good, so please feel free to copyedit if you think it needs it.
  1. I've dealt with those ones: are there others?
  2. The "Other bodies" are now complete sentences.
  3. I've added dates.
  4. Deleted the reference to Swedish culture
  5. I don't agree - in many cases, attempting to do something is just as important as whether it works or not. Someone else will have to add quantified results.
  6. The departure of the fascist states is now in separate sentences.
  7. Broad arc: high hopes; initial successes; some initial failures and later major failures, all caused by structural weaknesses; replacement by the UN. Yes, it was crippled from the beginning by its structure - "General weaknesses" says so. You don't like the specifics in the lead? Would it be better as:

"The League lacked an armed force of its own and so depended on the Great Powers to enforce its resolutions, which they were often very reluctant to do. After a number of notable successes and some early failures, the League ultimately proved incapable of preventing aggression by the fascist powers in 1930s. The onset of the Second World War made it clear that the League had failed in its purpose – to avoid any future world war.

The United Nations effectively replaced the League after World War II and inherited a number of agencies and organisations founded by the League."

--ALoan (Talk) 16:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would probably write something closer to your suggestion above than what is currently the lead, but my issue with the lead is that there are so many details that it obscures the broad sweep of the story, which is the point of a lead. In a well written article (and this is one), I trust that if the writer gives me a brief overview at the beginning, s/he will later explain in the text body the items mentioned. In any case, this and my concerns about "success" are relatively minor. The article shows an in-depth knowledge of the subject, is well-written, and I learned a lot from it. I change to support. - — Banyan Tree 07:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments and copyedits - I have adopted this proposal for the lead. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Doidimais Brasil 00:09, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Michel Foucault[edit]

Self nomination. Myself and others have been refining this page for about a year, and I think it's ready - but am more than willing to alter it if it needs further refinement. --XmarkX 02:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

~~Object for now, but would love to see it make the cut.~~ Support.
1. The intro "positions" him ("often described as a postmodernist and a poststructuralist, though during the 1960s his work was often labelled as structuralist", etc.) but doesn't really summarize either the style or substance of his work or indicate what was original about it. Addressed.
2. ~~There is no mention of how his notion of "episteme" is either similar to or different from Thomas Kuhn's notion of "paradigm".~~ Withdrawn, I won't push it.
3. I, Pierre Riviere... should at least be mentioned. reluctantly withdrawn.
4. Would you agree that most of his works deserve articles of their own? I notice that they are not even redlinked. Lacking that, I would expect to see The Order of Things discussed at somewhat greater length. Done. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:16, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate these comments but broadly disagree:
1. ~~I really don't see how this can be done without simplifying hs career to be totally misleading. What we have done here is tried to preserve his enigmatic nature.~~ OK
  - I may continue to object, then. As it is, the intro would not give someone who is unfamiliar with his work any clue why they should care.
    Hey, I have conceded on this one too and added a blurb to the intro--XmarkX 07:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    
    I added one more sentence to that, pointing out his emphasis on synchronic over diachronic (although I'm avoiding those technical terms). With that, I think we're there. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:52, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    I understand what you're getting at here - I inadvertantly implied that Foucault's tells us how discourses change, rather than looking at the transformations themselves. I think what we have there now is a bit inelegant, so I'm going to tidy it a bit, but thanks.--XmarkX 19:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. The episteme/paradigm stuff has been written about, but is not of crucial importance.
  - This is for English-language readers, who are far more likely to be familiar with Kuhn's work than Foucault. Still, I won't push this issue.
3. I, Pierre Riviere is not important, as it was only edited by Foucault, not written by him.
  - But more accessible than much of his own work, and clearly an application of his thought, a good route in for people who are not already deeply embedded in reading contemporary French philosophy (which is to say, for the average Wikipedia reader). I don't think it deserves more than a mention in the article, but I do think it deserves that mention and, like the other works (next item) a link,even if a red-link for now. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:47, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
    Look, I still don't understand this: I, Pierre Riviere was a piece written by Pierre Riviere, and prepared for publication not by Foucault alone but by an entire seminar group. It is not representative of anything about Foucault - it is an histroical document that Foucault thought should be more widely available, that's all.--XmarkX 04:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    I don't seem to currently own a copy, so I can't check right now, but I recall that Riviere's text is about 10% of the book. There is lengthy discussion about the competing medical and legal discourses, the medical wishing to rule him mad and therefore under their jurisdiction, the legal sane and therefore under theirs; in particular, there is a classic application of Foucauldian thinking in how each literally ignores (or perhaps doesn't notice) inconvenient facts, such as the legal side trying to limit the definition of madness to very specific categories and the medical side ignoring those of his actions that show an understanding of consequences. (I read this about 20 years ago, so it is imaginable that I am not recalling correctly, but I'll be very surprised if that's the case. Does someone have a copy at hand?) -- Jmabel | Talk 08:00, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
    I don't have a copy either, but looking at the table of contents on Amazon, it seems that the memoir is about a sixth of the book, but most of the book is made up of historical documents (the 'dossier'), and the remainder made up of 7 articles, only one of which is by Foucault, and that article is only 12 pages long. Hah! :) --XmarkX 10:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    I still think it deserves a mention with a link, but will not make this an objection to featuring the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:37, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
4. This is a really good point - it think it would be good to excise the bried descriptions of individual works to their own entries. Can/should I do this now though?--XmarkX 00:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, you can certainly link them now, to acknowledge the need. --Jmabel | Talk 01:47, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
    Done --XmarkX 04:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support, looks good to me. Everyking 07:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support, based on my rather limited knowledge of Foucault, ~~though it would be nice if Jmabel's first point could be dealt with in a succinct and readily understandable way.~~ RadicalSubversiv E 02:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, have added a short blurb - see if you are satisfied.--XmarkX 04:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great. RadicalSubversiv E 04:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support, would love to see this as a feature. CriminalSaint
Support. Minor criticism, though, about the references: trying to give context about references is good, but claims like "this is the most detailed biography" do not have their place in any bibliography/reference section. Phils 11:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, is the problem with that that it's non-NPOV, or that comments about references shouldn't be included in that section?--XmarkX 13:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Point of fact is that there is no consensus on whether reference sections should be annotated or not. My feeling is that it is good if the comments are NPOV. That is just really hard to do since some references simply are of higher quality than others. To be really NPOV you would need to cite the comments to sources, then cite those, etc. Its turtles all the way down after that. - Taxman 22:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, the comment that Macey's biography is the most detailed is totally NPOV - it is three times as long as either of the others and just contains far more information.--XmarkX 04:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Object. Sweeping statements like "His writings have had an enormous impact across the humanities and social sciences..." need inline citations to reliable sources, else they are POV. Another example is "Terms coined or largely redefined by Foucault, as translated into English:". What evidence supports that his interpretation of those terms widely influenced anyones? No time at the moment to read the whole article, but work on that much is certainly needed. - Taxman 22:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- What kind of citation are you looking for? I can attest that, as a current PhD student in the humanities, Foucault's influence is clear. I can point to the volume of books on Foucault. But, ultimately... this seems to me to fall outside the realm of POV. To my knowledge, nobody makes a serious or credible claim that Foucault's impact is anything less than enormous. We don't need to represent that POV any more than we do flat earthers. Snowspinner 03:41, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  - Any reliable source that supports the POV that he was very influential in whatever areas he was. I've never heard of the guy, so what do I have to go on that he was influential? The article, and you saying he was. If he was so influential, then of course there would be a good source that speaks directly to that, so it shouldn't be a big deal to find one. No we don't need to represent the POV that he wasn't influent if it it truly minor, just support the POV that he was so influential. - Taxman 14:30, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I object this kind of attitude. I think the author should show, not tell when making statements about Foucault's importance, but the use of sources for such statements is questionable. Sources should be useful, and they shouldn't exist just for their own sake. Statements about influence can always be seen as being subjective: sourcing them won't lend them more credibility because influence is not a quantifiable concept. Wether Foucault was influential is not a subject of debate: what the author needs to do is to show why he was influential and what his influence was: he does this in the rest of the article. Phils 11:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - So you want to be able to state a POV and argue that point in the text? Thats called an essay, and is not acceptable under the NPOV policy. If whether he was influential is not a subject of debate, then surely you can find someone reputable that describes his influence and cite and/or quote that. If you will kindly read the FA criteria, you'll notice citing sources is clearly in there. So asking to cite a POV statement, one that is an important point to the article and is potentially contentious is not unreasonable. Why not just try improving the article instead of arguing? - Taxman 14:08, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
    - OK, I'm going to weigh in and just say I don't really understand your point. I never liked this list of 'enormously influential' fields - I would like it to be pared down to just philosophy, sociology and literary theory in the English-speaking world, which I think is sufficiently uncontentious - I have wanted to do this for a long time but there was formerly serious resistance from other editors. Don't know if it's ok to do it at this point.
      - Well I don't know what to say about paring down the influential fields because I don't know anything about him or his influence. So that is why I am asking for a source supporting his influence. If it is sufficiently uncontentious, then as stated above, it should be easy to find a reliable source that describes his influence. - Taxman 14:30, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
    - The second thing you cite as unreferenced is just a understanding on your part: there is no claim that these terms are 'influential', just that Foucault either was the first to use them, or used them in a substantially novel way, which is objectively true in all cases.--XmarkX 19:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - That may be me misunderstanding that but "Terms coined or largely redefined by Foucault" seems to imply that his use influenced the meaning of the words as others know them. If not, why would that section be there? At a minimum if his meaning and usage were not influential, that section should say so. - Taxman 14:30, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Support ~~although it would be nice to at least mention Foucault's_Pendulum_(book) by Umberto Eco since it was named because of Michel Foucault~~. ALKIVAR™ 02:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No it wasn't, it was named after Léon Foucault--XmarkX 06:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Your right... my bad. ALKIVAR™ 09:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Wow. This fell off my watchlist somehow. I was going to go back to it and see what kind of work it still needed. Apparently, not much. Snowspinner 03:41, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Biographical sections are particularly good; the discussion and summary of individual works could still use some fleshing-out (and what's there, though largely accurate, could use some editing for a more lucid and simpler prose style), but the whole thing indisputably meets the FA standard. Particularly impressive in comparison to Wikipedia's still slipshod coverage of most of the other major figures of continental philosophy. Maybe add a few more pictures as illustrations of Foucault's objects of study (e.g., a panoptical prison)? -- Rbellin|Talk 04:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support Without commentEggplantWizard 21:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Taxman[edit]

I don't have a written source, but Foucault's influence has been enormous. He is probably the most-invoked name in terms of the social construction of sexuality and sexual identity. His views on the episteme and archeology (vs. history) figured prominently in the philosophy curriculum I encountered in the early 1970s, while he was still alive. When you say you "don't know anything about him or his influence": can I guess that your philosophy background was mainly in the Anglo-American tradition, favoring analytic philosophy over speculative? Other than a quick mention in an intro course, most Anglo-American philosophy departments don't teach any Continental philosophers who worked after about 1920, not even Heidegger or Sartre. Foucault is not so influential as to have broken that barrier (although I can't imagine there is a Gender Studies or Queer Studies curriculum that omits him), but this is a case where just Googling his name should give a quick clue of the extent of his influence. That said, you might have a look at http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/ejournal/foucault.htm or http://www.foucault.qut.edu.au/. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I have done virtually no philosphy studies, so I am coming at this topic fresh. And from the perspective of someone that does not already know who he is, a statement of his enormous influence is dubious. You all already know it and that is fine, but it doesn't mean it is not good to cite that central fact about him for others that also don't already know about the guy and his work. But see below for a resolution that would be just fine. - Taxman 16:05, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

It strikes me that one way to demonstrate influence would be to document the large degree of inclusion of his works in academic curricula. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:47, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Google Scholar, which (in my opinion) is still very incomplete in coverage of the humanities, gives 1,865 citations for Discipline and Punish alone. -- Rbellin|Talk 07:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That would suffice quite happily for me. I guess I assumed one of the biographies of him would describe his influence and thus would be easy to cite as a source. If not, the citing of his work by others supports the influence just fine. - Taxman 16:01, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but Taxman, as was said to you in the beginning, ultimately these claims are as problematic when made in an academic work as in Wikipedia - the fact that I can refer to a book that says Foucault was influential, does not make it so - it only means that it is a POV that I can note. Basically, your argument reduces down to the position that any claim about influence is POV, which is not true - I don't even think you want to say that.--XmarkX 05:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that is exactly what I will say. It is a POV. It may be a correct one, but if it is, you can find a reliable source to support it. Thats simply providing backing support for a claim, which is very basic for well researched writing. Of course citing a source doesn't make it so (it either is or it isn't), but providing evidence to make it more believable that it is so is very important for such a central claim about a person. I can't believe asking someone to cite a source for something so central to an article is made out to be this big of a deal, when it is a basic part of the featured article criteria. I'm not being unreasonable here, this could have been taken care of very quickly. Also, what Jmabel has stated below is spot on, by the way. - Taxman 14:13, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

XmarkX, there is no rule against citing an authority's views. The NPOV rule is a rule against either stating the view in the narrative voice of the article or being unrepresentative in one's selections of presented third party POVs. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:04, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Support. Pleasure reading it. Concise and at the same time has breadth. And indeed, his influence has been enormous. No doubt.--Zappaz 03:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support after spellings errors are cleaned up. Run the text through a word processor to catch errors in grammar and spelling. Nichalp 19:47, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Support after further work has been done on the style and and additional general tidying up. BTW, I got tired of reading the debate over evidence (or not) of Foucault's influence, so decided to rewrite that section. I hope that the section now addresses these concerns. --Panopticon 20:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nafaanra language[edit]

This is easily the most comprehensive web resource on this fascinating language. Gone through Peer Review, all feedback incorporated (see its request). Self-nomination. Mark Dingemanse

Support, perfect, and extremely interesting. As I said already on peer review, I find especially the sample sentences wonderfully illuminating. The article was excellent and comprehensive even before Mark found the 1904 linguistic map: now it's sublime. (Modesty is good, Mark, but I've added your sig to the nomination.) Bishonen | Talk 23:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Everyking 01:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Fascinating. It would be even more fascinating if some ogg files can be made available to hear how this language sounds. --Zappaz 06:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
support, great! dab (ᛏ) 11:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support, though I have a question on the last sentence of the second paragraph: ...60% cognate relationship on the Swadesh list with Tenere (Senara), 59% with Central Senari,... There is no "Central Senari" listed on Senufo languages, so I wonder if this a reference to the umbrella group "Central Senufo"? Clarification would be appreciated. Otherwise a truly great article. (50=20x2+10?) - BanyanTree 16:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Good catch. I've tried to clarify it, please check it out. I think it's too long for the lead now, so I moved it down. (fúloe shiin na kɛ? Or lafɛɛ shiin na fúloe shiin?) — mark ✎ 17:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Excellent - BanyanTree 19:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Excellent work. I agree with Zappaz that sound recordings (as much as possible, as we now have Commons for this sort of thing) would be the icing on the cake, but without them it's still definitely worthy of featured status. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support — This is an excellent and well researched article that broadens the horizons of Wikipedia. Gareth Hughes 14:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Looks great, and yes I would have to say sample ogg sound files would be an amazing addition. - Taxman 16:45, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Nice map. - XED.talk 17:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Re: Zappaz, Trilobite & Taxman — I didn't walk into a Nafaanra speaker in the Netherlands yet, but if I'm ever going to be around there (and there is a chance), of course I will not omit recording some Nafaanra (and some Ligbi, Dompo, Gonja and Deg along with it, I suppose). — mark ✎ 17:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well we weren't necessarily saying you would go and do it, but maybe someone in the area could be contacted and make a recording, or maybe a native speaker of it is outside the area and can be contacted somehow. - Taxman 15:22, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

War of the Spanish Succession[edit]

Self nomination. -- Emsworth 22:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support Excellent. Phils 23:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. 172 04:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. The article seems brief for such a topic, yet appears to cover it comprehensively. Jeronimo 18:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Concur with Jeronimo. Edeans 01:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Good to see Emsworth back, producing articles of the usual high standard. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. I've just gone over it and added considerable detail, so one might want to look again. john k 23:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object. If this is supposed to be FA about a war, then it should use the relevant Template:Battlebox, like the one seen on Polish-Soviet War for example. I find the box summary and especially the list of battles very useful. I will support after this is added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This template was developed for use with battles, not wars, and it is inappropriate to use on articles about wars. I am unconvinced that it is appropriate for the Polish-Soviet War article, and even more unconvinced that it is appropriate here. I would support the creation of some kind of template specifically for wars, however. john k 15:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Something for the nascent Wikipedia:WikiProject Wars (as opposed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles)? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Space Race[edit]

This article had too much good material to die. It fell short of FAC some 6 weeks ago, and then was re-nominated by someone unaware, who hadn’t changed a thing. Since that abortive effort, it has been revamped greatly per reviewers’ requests. Innumerable redundancies have been removed, the time-sequencing has been improved, and the bizarre “Funding” section (which compared 60’s NASA to the current RSA) has been eliminated. The main objections were that a quarter of the article covered “recent developments”(which occurred well after the “race” ended) and that the spinoff ramifications of the race were glossed over. These too have been fixed, though I think mentioning the possibilities of future such “races” under “Legacy” is a reasonable inclusion. Sfahey 06:19, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

(I made this nomination for Sfahey because for technical reasons this was a bit complicated. Former noms can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space Race/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space Race/archive2 →Raul654 06:23, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC))

SupportObject, but weakly this time. The article is much better now. Logical flow, nice language, and good presentation of history and related technology. The impact on other areas of technology development is not as extensive as I'd like it to be, but it is ok. I will change my vote to abstain after the following minor technical problem is fixed: 'see also' part in the 'Advances in technology and education' section needs to be moved to 'See also' section or incorporated into the text. My last remaining concern is that there is still no 'economy' section - i.e. how much did it cost, especially in the perespective of breaking the Soviet struggling economy (together with the arms race). If this is adressed, I'll support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I hadn't initially included a "Funding" section because of the near-meaninglessness of the numbers, which both parties derive in a hugely politicized fashion. I just did some research though, and gave it a shot, with the help of some wiki. data from the "old" article. I also moved the "see also"s into one unified "related topics" section. Some of the topics "seem" to be covered in the article, but the "categories" links take the reader to different places. Someone else put these in, and I can't see deleting them out of hand.Sfahey 00:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Nice. I expanded that section and I support the article now. Good job, everyone! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support however, i am disappointed that the "animals in space" section gives short shrift to the important role that chimpanzees played in the space race. perhaps a mention of this is a worthy addition.
- thank you, unsigned wikipedian. On behalf of J.Fred Muggs, I have rectified this (simian) omission as well. Sfahey 00:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support I think you've suffered long enough Ryan Anderson 00:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support 172 03:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object. Although the article is much improved from before in terms of organization and flow, I think there is still a significant imbalance that needs to be addressed. The narrative currently presents the material mostly as if it were an uninterrupted string of successes, achievements, and milestones. For example, "Deaths" is simply tacked on when the main narrative has concluded, as if it were a mere afterthought. Since the article acknowledges the significance of the Space Race to public morale, it needs to recognize this effect in terms of the tragedies as well as the triumphs. --Michael Snow 18:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment. "Deaths" is hardly "tacked on" to the end of the article. If anything, it is made more important by being given a separate section, well within the article. In any event, this point of style is insufficient reason to vote "object" on a thoroughly researched, well-written 34 kb article containing a dozen pictures, copious statistics and references, and lovely tables which someone well before me put together. I request you reconsider your vote. Sfahey 23:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Object, but much better than before. The article still focuses on the science and misses the cultural impact. The legacy section is a start towards that, but unless I missed it the article hardly even mentions the way the Space Race captivated the American people, and I am assuming the Soviet people too. In the US it certainly very often captured headlines and a lot of mindshare. Also no mention about how many people not interested in space were entirely opposed to the money spent on it. Also, what about the common references well into the 80s to the space race as still being ongoing? I'm sure I heard it in the mainstream media in the 80's too, but so far haven't found anything. - Taxman 19:06, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This is an encyclopedia article on the Space Race, and as such I think it is clearly of featured article quality. Of course it "focuses on science", but also includes a substantial portion of historical and "legacy" material, especially since "Piotr's" additions which you may not have seen. Would you "object" to an otherwise excellent article on the Olympics, for example, because it didn't include specific mention of how many people enjoyed it, or who objected to its costs? The main previous problem with this article when I "adopted" it (instead of just taking potshots at it) was that it ran all over the place, and did not limit the "Space Race" to a specific era. I researched it, and I think very nicely incorporated, and bent over backwards to explain, the most accepted time-frame for this "race" (which of course never really existed). The notion of returning again to redefine the "race" to include someone else's notion of what other decades it might span is too much to expect. Perhaps I was right ... articles on "exploding whales" and "pepsi can stoves", which no one knows or cares enough about to criticize, should dominate the FAC's. I've reached my limit on this. I'm going to add a sentence about how many bazillion people watched men walk on the moon, ask that you too reconsider your vote, and then bow out. Sfahey 23:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please see "Sputnik and Amer. reaction", "First human on moon/Amer.strategy" and "First human on moon/Apollo gets there ist". Lots of public opinion material was already there. Sfahey 23:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes I read the article before my comment. And you are right it is unfortunate silly topics can become FA's more easily. But if you notice I didn't shy away in the least from voicing the weaknesses of those articles too. Lighten up man. If you're that stressed about the issue, get away from the computer for a while. What I have pointed out above is not just a side bit of trivia I am asking for. The space race truly capitvated a generation. After re-reading what you have pointed out, there is a bit more than I could see when scanning to look for stuff on this, so if it stresses you out so much you're going to quit over it its not worth it. My point about the end of the race is that the text doesn't provide any of the reasons for why that is the "accepted time-frame". It just says the "concept of a "race" became outdated" because there was one cooperative mission. If you have researched something that shows that is the accepted time frame, just mention it, that is all I am asking. - Taxman 00:56, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

The section on the "end" of the race goes into much more detail about how the "race" as such ended, including how the parties departed from once-shared goals and went in different directions after 1975. The requested material has nevertheless been added and referenced. I still think it unreasonable that, in an article of this scope, this point was seen as justifying a vote to "object". Sfahey 03:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wish instead of assuming I'm trying to be difficult or something, you would assume I'm just trying to be helpful in trying to reach a very high quality article. The article is much better than it was when I objected to the last nomination and I think it is better than it was when it was nominated this time. - Taxman 13:44, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for support.Sfahey 04:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support looking good now. ALKIVAR™ 02:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support comprehensive, colorful, fascinating. Sandover 05:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support, ready for take off. —RaD Man (talk) 22:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sikkim[edit]

I am nominating for the featuring of this article. It is well written, and very informative. --Mr Tan 11.05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support Excellent article! I once read about Sikkim before, the history is of this former country is fascinating... Squash 05:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support Interesting article. Pretty graphics, too. Thc420 05:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Great article. If anything is wrong here, it would be that there may just be too many images. Jeronimo 07:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Well done, User:Nichalp, who rewrote most of it in the last few weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Oops! Looks like I'm beaten to the nomination. Nichalp 18:51, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
~~Support~~. Maybe the layout would look more balanced if some images were floated to the left side. ~~Otherwise excellent~~. Phils 20:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I am currently re-reading and copy-editing the article and have decided to withdraw my support. My hasty support was inconsiderate: this article was not written by a native English speakers and needs some clarifying before I can support it. Phils 13:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Support the article as it stands now. Phils 22:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Good work, Phil. -- Sundar 06:16, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Only one objection: caption to the picture of the statue reads: "Statue of Guru Rinpoche, the patron saint of Sikkim in Namchi is the tallest statue of saint in the world". Is that supposed to be "tallest statue of a saint" or "tallest statue of the saint"? →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 20:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Done Nichalp
Support, ~~when the above point is fixed.~~ Wow that's a great article. Learn new stuff every day here. 1) Still could use inline citations, especially for any potentially contentious or important facts. I suppose there wouldn't be that many contentious ones for this type of article, but the more citations the better. 2) Don't you dare take any of those images out of the article. They are not in the way and are very well done. The elaichi picture could be better though to show what the plant and the useful part really looks like. - Taxman 22:19, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
~~Object~~ Comment. ~~Minor objections to an otherwise good article:~~
I have withdrawn my objection, because my points have been addressed sufficiently, but I think it still could use some improvement, so neither will I throw my support behind it. The history section still seems somewhat jumbled, and the prioritization of information in it seems a little odd. That said, it does a sufficient job of providing an overview that I no longer feel I can reasonably object to it. The fact that the references are limited to tourist ones is not good--not because the tourist references themselves are necessarily bad, but simply because it indicates a lack of serious research behind the subject (e.g., a trip to the library). I would like to see the article mature quite a bit more--which it will--yet I also recognize that if the bar for featured articles is set too high, we will have nothing for our main page.
1. Given that there is a page with a more comprehensive history of Sikkim, the one on the Sikkim page could be more consise and more generalized. We're looking for an overview of the history of Sikkim, and the present overview contains too much detailed information and the overall sense of the history is kind of lost. Something along the lines of "from 1203-1456, Sikkim was controlled by this family/group of people. In 1456, the capital was moved to someplace." What we have now is like short snippets of little stories that don't really belong on this larger picture (e.g., " Phunstok Namgyal, the illegitimate child of Gurmed, succeeded his father in 1733."). What we want is a timeline of who controled Sikkim and who lived in Sikkim, with a sprinkling of only the most important leaders (and why they are important should be immediately obvious, like "John Doe reunited East Sikkim and West Sikkim after 20 years of war," whereas what we have now are sort of incomplete and circuitous details. This section has improved, but is still in pretty poor shape.
2. The problems with the Culture section, which are minor, are the same as the problems that the Gangtok section had. ~~"Residents of Sikkim are music lovers," is not a good way to start off an encyclopedic sentence.~~ I see a lot of unnecessary redundancy here with the Gangtok article. If the Gangtok culture section is going to mostly information about Sikkim culture, then it should simply refer to the Sikkim culture section and add any cultural details that are specific to the Sikkim section (this latter comment, of course, is in reference to the Gangtok entry and doesn't really affect the Sikkim entry).
3. "Unlike other parts of India, which have switched over to the metric system of measurement, Sikkim continues to measure elevation in feet, though distances are in kilometres." <-- Does this belong in the "Infrastructure" section, and is it really relevant enough to belong to the article at all?

It doesn't belong and hence removed. -- Sundar 09:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

1. Given that the article is fairly young, I'd like to see it mature a bit more before becoming a featured article. If the above issues are addressed (along with any others that come up), however, I will withdraw my objection (part of the maturity of the article will probably come through being a featured article :)). Jun-Dai 00:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Think, it has matured a lot after nomination. -- Sundar 06:16, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Most of the content is done by Nichalp. Well, go ahead and question him more about the article. Mr Tan 9:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - History section is now shortened; it still looks lengthy because of the images. The non-metric measurements are peculiar to Sikkim only and therefore included. The article has been around for sometime — I guess you fold find it mature now, especially after a lot of copyediting. Nichalp 18:55, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
    It is more mature :), but everything outside of the history section is less than 6 months old, and it seems like the majority of the non-history content was written by a small number of individuals, which for an article about an entire state with a population of 500k+ people, is not a lot. Granted, the wikipedia itself is only a few years old as far as the bulk of its content is concerned, but I would like to see a day where any featured article has to meet much more rigid standards, including, among other things, the bulk of its content being over a certain age (the wiki philosophy requires time to function--the "accuracy" of an article is determined by (a) how long it has been there, (b) how many people have visited and contributed to it, and (c) how well-known or well-understood the article is by most of the people visiting/contributing to it). But this is clearly a larger discussion that I'm not ready to jump into (I'm still formulating my ideas). For now, the article is acceptable, but not the best that the wikipedia has to offer, and certainly not up to the standards of something like the Britannica (which we would ultimately like to measure up to and exceed).
    
    As for the metric comment, it may be unique to Sikkim, but how important is it? I'm sure that many things are unique to Sikkim, enough to cover the wikipedia, and many places have their own peculiarities regarding how they have, or have not, adopted international standards. Also, what does it have to do with the infrastructure? I left it, because I felt that others might disagree with me. I may be bold in modifying or adding, but I try to avoid being too bold in my deleting :)
    - Fixed. -- Sundar 09:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Last but not least, I'm not trying to be mean. I think the article is a good one, and I think that your (Nichalp) writing is good, even if some of it isn't appropriate for encyclopedic content. It's just that I'm pushing for a day when we can say that all of our featured articles are as good as any print encyclopedia--not just in broadness or depth of content, but also in our fact-checking, consistency, and standards of quality. In a few specific regards we are superior to any print encyclopedia (this is in part due to the medium in which we are working), but there's no reason that we can't be better than them in all regards, and that's what I want to work towards. I have learned from the article, I'm glad I read it, and I'm glad that the work has been done, but it simply would not make it past an editor's desk at any reputable publication in its current state. </soapbox> Jun-Dai 08:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, u must be a professional editor if this does not qualify as a print version. Do you have any articles in mind currently on wikipedia so that I can refer to in the future; the crème de la crème according to you? I have added a lot of inline reference links, so maybe u can authenticate my claims. Nichalp 20:03, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 21:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)> Crème de la crème, eh? Not especially. The article on Belgium I would have no hesitation supporting for FA-status (it has it already), though it is not perfect either, and would probably need a little bit of revision for publication. What you can take from that article, however, is its comprehensiveness, and the way that each section has its own almost narrative structure. It helps that each section is essentially a synopsis of another entire entry (e.g., Belgian culture).

The Sikkim article, in contrast, doesn't seem as thorough, and it is sort of awkwardly constructed--as though certain sentences were set down independently of one another without any sense of phrasing on a "paragraphic" level. The worst example of this is the history section, which I gave some comment about above. The Belgium history section, on the other hand, manages to tell the story of the history of this country without leaving out critical details (as far as I know) or large gaps in the history, and without ever focussing on isolated moments that aren't entirely relevant to the whole history of Belgium. More importantly, it almost tells the history as a simple story, which is much more appropriate to its format, rather than listing facts and events, which cn be found on the larger history article. Even though the Belgium history section is larger, it probably contains the same number or fewer dates.

Also, the Sikkim article contains too many pictures (this, and many other things, will probably be fixed once it enters FA-status), whereas the Belgium article contains almost none (a picture of it's current leader, or a satellite picture of the whole country wouldn't hurt, but a picture of a Belgian mountain shack would certainly be out of place). On the whole, the Sikkim article seems too much the product of too few minds with too little research, and not enough interest in creating enyclopedia material. What exists there now is some sort of encyclopedia-travel guide hybrid that is in need of a few revisions (especially with regard to the prioritization of information and the phrasing). An article probably halfway between the Sikkim and the Belgium articles in writing quality is the Isan article. There is in that article perhaps an even greater sense that an exotic culture is being summarized for a Western audience (notice how the culture section significantly outweighs the rest of the article), but it is a little more refined in its language and presentation of information. While the Isan article might be more suitable for publication, and is better written, I think the Sikkim article is in some ways a better read.

If this were a serious print encyclopedia, I imagine the Sikkim article would have been written by an expert on the subject--someone who has studied Sikkim, or something that encompasses Sikkim (e.g., Northern India), and they would have done their best to summarize their vast knowledge of the subject into a very small space, while making it an interesting read. I get a sense that something similar has happened with the Belgium article, but not with the Sikkim article, which seems much more like the best a couple people could come up with if they had a weekend of research and some personal experience there.

I hope you don't mind my being frank. You've certainly made more valuable contributions to the wikipedia than I have. Jun-Dai 21:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are huge differences between Sikkim and Belgium, the main difference being wikipedians who know about the place and can write from the "insider" angle. I tried to write my best on the state as I was there last December and as far as my knowledge goes, only one other wikipedian has been to the state (I hope there are more). I also agree that this may not exceed the standards that Belgium has set for the time being. Its anyway more informative that what it was though, and over time (??) it would match and exceed the print encyclopedias. I disagree with your point that there less pictures would be better; most of the pictures are relavent to the corresponding text (such as the bear, rhododendron, Guru Rinpoche) and as the adage goes speak a thousand words. Perhaps what you meant was better captioning? Another thing that hampered me was the lack of early history on the state. I did my best to add the salient points from the information I had on hand. Lastly I'm glad you are frank, the more critique an article gets, the more chances it has of being one of the best wikipedia has on offer. I don't take negative criticisms on the article personally; to me it means that the reviewer has spent a lot of time on the page and also feels that it is one of the best, once his objections raised are dealt with. Nichalp 21:11, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Object. This in an informative article with great photos, but it requires a copyedit. While "The state enjoys four seasons: Winter, summer, spring, autumn and the monsoon season." is the only error I saw, some of the language and grammar raised eyebrows. For example "His appointment is largely ceremonial, and oversees the swearing in of the Chief Minister.", "Among the fauna species include the snow leopard...", "Owing to the hilly terrain, and difficult transportation, the state lacks the large-scale industries.", the lack of commas before clauses starting with "which", "Noodle based victuals such as...are relished in these parts." etc. Also, the references appear to be tourist guides, which is not ideal. - BanyanTree 03:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The references may be tourist guides, but even tourist guides have information regarding the history and economy of a place. Since I've referenced matter from there, I can honestly say that the resources are in line with encylopedic information rather than tourist information. Nichalp 18:55, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  - Nichalp, I have removed your strikethrough of my text. The normal procedure is to state that the issues have been resolved, so the commentator knows to check the article again and modify their own comments. I will do a second reading soon and see for myself what changes have been made. - BanyanTree 19:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Now that is a remarkably better article. Some relatively minor issues that I noticed now that I was no longer distracted by the language:

There appears to be ambiguity about the etymology of the name. The statement, "Sikkim means crested land in Nepali.", is followed by a list of other possible origins. Either one is correct and other are folklore, or there is a real argument and the first sentence should be qualified. Either way it should be explicit. Also, the sentence about the Tibetan name seems to be in the wrong section, or at least should not be mixed in with the various theories about the origin of "Sikkim".
A brief Google search comes up with info that the tribes "Naong, Chang and the Mon" were absorbed by the later immigration of the Lepcha prior to the start of the monarchy. There must be some anthropological research of the people and societies prior to the start of the monarchy. This would not be an major issue if History of Sikkim had pre-historical information, but it looks like the two articles both start in 1642.
There is very little sense of the arc of historical trends or tendencies. About a fifth of the current section should be cut. Also, statements such as "On 13 August 1979, the Assembly was dissolved and the government was forced to resign a few days later." cry out for some explanation.
In "Flora and Fauna": In the sentence "Sikkim is situated in an ecological hotspot of the lower Himalayas, one of only three in India.", I don't know what "ecological hotspot" means and the link doesn't help. Also, the phrase, "perhaps the only region in the world to exhibit such a diversity within such a small area," needs to be referenced.

Rephrased. -- Sundar 05:03, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

As for using tourist guides as sources, sentences such as "Dwellings are aesthetically designed" (recently deleted) sounds exactly like a tourist guide was the reference work. It's not so much the validity of the data, as the tone that has to be filtered to be encyclopedic. The recent edits have corrected much of the tone I was concerned with and it's not by itself at an objectionable level any longer.

BanyanTree 02:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have changed my vote to abstain. The article is vastly improved and I like its breadth. However, I am still concerned about a lack of historical depth, which means that superficial questions like "Who lived in Sikkim before the monarchy began and what sort of people were they? and "Why was the government dissolved in 1979?" are unanswered either in the article or its sub pages. - BanyanTree 18:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- Good issues raised, I'll try and resolve them, though early history on Sikkim is still sketchy. Nichalp 19:49, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have addressed most of the above issues raised, about specific dates, the origin of names. I hope that it is now better. Nichalp 18:50, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

The etymology has been cleared up. However, the response to my concerns relating to the description of the 1979 dissolution of the government was to remove all the details and replace it with In 1979, after a period of instability,..., rather than add some background. If anything, I have been moved farther away from support, though continue to abstain. - BanyanTree 19:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Object. I'd agree with most of the above, especially the need for the copyedit. Someone also needs to decide if Gangtok is the "largest" or the "only" city in the state. Mark¹ 06:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Done Nichalp 18:55, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  - Not done- the lead conflicts with the text of the article. Mark¹ 04:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Hopefully, my edit did that. -- Sundar 05:07, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Substantial copy-editing done. Someone else should look into it, as I left some dubious formulations in the article because I wasn't sure what the original author meant. Phils 13:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Way too many pictures for my tastes, looks like a travel guide. Junes 16:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- A picture speaks a thousand words. How can it be said that it is a "looks" like a tavelogue?
Support Good article. Some constructive comments: The last paragraph under "History" slightly confused me - who was the Kazi? It would be useful to put in the article what the title "Kampara" means. It would be interesting to know how conclusive the referendum was - did 51% want to join India, or 75% or 90%? I was also surprised at the usage of the word "transportation" rather than "transport". I thought usually Indian English followed British English, but with a few different words, but am happy to be proven wrong, jguk 21:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Votes on the referendum added, transport corrected and the Kazi is the PM (added). Nichalp 19:36, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: How about putting the flag on top of the infobox like on the real country pages? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:03, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
- No, the flag is not flown anymore. Nichalp 19:36, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Support. Minor copyediting here and there is needed, but it's already being taken care of by many. -- Sundar 06:16, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Support But I don't understand the last sentences of the "History" section:

"In 2000, relations turned cold after the displuted 17th Karmapa, Urgyen Trinley Dorje, fled to the Rumtek Monastery near Gangtok. The Chinese government was in a quandary, as any protest to India would be an implicit recognition of the status of Sikkim as a state of India, which they only recognised in 2003.'

There had been no mention either of Tibet or China to this point, and now we're in the middle of Tib-Sik-Ind-Chi dispute. Perhaps other readers knew who the Karmapa was and why it upset the Chinese? Just a trifle though, in a fine piece of work. Sfahey 04:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Karmapa was chosen by the Chinese establishment as a way of showing authority superceding that of the Dalai Lama. When he defected (or did he just flee?) to the Monastery here, China couldn't lodge a protest with India or ask India for deportation without recognising the fact that Sikkim belongs to India. Eventually China did recognise this fact. See Sino-Indian relations for more details. If someone can add this clarification into the Sikkim article, it would be appreciated. -- Sundar 04:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've rephrased the ambiguous sentences. Someone please lookover and copyedit if necessary. -- Sundar 04:46, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with a passage of the Geology section of this article, which reads: "A large portion of the Sikkim territory is covered by the pre-Cambrian rock and is much younger in age than the hills." I am not a geology whiz, but I do know that pre-Cambrian outcroppings are considered the oldest rocks on earth; this would mean that the hills consist of rocks that are even older, perhaps the most ancient rocks on earth, & worth a mention. Because of this implication, I'd feel more comfortable with this article if someone could verify that (1) this is what the author intended to convery, & (2) that it can be verified. -- llywrch 00:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I referenced it from here: [4], which is an official Sikkim government site. I too have a poor knowledge in geology, but after reading the article on Cambrian rocks, I understand that there were five periods before the Cambrian era, which would suggest that the text on the rocks it is not really a big matter. Nichalp 21:11, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

PS Gilbert Hill in my city Bombay is even older than the pre-Cambrian age. Nichalp 21:36, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

I took a look at your authority, Nichalp, & the relevant passage on the government site is more confusing to me than what is in the article. Both of these passages have the same non sequitor that (1) the land is covered with pre-Cambrian rock, (2) which is younger than the hills. Are we to understand that the hills are outcroppings of older formations? Or that the Law of Superposition (see Geology for an explanation of this term) is not valid here, & that older rocks lie upon younger ones in this area -- which form the hills.

Sadly, Wikipedia lacks any geographical survey of this portion of the world, which would allow us to untangle this knot quickly. Hopefully some editor with geological training could help with this (or side with you by saying this issue is not significant). -- llywrch 00:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea on the rocks to conclude if this is a unique feature or not. I've put up a help message on Talk:geology, maybe someone else can make sense of its significance. Nichalp 18:12, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 22:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)> Congratulations, Nichalp! It looks like your hard work has been recognized. </Jun-Dai>

A. E. J. Collins[edit]

(title changed from AEJ Collins)

Collins at the age of thirteen, achieved the highest ever score in Cricket - and even over 100 years later his score stands unbeaten. This article tells us about the boy and how he achieved his score. The article includes pictures of Collins whilst at school and the game card for the match (1899). We learn about his army career and his early death at Ypres - and there is a link to the War Graves Commission site. The article informs readers of a relatively unknown sporting hero. <Self-nomination> Brookie 17:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support A good article all round. Also just the right length for an article on this subject, jguk 18:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Tenative suppport. Good effort, Brookie, in 6 days! Three minor caveats: (i) should it be A.E.J. Collins?; (ii) some details are missing from the scorecards (for example, Monteath took 3 wickets in Clark's House's 1st Innings, but his bowling figures are not listed at all; similarly, bowling figures for North Town's two innings are very sketchy - are they known? Does the "scorebook [that] hangs in the pavilion at Clifton" have the details?); (iii) it is a very new article: would it be worth leaving it on Peer review for another week to allow it to settle down? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Brookie reply: The article was originally marked as A.E.J.Collins - rather than by the initials - but it was amended by another user. The scorecards are the surviving ones as I understand it - and as the article admits - they weren't 100% accurate in the 1890's,but I have edited the table for Monteath's bowling - but have no data on his other figures! Brookie 20:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I originally moved the page from A.E.J Collins to AEJ Collins as there was some inconsistent dotting in the initials, and since he is only referred to by his initials it would be best to have it non-dotted. I wasn't aware of the exact policy on this; feel free to move if you think it is best. Regarding the scorebook in Clifton College's pavilion, I can find out about that (I'm a student there). Talrias 21:45, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Support Being a Cricket fan myself. Squash 05:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object. 1) None of the images has any source information, and their qualification as "fair use" is therefore dubious at best. 2) I'm not convinced the score cards of the games actually contribute to the article on the boy. 3) For web references, please add a date of retrieval (as suggested by Wikipedia:Cite your sources). I would also like to see some book/article references (or further reading if not possible). The article currently feels a bit like it was pasted together from mentioned websites. Also some quotes need to be attributed (e.g.: his approach described as "downright reckless" - by who?) 4) I realize not a lot can be said about this man (although almost nothing is said about his athletic achievements other than the 628), but current writing is a bit short at times. Especially the final section reads a bit like a fact list. 5) A copyedit would be good. For example, POV statements ("This amazing feat") and contextless statements ("even surpassing the Old Cliftonian match" - what is special about that?) should be rewritten. 6) A bit more information on cricket would make the article more readable for those who do not know the game. A complete explanation of the sport should be left to the cricket article, but explaining a few terms wouldn't hurt. Jeronimo 08:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Brookie reply:
  - Picture credits amended
  - ~~I don't understand the criticism of the score cards - Collins' sole claim to fame is this one match - there can be nothing more relevant than this score card.~~ Now moved to Wikisource.
  - Other Wikis have done a few edits on the page now.
  - Inevitably much of the material has been found and added to from from various web sites - as there simply isn't enough/any source material around to do otherwise; as using the net for reasearch is quite valid, I don't see this is anything to denegrate! Some school record information has come from his Clifton College school records, in the Clifton College Register.
  - ~~I will add web reference dates shortly.~~ Done
  - As far as I can find out there is no real record of his other sporting achievements to add.
  - ~~I am happy about his "amazing feat" - it was! The point about the OC match being played on the close next door was that spectators were drawn from it to see him.~~ Page altered.
  - I am not sure that much meaningful Cricket information can be added without being an irritating distraction. Most people reading this page will know enough about Cricket not to need it and anyone who doesn't is not likely to want to read it anyway! Brookie

- - - 1) Resolved 2) Resolved 3) I see some new stuff has been added, I still have the idea this article is missing information. I'm sure all the relevant information from the websites has been used, but what about written sources, such, say, Wisden? Let me know if I'm wrong. Quotes still not attributed. 4) Somewhat improved, but see 3). 5) Resolved. 6) I don't think adding context information is irritating, as long as it is done without going into too much details. People look up articles in an encyclopedia to learn things, and they will not learn anything if the article is aimed at people who already known all about the topic. BTW, if this article makes featured status, it could be displayed on the front page, and be read by many people who know little about cricket. Jeronimo 21:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - Brookie comment - I've added a small paragraph on Cricket as an inset to give a flavour of the game for non cricketers.--Brookie 07:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - Another Brookie Comment - please see the comments on the request for a description on this page's discussion page [Comments] - where the general feeling seems to be that this requests isn't really needed. Brookie\^talk
    - This is not at all what I meant, maybe I was unclear. A 101 on cricket is not needed (please remove indeed), just some explanation of cricket (or sports) terms here and there. For example, the usage of the term "cricket XI" is common in British English, but certainly not in the US. Just adding a brief explanation of this usage, or rewriting it to better understood text is what I was asking for. There are a few other of these examples. Jeronimo 22:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brookie here:have added a description of the team numbers - what were the other examples you refer to? Brookie 22:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support Talrias 16:32, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Object. The score card belongs on Wikisource since it is primary source material. It takes up half the page, looks boring and adds little. The interesting facts are already summarised in the text. I will switch my vote to support if this is changed. (However, a photo of the score card would be interesting.) GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Brookie reply - I have moved the scorecard to Wikisource as suggested and added a link to it. Brookie 08:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object - The article is tiny. In itself that does not automatically disqualify, but the sections before and after this one cricket match have very little information. Echo everything Jeronimo said. --mav 19:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Brookie comment: unfortunately as Collins was killed in his twenties, nearly 100 years ago there is no real information on him ,outside his match skills, to be added to the article.Brookie 07:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Can you obtain a copy of Derek Winterbottom's "A Season's Fame. How AEJ Collins of Clifton College in 1899 made cricket's highest individual score" (Bristol Branch of the Historical Association, Bristol, 1991) - it is only 24 octavo pages, apparently, but has 7 plates (listed for £10 here but only £1.50 from Amazon). There must be much more detail in there. It would also be helpful to check and add anything of relevance from the 1899 or 1900 edition of Wisden and Collins' obituary from the 1915 edition. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Brookie comment: I've ordered this from Amazon and will see what it has to say for itself! --Brookie 13:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - A Wisden reference has been added. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support - good article Tobymarshman 20:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support Nichalp 18:40, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Test matches in the 19th century (to 1883)[edit]

Self-nomination. I think this is a pretty good review of the history of Test cricket up to the first Ashes series and is now ready for featured article status, jguk 21:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support Being a cricket fan myself, but I must admit I find the title of the article too long. Squash 22:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object. The 1883 cutoff doesn't seem to make much sense. There's a couple of minor POV problems (i.e. "Certainly it was true that..."). More importantly, there seems to be problems with balance - for instance, three paragraphs on one match, and only a couple of sentences on others, with no apparent reason why. It could also do with a copyedit. Ambi 09:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) Wonderful. Kudos - brilliant rewrite, and this is now one brilliant article. Ambi 10:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I've given the article a complete workover. The lead section is reworked to give the 1883 cutoff sense, and the minor POV eliminated. I have also added more information on the matches that were little talked about before, so there are a few sentences on each one now. Of course, some games are more interesting than others, and there's more text on the more interesting ones. As far as its title, would History of Test cricket (to 1883) be better? Maybe chat on the article's talk page? jguk 14:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support A lot of hard has gone into this. Brookie 16:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. To borrow a set of arbitrary standards from jguk, there is way, way, way too much detail for users not interested in cricket. (After all, we're not dealing with over 1,000 years of history of the world's largest state.) 172 23:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) [Sorry if my choice of a heuristic demonstration annoyed anyone. Good article. I'd vote support if I knew more about the topic. 172 19:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

On principle, every subject can have a featured article, including this one. This oppose vote is in contrary to this principle and should be ignored. After all, how am I meant to fix it? (It also seems a tad vindictive, just because I, along with others, think the History of Russia article is too long at present and should be broken down into 2 to 3 articles), jguk 09:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Once you figure out that it is not to be broken up into 2-3 articles and that it already summarizes 13 individual articles, I will no longer feel the need to make a similarly ill-thought out statement as a demonstration of my point. 172 09:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please don't be petty, 172. One ill-considered objection does not need another in revenge. Ambi 10:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is not "revenge." The point is to applied flawed reasoning somewhere else in order to help Jguk understand that the reasoning is flawed. 172 10:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support Nichalp 18:42, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:26, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Support --Ngb 23:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support - and I'm not a fan of the game, but the article is of a very high standard. Well done. Rossrs 13:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support, nice work. Neutrality^talk 15:09, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Anne Frank[edit]

Self nomination. This has been on Peer Review for several weeks, and has been reworked in line with some of the comments made about it there, and also on the Talk:Anne Frank page. I think it's now ready for consideration. Rossrs 06:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. 119 07:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support This is a terrific piece of research and writing. One point: I'd like to see a brief explanation as to why the men in 1959 and later in 1980 were charged for saying the diary was a fake, because many readers may not know the background, and perhaps a link to an article about the 1980 trial. Also, the link to the article examining the authenticity issue (An article on the diary's authenticity by Theresien da Silva of the Anne Frank House) seems to be broken. SlimVirgin 08:07, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

thanks. I'll work on those points. Rossrs 08:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

have fixed the link. Took information from that article to expand on the point about the legal cases, and therefore moved the link from "external links" to "references". The article discusses various cases including the 1980 case, in reasonable detail, so by coincidence this addresses your suggestion for a link :-) Broke this section into two subsections.Rossrs 09:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support Very comprehensive, but I wished the part that is mentioned about her death is more distinguish from the main body of the text. Squash 11:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thanks. I don't think the death section needs to be highlighted, any more than the death sections of any other biography where the subject is dead. In fact it's given more mention I suppose than most people who just die a natural death. I don't know what else I could add. Rossrs 18:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support I came across that article a few days ago, and it struck me as being very good. I was convinced it was already featured. Phils 13:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support but I have a question. This article is categorized as "Dutch writers" but according to informations from Japanese article, Anne Frank became a Stateless person after leaving Germany. Also according to it, the judicial branch of Netherland ruled on October 4, 2004 that it could not give the nationality posthumously. So by her being born in Germany, shouldn't the article be also categorized as "German writers"? Revth 17:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd be uncomfortable classing her as a German writer, because she categorized herself as Dutch, rejected the notion that she was German, refused to speak German except when she had to, and was murdered by Germans who didn't think she was German. If anything she could also go into Jewish writers (there is no category of that name at the moment) but I think she should stayed Dutch writers. Rossrs 18:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. Revth 04:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. good coverage, but who are these "Aryan citizens" you mention? pamri 17:27, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

The source information I worked with uses the term "Aryan" frequently. I'm sure you realize the intention, as you haven't asked me who the Catholics or Protestants were, and they are also mentioned in the same sentence without me providing their names or addresses. I would like to leave the word Aryan stay as it is, and it's not because I mean it to be offensive. I understand it has racist connotations, and that is the whole point. I would hope anyone reading it who does not know what the word means would click on it to see it's meaning, and most importantly to see what the word meant during Anne Frank's lifetime. I think it's important to remember that she died, not just because she was Jewish but because she was not Aryan. The Nazi's yardstick, same reason the Roma and the Sinta were killed, they weren't Aryan. I think mentioning it early is ok too, just shows that the average Aryan didn't mind having Anne Frank in their neighborhood. Then again, you know if it really bothers you, you're at liberty to change it yourself, as is anybody. It's just that I think the word is more meaningful and specific than any alternative I can think of. Thanks for mentioning it and I'm glad you liked it apart from that. Rossrs 18:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Excellent article. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:04, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Support: user has done extensive revisions from feedback from peer review. Excellent article! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Superb. Ambi 09:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support, very well done. Dsmdgold 15:56, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Support - good article Brookie 16:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Nicely done. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 01:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delightful article, ~~but Oppose temporarily, fix the following:~~ see more specific objection below.
- Consistency in naming. "Anne" turns into "Frank" and back. Stick with one throughout, even the full name every time if you must, and refer to other members of the family accordingly.
+sj + 05:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

have fixed. the consistency I opted for was first name only when discussing her in her family setting, or on a "personal" level, and full name when referring to her formally. there are no examples of anyone being referred to as just "Frank" now. Rossrs 09:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Better now.

- - Odd... I first looked at the page a day earlier, and though I had saved a different version of comments (including the comment below); sorry to those whose comments got overwritten! +sj +
- Distinction b/t Anne Frank's biography and discussion of the book. Personally I would prefer to see a proper article at Diary of a Young Girl (currently a redir to Anne Frank), with sections just on the book and its analysis/critics moved out of the biography. But it would also be fine to have everything about the book in a separate top-level section (then analysis, questions of validation/verification, different editions... would all be subsections of that section). Right now #Legacy is sandwiched between two sections about the book. +sj + 09:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think we're viewing this article from completely different perspectives, so here is mine. In all the dozens upon dozens of websites I looked at researching this article, I was struck by the fact that the compete story is not told on one single page anywhere. (If it exists I couldn't find it). Everything seems hone in on one aspect, often in excessive detail, but to get the whole picture requires quite a bit of jumping about, and sifting through a lot of trivia. So the thing that pleases me most about this article is that it is very different to what else is available, because it covers all the (what I think are) relevant points in one place, and I think in enough detail to satisfy anyone wanting a good overview, without delving into details that cater more to obsessed fans, or triviaholics. To branch out into separate articles would undo this and create either 1. separate, small, non noteworthy articles, or 2. separate articles that eventually grow to include all the trivia and superfluous detail that I tried to weed out. Just so you know where I'm coming from, this is why I consciously avoided creating a page for the diary itself.

I can see "Legacy" was sandwiched. I've followed your second suggestion and rearranged the text somewhat to keep the discussion of the diary together, and have reworked the headings. The article now ends on a negative note - ie criticism of Anne Frank Fonds, but I couldn't see another way of doing it. Is this basically the format you were suggesting? Rossrs 13:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

more editing, disregard my comment about ending on a negative note. The previous edit was jarring but has been fixed. Rossrs 13:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that bit looks great now. +sj + 03:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Better, and much better text overall, but still ObjectSupport; better division. I can't think of a case in which a biography of the author should be the only article we have on a major book or work, and this isn't the exception to the rule.

You've done a fine job of creating a rounded picture; it reads well. But the redirect is confusing -- this is /not/ an article about the diary itself. Please create a separate page for the book that includes (or leaves room for) publishing details which would be inappropriate in a concise biography: languages into which it was published, popularity in various countries, various editions and publishers and dates of publication. There is a bit of unnecessary detail in the bio regarding the diary -- the bits about the '86 edition and about Suijk, for instance -- which have little or nothing to do with Frank or her story. Then you can link from the book to the bio for more complete context. +sj + 03:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did not see your comment at Talk:Anne Frank until now. OK, the way you've suggested it there makes good sense. Have made a very rushed start on a stub for the diary as a published work (The Diary of a Young Girl). It's not even close to being adequate and even as a stub it's rather poor, but it's a beginning, and is sure to grow into something worthwhile. I don't have time to do more that the basics with it at the moment but will continue to revisit it. thanks Rossrs 11:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

@ +sj: I too agree with the notion of creating a separate article about the Diary, but I have to respectfully disagree with your reasoning. The way I see it, the Anne Frank article is not merely a biography, but also a treatise of Anne Frank as a symbol, an icon, or a franchise, if you will. If it was just a biography, the article would end with her death in 1945, wouldn't it? But that would not tell the whole story of Anne Frank. The diary she wrote is the very reason that sets her apart from many of the other Holocaust victims, and which made her the potent symbol she is today. I therefore don't think that the person and the book need to be separated. Also, if the information about the diary should move to another article, would the same not also apply to the text about the Anne Frank Foundation, the Fonds and the work Otto Frank did after the war? Strictly speaking, all that isn't relevant to the life of Anne Frank either. Finally, "should not contain information that could be moved to an as-yet non-existing article" isn't really a featured article criterium. I think it would be helpful if you could suggest which things should be changed in this article, and treat the creation of the new one about the diary as a separate issue. Just my 0.02, of course. --Plek 12:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"the bits about the '86 edition and about Suijk, for instance" are bits that do not fit in this article. There are other small bits that have nothing to do with Anne Frank, as person, symbol, or icon, which perhaps had not been written at all since they did not belong in Anne Frank. I was not trying to conflate the two issues, only pointing out that the desire to combine all information about the Diary into this article, made it less brilliant and effective. +sj + 19:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Plek. Once again you have been able to succinctly put into words what I would like to say. My thought has been that an article about the diary could be written, and should be written, but not that it should be mandatory before this article could be considered as complete, and I appreciate that you have put forward that viewpoint. I would hope that The Diary of a Young Girl will gradually develop over time, but not at the expense of Anne Frank which should remain the primary source of information. Rossrs 12:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Jeronimo 21:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

temporarily oppose - although the existing text is brillant, there are some sins of omission:
- The recent controversy in the Netherlands about attempts for her posthumous naturalization should be mentioned (see for example nl:Anne_Frank#Nominatie_grootste_Nederlander).

I wonder if it is of ongoing value to mention this, or whether it is of transitory interest? Also to mention this, where should it go? It doesn't fit into any of the existing sections, and to create a new section for this point doesn't seem to me to be the best solution. If you can suggest a way of fitting this into the existing framework, or give me some idea about how you would like this included, I will be happy to oblige. Rossrs 10:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For those not in the know: There is nothing "official" about the Grootste Nederlander "election". It was a TV show, designed to draw ratings, not some kind of formal recognition by the government. The "winner" was decided by popular vote, so it isn't too surprising that populist, assassinated politician Pim Fortuyn won. Fortuyn is quite popular amongst part of the Dutch population, but whether that qualifies to name someone the "greatest" Dutchman of all time is anyone's guess, of course. The debate about Anne Frank's naturalisation was initiated by officials of the broadcaster that aired the program. In the end the naturalisation was deemed impossible because Dutch law only allows it for people that are alive. I think the episode tells us more about entertainment and bureacracy than that it adds anything significant about Anne Frank herself. --Plek 07:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- Although the section about the book is very well done, I would like to know a bit more about the differences between version A and version B, since that is a chance to learn how Anne Frank worked as a writer.

While I share your interest in the literary aspects of the diary, I don't really see how a few lines in this article could do that question justice. The Critical Edition, which examines the differences you're mentioning, is itself a work of 700+ pages. I'd like to propose to defer this subject, until an article is written about the diary itself (e.g. Diary of a Young Girl, as proposed above). This would allow for more space (not to mention the extensive research and fact-finding that would be required) to document the work. --Plek 06:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and echo Plek's request to reconsider this. I'd rather see a second good article about the diary and the writing, than see it addressed in too little detail in the biographical article. Rossrs 10:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- the achterhuis was stormed by the Grüne Polizei following a tip-off from an informer who was never identified - it should be mentioned that historian Carol Ann Lee (the author of the 2000 Anne Frank biography mentioned in the references) named a Dutch anti-semite called Tonny Ahlers as the informer and presented considerable evidence, see this Guardian article, for example. here it is said that the NIOD set up an inquiry in 2002 to investigate this and another theory, it would be good to describe its outcome (which I don't know).

Who betrayed Anne Frank? A study by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation is listed in the "External links" section. The Ahlers hypothesis (amongst others) is discussed in that report. Added: I've moved the report to the "References" section and added an in-line link in the text. --Plek 16:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I had overlooked that link indeed. It seems that the Ahlers theory has flaws and the NIOD is quite critical of it. Still, I think the article should mention the names of the three main suspects and briefly describe the current state of the debate (including NIOD's statement: The conclusion of our inquiry is that we do not consider any of the three suspects to be a likely candidate for the role of betrayer), since many people will come here to look for this kind of information. regards, High on a tree 16:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The people coming here to find this information will be able to follow the link. I don't see the point of listing people who have been ruled out. If the person is ever identified, then yes definately give that subject a couple of detailed paragraphs. Rossrs 12:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- Also, it would be nice to mention 5535 Annefrank.

regards, High on a tree 15:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is very interesting I agree, and I'm glad you pointed it out because I knew nothing about it. Using the criterion of "does it add to our knowledge and understanding of the subject?", my opinion is that it doesn't meet that criterion. I used the same criterion to eliminate several things from previous edits that personally interested me a great deal, and I also found various things while researching that I wanted to add, but knew I couldn't for the same reason. Rossrs 10:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps something like a disambig at the top for the asteroid see 55.... Anyway, I would like to see mention of the asteroid. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:32, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Maybe a quick few links in the "see also" section? Support, by the way. JuntungWu 06:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, well I still think it should not be there and I've explained my reasoning, but 3 people think it should be added, so I'm clearly outvoted. Have added it to the "Related topics" section. Rossrs 12:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support Nichalp 18:44, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Get Back[edit]

This has obtained approval from peer review; it was nominated before but failed because of insufficient support votes (there were no objections, to the best of my memory). Self-nom. Johnleemk | Talk 08:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Object. Could we get a table(s) of some kind to illustrate how this album did on the charts? There's some mention in the text, but it doesn't seem adequate for such a successful song. Everyking 08:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Ambi 09:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, you can disregard my objection all you like, but it still stands. I don't see how this can be considered comprehensive without better chart data. Everyking 13:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Comprehensive does not mean trivia. See Wikipedia:Informative. Johnleemk | Talk 14:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - ...That's not trivia. It's more important than some of the stuff that's already in the article. Everyking 20:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think this is possible, as the records have not been kept. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Huh? There are Billboard charts and all going way back, I thought. Everyking 13:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - It's possible I'm wrong. Could you point us to the data? - Ta bu shi da yu 20:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The method I use in the article is the same as the one I recommended for Autobiography, an option which has garnered signifcant support, I should add. Johnleemk | Talk 09:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - That's fine, because detailed charting tables carry close to zero valuable information. There are simply too many variables unaccounted for in the charts, as explained in Billboard 200 -- and those limitations apply to all such popular music charts. They do indicate that a song was popular, but they really do poorly at indicating how popular. The fascination with chart details reminds me of the "Kitty Porn" story that was at thecorporation.com years ago. "In a recent study conducted by Richard Little it is estimated that there are over a million billion pictures of cats on the Internet. That number is expected to rise by some 30000000% over the next year. Projections for the year 2,010 show that there will be more cat pictures on the internet than molecules of oxygen in the atmosphere. Of course some critics have questioned Richard's study pointing to the fact that Richard is only ten and a half and call the study "dangerous, unfounded fiction" Supporters claim it's not dangerous at all. Both sides agree however that it would be impossible to come up with accurate numbers... so we'll use these.'' (And actually, singles charts are even worse, because they factor in airplay, which isn't really a measure of popularity at all.) iMeowbot~Mw 10:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, I think it needs improvement. Everyking 13:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - It appears however that almost no one agrees with you. I for one do not agree that your hyper detailed chart data is anything but fancruft. We are talking about a song here, its not like its a crucial medical fact or something. - Taxman 21:45, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
      - You get your vote, and I get mine. It's not a bad article. I just don't think it's quite comprehensive yet. Everyking 21:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        Well, if everyone disagrees with you then I would suggest that the objection is not actionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        It seems easily actionable to me; surely anyone who knows that much about the song can put together a little chart illustrating its popularity. Everyking 01:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        It is actionable, as one would simply do it, an action. But since consensus is that it does not need to be done, the objection can be more or less ignored. Consensus, just like on every other decision on wikipedia is the rule here, not actionability. - Taxman 22:45, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Support - excellent! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Ambi 09:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support, good article! iMeowbot~Mw 09:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support, excellent article. I think it's a really good thing that it's very consistent in style and content with other Featured Article songs, so that instead of having an unrelated bunch of great articles, it's heading towards creating a "set". Rossrs 12:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support jguk 15:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Could use better inline citations though. See comments in one of the above nominations for more on that. I see one inline citation to a Playboy interview, but that is not listed in the references section. Maybe it would be better though in a notes section or similar if it is not indeed a good reference for the whole article or if the actual article was not available to you or another editor. - Taxman 21:45, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Object briefly. The writing isn't there yet. Needs a bit more copyediting - the last two paragraphs of the first section, and the first para of the second section, for instance. +sj +
- How is it now? Johnleemk | Talk 10:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Great, thank you. +sj + 05:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support, as promised. Fredrik | talk 18:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. JuntungWu 06:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lord's Resistance Army[edit]

A well-written and very comprehensive article. Articles like this make me proud of Wikipedia. — mark ✎ 11:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support - excellent article. Has been on peer review, all feedback incorporated. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object. Great article but needs a minor copyedit - At the beginning of 1988, a prominent ex-soldier, Otunu Lukonyomoi, joined LRA, where he was gained popularity for his high moral standards for the conduct of LRA rebels, especially in their treatment of civilians.', Tactics since consist primarily of surprise attacks..., Just as important as the change in the material circumstances of the LRA, was the change in how the LRA perceived the conflict., Also, following the classifying of the LRA as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, it agreed to stop supplying aid to the LRA., the start of "Attempts at peace and militia creation (Early 2003)", etc. The "Prominent Incidents" section also needs a cleanup and a bit of wikilinking. Apart from this, kudos. Wonderful. Support. Ambi 11:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I've reworded or split the sentences mentioned, as well as others that were run-on or had an excessive number of clauses. "Prominent incidents" is now complete sentences and better wikified. - BanyanTree 05:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Object. I like the scope and level of detail of the article, but it needs some major work in the copyedit and reference department.

At the moment, there are no in-line references nor pointers to the sources listed in the "References" section. This makes checking the facts all but impossible except for people who have read all the reference works and know which part of the article is sourced from what. List the page numbers from which information is lifted and use in-line links to external web sites. See: Wikipedia:Cite sources.
- Initial pass done. Let me know if there should be more. - BanyanTree 18:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Another thing: I think the sometimes quite lyrical prose needs to be toned down a bit. Examples: talks with the government died stillborn, bow-and-arrow groups were hopelessly overpowered, this ultimatum irrevocably scuttled the talks, etcetera.
- Reworded the sentences mentioned. - BanyanTree 02:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Many occurrences of: "...is believed to...", "...seems to...", "...appeared to...". Believed by whom? Appeared to whom? Try to be specific (and again: cite sources).~~
- Most of these are sourced now. An overview:
  - 1 occurence of "...seems to...", unsourced ('The violence seems to have been motivated...')
  - 2 occurences of "...is believed to...", 1 sourced, 1 unsourced ('Khartoum is believed to have substantially curtailed aid...')
  - 4 occurences of "...appeared to...", 3 sourced, 1 unsourced ('...what appears to be a significant movement towards a negotiated peace...') — mark ✎ 00:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~The use of "currently" in the article's intro: maybe use the more timeless As of 2005 instead?~~
- Done. - BanyanTree 18:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Use en-dashes instead of hyphens for date ranges.~~
- This is done now. — mark ✎ 14:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good luck, and thanks for the very interesting article! --Plek 12:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Much improved. Changing vote to support. --Plek 20:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

~~Damn. I thought~~ YAY! this great, and grown heaps since I first saw it, but Plek makes some good points.--ZayZayEM 12:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support - most objections above seem to be addressed. Minor formatting issue - do all pictures have to be on the right? --ZayZayEM 04:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Good lead-in and context to long-running wars in Central Africa. Wizzy 19:21, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
~~Object, I'm afraid. This looks very good, but it definitely needs one or more photos (Kony seems like a logical subject). Jeronimo 22:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)~~
- Two photos from IDP camps and photos of the two relevant presidents added. There are only about five known photos of Kony, none of which appear to be useable. - BanyanTree 02:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - This one is from Church Mission Society, I guess you make a chance if you just ask them about the copyright. Or maybe it would qualify as fair use? — mark ✎ 09:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Great, support. If you do get hold of an image of Kony, please add it. Jeronimo 11:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Once upon a time (about a year ago, actually, when the main page redesign was still brand new), I was the fourth person to edit this article - I added a current events item in order to get the article on the main page's In the news section and bring a little more diversity there. Looking at the article now, I am amazed at how far it has come, and very much look forward to seeing it show up on the main page again, this time as a featured article. Support, support, SUPPORT! --Michael Snow 19:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Thorough, encyclopedic and possibly the best article on the LRA on the web. TreveX 18:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Octopus card[edit]

A bit of a self-nomination (I've done some work on it, and my name is actually on that article as I took a picture of my own Octopus card), and my first nomination to boot. A lot of the information is spun off from the MTR article. Overall, it's been on PR for nearly two weeks with very limited comments. --JuntungWu 15:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. A fascinating article. Denni ☯ 19:25, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
Support. Very interesting Brookie 19:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Informative Instan tnood 20:27, Feb 6 2005 (UTC)
Support. Object. Almost everything looks in order so I anticipate supporting soon. However the pictures could use some improvement. No offense, and I need to be careful since I certainly could not take better pictures myself, but they look a bit amateurish. I think they could be fixed perfectly by using an image processor such as the free [www.gimp.org Gimp] or photoshop, but I don't know. All they need is a bit of cleanup, like smoother blocking out of the name in the upper left corner of the first image, but mostly they just need to be fit to gridlines better, as they are almost all a bit askew. The perspective of some of them is odd enough that they are distracting. If any of this is unreasonable enough that it can't feasably be fixed, then ignore and consider this a support vote. I hope that wasn't too harsh, because this really is great work overall. - Taxman 21:35, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I'll get a new card scan later today or tomorrow. JuntungWu 01:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment - Are the photos highly compressed? It seems like they appear very grainy to me. Don't worry about the photo size, (Wikipedia:Image_use_policy), Wikipedia accepts photo sizes for up to 2MB and can produce optimised thumbnails by itself. Go ahead and upload the high-quality versions. ;) Once this is fixed, or nothing can be done, it's support from me. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Done. The pictures are now clear scans of an old card that I had lying around. JuntungWu 03:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - Yes, the pictures of the cards are much better, but those of the machines are still off center, odd angled, and oddly rotated. The vertical faces of the machines should be straight up and down in the picture, the other straight lines should line up with the sides of the pictures. As I mentioned I think that could be largely fixed by properly rotating in the Gimp or taking new pictures. - Taxman 06:00, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
      - I took those pictures and I am a really bad photographer, so I don't know if I can take better pictures. I'll see what I can do. JuntungWu 06:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        Okay, the latest picture that I've uploaded on Photoshop has been sharpened. Can you take a look and see if it looks good? Thanks. JuntungWu 05:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        Looks much better now! =D You have my support now. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        
        I assume you're refering to the McDonald's reader, and yes that one is a good one. What I am hoping is that you can rotate and crop the MTR reader and the value add machine to line them up a bit more squarely. But I'll switch to support as that seems quite minor now. - Taxman 15:11, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Support, very good! My old faltmate told me about those cards as his family lives in HK and he went there, so I checked out the article and was suprised to find such detailed information! Very good work, well researched, well-written. I didn't know that so much could be written about a train-card! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object. 1) some sections look a bit messy. For example, the history section jumps from fact to fact, and the "Getting and using an Octopus card" has several one and two-sentence subsections. 2) The comparison section is a good idea, but doesn't actually compare with other systems. 3) Are there any references on paper? Jeronimo 22:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC).
- I mostly used publicity brochures from Octopus and from Sony, so the references point to the online version of the same. I actually have printed copies. I'll tighten up the history part a bit - it does look a bit jumpy. JuntungWu 01:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Okay, I've rewritten the history section, and the "Getting and using an Octopus card" one and two-sentence subsections have been merged. I've also merged the "operations" and "technology" into a "back-end" section, with two sections, focusing on the card technolgoy itself and on clearing and settlement. This should work. JuntungWu 16:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This is better already; the history section is much better now, although it would be nice if not every paragraph started with a year or date. Issue 2) is still open. 11:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Okay, I've completely rewritten that section, and now have three sections, one on adaptation of the Octopus card (inside HK), one on a comparison with Mondex, a third citing similarities with other cards, noting similarities with Taipei and Shenzhen's systems. This should work. As for the references part I cite several newspaper references and the brochures from HKMA and from MTR. There's some academic studies as well as two presentations from the World Bank, which I think is fairly adequate. I know there's no books but this is a fairly recent topic. JuntungWu 16:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. A very interesting article. -- Chris j wood 20:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I've done another cleanup and actually translated a couple of lines from the Japanese Wikipedia concerning the FeliCa chip. (Despite the fact that this is a Hong Kong-based system, the English and Japanese wikipedias have very long articles on this card, whereas the Chinese wikipedia actually only has a stub!) JuntungWu 17:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. One comment: Is there any fraud or card forgery? I couldn't find anything about that on the web, but I would be curious if there is any, and even more curious if there is none. -- Chris 73 Talk 05:06, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I shoved that part to the main article on the Sony FeliCa chip. Sony says it's pretty darn secure and public key infrastructure is also fairly secure. JuntungWu 05:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support--ZayZayEM 06:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Book of Kells[edit]

Self nomination. This was a FAC last year. That conversation is here. The article has largely been rewritten since then. It has been on Peer Review for the last two weeks. That discusion is here. Dsmdgold 23:11, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Support. Excellent work. ~~However, the images of the pages show a variety of colour casts, which is irritating and distracting. It would be good if this problem was fixed.~~ Oh, and some of them are GIFs. Ugh. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank, you. The variety of color casts is a result of, I think, of the variety age of the original photos from which the files were made. I am a bit graphically challenged, but even if I had the skills, I would be loth to muck with the colors too much, as whatever I did would be no more likely to reproduce the actual colors of the book, than what exists. I will try to replace the GIFs. Dsmdgold 00:59, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

File:KellsDecoratedInitialFixed.jpg

After Levels→Auto.

OK, how's this? Do you prefer the original version or the "fixed" version? It's a one-step process in Adobe Photoshop, so I can easily do the rest if you like... GeorgeStepanek\^talk 07:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That looks nicer, but which one is closer to the true color as one would see it if you were looking at it? - Taxman 13:27, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Which is my concern also. Since I don't have access to the original, or the facsimile (any one want to "loan" me $18,000?), I simply don't know. I would think that in the original the background color and texture would vary considerably from folio to folio (or even from one side of the same folio to the other). However if it bugs enough people, I would not object to the color being adjusted so that the pictures are consistent, because when you get right down to it they are all probably wrong. Dsmdgold 18:17, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I own a small book (ISBN 1858910048) that reproduces many of these photos, and it shows the same range of colour casts. So maybe they're real, and actually present in the original pages. Let's not muck around with them. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support, nice article, well illustrated and written. Filiocht 10:43, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Support, though it certainly needs inline citations for important or possibly contentious points. - Taxman 13:27, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Support, although I do think that adjusting the color balance on the images is a good idea. --L33tminion | (talk) 17:36, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Support, fantastic article - very extensive and well referenced. CGorman 21:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. My previous objections are resolved nicely, and the article has improved since. Jeronimo 21:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support, although I agree with the comments of Taxman. The 'Decoration' section could be broken up more. --bainer 22:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I have subdivided the decoration in an experimental way. I personally don't like the subdivision, so I have not altered the article. My experimental dubdivision is here. Is this better for you? Dsmdgold 00:02, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Support hesitantly. It's generally very well-written, and beautifully illustrated (disclaimer: I submitted the image of John the Evangelist). But much of the discussion in the "Description" section is extremely hard to follow. The opening paragraph, especially, demands a level of familiarity with folios, quires, bifolia, etc., that I do not possess (and I'm both a decently trained amateur historian and a person with a fair interest in manuscripts and early books). When we seek to feature technical topics, we often demand that a certain amount of explanation be added, and while I think the added explanations can be mildly irritating to an expert who wants to get to the meat of things, I think it really helps WP's readability and user-friendliness. So while I certainly support the excellent article, I'd like to see some careful simplification of the Description section -- not necessarily cutting any of the valuable information there, but taking more time to explain what exactly many of the technical terms tell us about the physical composition of the book. Jwrosenzweig 23:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I have added a parenthetical statement that defines the terms. It is ugly, and mucks with the flow of the paragraph. However, you are correct, we don't readers to get lost in technical language. Does this help, or does the paragraph need a complete rewrite? Dsmdgold 00:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, it was helpful if awkward, ~~but GeorgeStepanek came along and "fixed" it by simply removing it....I guess we should take that as a sign that it mucked with the flow too much.~~ I think a rewrite that gently introduces some of the terms is probably best. In some cases it may be enough to link terms to articles that describe them (although this is not always enough). ~~Since George obviously feels strongly about the issue, perhaps he has some ideas about how to clarify without damaging paragraph flow?~~ Jwrosenzweig 15:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Hey, hold on, if you look at my change carefully you'll see that I have not removed any of the text. I have simply rearranged the sentences into two paragraphs rather than one. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 21:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - Yikes I misread that diff! My sincere apologies, George -- I don't know exactly what happened, but you're entirely right. I think I would still support a more gentle inclusion of the information, but certainly it's offering useful information right now, and the division into 2 paragraphs was probably wise. My apologies once again, Jwrosenzweig 22:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. - BanyanTree 05:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support - The standard that all historic articles should reach. Djegan 21:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support - Outstanding. Two minor comments: (1)The opening page (folio 28r) of Matthew may stand as an example. (See illustration at right.) misses the illustration on the right, I think. (2) "under a sod": I am curious: What's a sod? Could this be linked to somewhere? Otherwise great work! -- Chris 73 Talk 04:44, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you kind words. As for your comments: 1) No I mean the other right. The text has been fixed to read "see ilustration at left". A sod is, well a sod. A link has been provided. Dsmdgold 20:29, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
One weak object - this is easily fixable; the introduction is a bit too short for an article of this length (only one paragraph); I would like to see a mention of the actual contents of the book inside the intro itself (i.e., copy a few lines from the "contents" section). The catalogue number at the end of the intro paragraph also seems a bit irrelevant. Otherwise great article and would support wholeheartedly. JuntungWu 05:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Windows XP[edit]

This was listed once before. There are now many more images and some of the lists have been coalesced into prose. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. My main issues with it seem to have been addressed -Exigentsky
Support There is nothing wrong with it, it is nice, comprehensive and screenshots. Squash 05:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Certainly better than the last time I looked at it, but it has a completely inadequate lead section for an article its size and sections that are almost completely composed of a list, such as ==New and updated features== bug me (some more prose would be nice). Theses issues should not be hard to fix. --mav 05:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm unsure how to resolve the new and updated features section. I would have thought that this would have been the best place for a list! Some suggestions on how to resolve this would be very much appreciated! The lead section I will attempt to resolve... - Ta bu shi da yu 06:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm always surprised how nominators of technology articles seem to find it hard expounding on the features of software. As I did a lot of research on Windows XP (in order to convince my father I didn't want XP just to keep up with the Joneses), I've expanded the feature section as best as I can. A bit more work is needed, but I'm quite pleased with what we've got now, especially in the kernel section; for something quite crucial, that part was quite lacking until I expanded it based on my research one-and-a-half years ago. Johnleemk | Talk 10:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Wow! Fantastic work John! I think you just single handedly fixed up the issue that I could work out how to resolve, and with style! The tricky part was when I started working on this it was a anti-MS POV screed... now it is something much more usable and friendly to read :-) Also, that lead section looks extremely good, and you beat me to it for fixing it up! Well done! Ta bu shi da yu 12:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - The new subsections in the features section are certainly an improvement on the list, but now the TOC is overwhelming and most of those subsections are stubs. Giving a more logical organization for the subsections and greatly reducing their number would be great. Those new subsections could be ===Underlying OS===, ===User experience===, and ===Interoperability=== (or something to that effect). Getting close. :) --mav 00:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - How is it now? Johnleemk | Talk 07:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        It is great. Support. --mav 06:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Looks like the needed issues have been addressed. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:33, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Support. It looks really good! --Neigel von Teighen 22:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support - good article Brookie 16:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support - Good article PPGMD 15:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object. The article seems somewhat POV, slightly tilted in the sympathetic direction. That may be just me. But what is apparent is that over half of the references are from MS themselves and the rest, not too many appear to be critical, lets say its 50/50 for those. That leaves the references heavily tilted overall in MS's favor. I have a hard time believing if the references are POV tilted, that the article is not somewhat too. For ex in the criticisms section nothing is said about the estimated total costs of security/adware/virus problems and the allegation that MS has not just a bad security record, but their design choices actively caused the poor record, and could have been expected to have that result. As I understand it that is a well supported POV that should be mentioned. - Taxman 23:20, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Taxman, this is just not the case. There is a whole section devoted to "Common criticisms of Windows XP". It deals with spyware, product activation, security issues and the integration of features into the O/S as anti-competitive. These have all been battled out over a lengthy period of time and we finally have a neutral article. The rest of the article deals with matters of fact, or else the opinions of others have always been referenced (no more weasel words!). The reason there are so many Microsoft references is because the primary source of information about Microsoft's product is, well, Microsoft. Most of those Microsoft references are support knowledgebase or MSDN articles. If you look at the context of the references, you will see that it is not slanted too much to the advantage of Microsoft. I'm confused about why you think that the article is POV. Now I would like to challenge you to provide a source for the total costs of security/adware/virus problems. Also, the allegations you speak of: who said that?! Unless you can provide the sources to us, I really think that these are not actionable! I mean, you vaguely say that there are design decisions that are fundamentally flawed, but no mention of what they are! Which design decisions are you speaking about? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Try not to be so defensive, I'm just calling them like I see it. I see the common criticisms section, It just seems a bit whitewashed and as I said the references are tilted heavily in MS's favor. Are there any of those references that are overtly negative about XP and are from reliable sources? If so, it is few compared to the positive ones. As to the cost of spy/adware and viruses, that is often quoted and various studies are done on it from time to time. Perhaps the famous monoculture paper would cover that. I'm not saying it would be easy to find a reliable one, but who said it was easy to write a FA? I thought the design decisions resulting in the poor security record was common knowledge. Off the top of my head I can think of several: The tight integration of IE into the OS is responsible for much of the malware and exploits. Anyone could have seen that coming. The fact that running basically as admin all the time is practically encouraged, and it is very difficult to get anything done on the OS not as admin. That results in lots of issues and makes security exploits easier. The decisions in Outlook to make software in messages easy to run without consent, etc. I could be slightly off base on some of that, but I am no MS specialist and I can pull that off the top of my head; there is certainly more along that vein out there. - Taxman 00:32, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
    - I don't think I'm being too defensive here. I'd like to know why we should be adding the monoculture paper into the article about Windows XP! Surely this isn't the appropriate article? That should be going into Microsoft Windows or even into Microsoft. This article is purely about the operating system, not a soapbox for criticism of Microsoft's dominance or the monoculture argument (btw, I agree with that argument). We already have plenty on the spyware issue, however you keep saying that there are various papers on that issue. Name one. The admin account is a good point however, will add some info on this. Which I have now done (will fixup the references section). Now why are we talking about Outlook? That's not Windows XP, that would be Microsoft Outlook (mind you, they've patched the altest releases so you can't run executables directly...). The tight integration of IE to the operating system is not specific to Windows XP, so it should be discussed in the umbrella article, Microsoft Windows. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Oh, incidently, if you cared to look at the non-technical references, you will see that there are quite a few critical references to Windows XP. I can read 14 references that have criticisms or highlight real problems to Windows. The Microsoft references are sources for our information about the operating system: a fair thing I think as Microsoft makes the product. In fact, there are more critical references than their are positive reviews of Windows XP in there! I can read five positive references in the current list. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

History of Russia[edit]

An important article for the main page. Self-nom. 172 08:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Wow. It ought to take about a week for more knowledgeable editors to read this in several senses majestic article (66 kb!) properly and prepare a vote or a comment on it, so I thought I might as well chatter ignorantly about superficial aspects while we wait. I mean to ask for information, not object. The article is a hub, with each section summarizing a subarticle—"Main article"—to which the reader is referred for fuller information. Some of those summaries seem very long for such a system, in fact the "Imperial Russia" and "Soviet Union" summaries are longer than the subarticles they refer to! (This proportion is not necessarily unreasonable as such, since the subarticles are themselves hubs, inviting the reader to click on through to subsubarticles of History of Russia.) IR is 7 screens on my system, and 20 kb long (remember it's a summary). SU is 8 screens and 24 kb. Is this necessary? When I started writing a pretty long and elaborate subarticle to William Shakespeare, which is also of course a hub (a trim 28 kb), I was asked kindly but firmly to put a one-paragraph summary of it into the parent article. Perhaps that wouldn't do at all for the History of Russia. But 66 kb...? I'm far from being a 32-kb limit fanatic, but are we seeing two totally different cultures here? 172, you must have thought long and hard about it, I'd like to know what your ideas are about not just the simple concept of length, but the whole issue of organizing information across sets of articles. Bishonen | Talk 12:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I have. Each section is a summary of the component articles of the History of Russia series. The way the series was already structured before I'd rewritten the article determined the content of my rewrite. Thanks. 172 01:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Object. Abstain.I don't mind the legnth but I think it is still to early for us to be able to nominate any 'history of a country' article - too many important articles have not yet been written, or what is perhaps more relevant in this FAC case - are written but not mentioned or linked in the articles. Some relevant articles to the History of Russia, that the article seems to forget about and I could think of after 5 minutes: 1) mention of Dymitriads in the very short Time of Trouble section 2) article erroneusly refers to Poland when it should refer to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569-1775) 3) not a single sentence about Imperial Russia political control over P-L Commonwealth in 18th century, no meention of the Partitions of Poland 4) As an example of this article mentioning a fact but not the relevant article - Napoleon's invasion of Russia is not linked, and I don't doubt I could find many more relevant ilinks to include in the article 5) No mention of Polish-Soviet War 6) No mention of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Soviet alliance with Nazi Germany resulting in their joint agression on Poland in'39 6) No mention of the Winter War with Finland 7) While the article does mention that in the aftermath of IIWW the 'Eastern Europe (was) under Red Army occupation', there is no note on the occupation policies (i.e. creatng the Soviet puppet states) 8) No mentions of famous 1956 Hungarian Revolution or Prague Spring of 1568, both supressed by the Red Army, or Polish Solidarnosc contribution to the end of SU 9) Just makes me wonder how many other important events/articles are not mentiond/linked... This needs much more work - it is very far from being comprensive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and I can come up with a list longer than the 66K article of things omitted in the 66K article. Many things will inevitably be omitted in such a broad brush survey history of Russia over the past thousand years, even things that interest Polish and Hungarian nationalists, such as the invasions of 1956 and 1968 or Solidarity. (You know, we have a History of the Soviet Union article.) 172 20:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will refrain from any comments on Soviet/Russian or other nationalists and their desire to censure some parts of the history. I'll just say that I don't agree with what you deem important and what not. In my opinion this article ommitts essential facts and thus is not comprehensive and cannot be featured. You don't have to agree with me. We shall see what other reviewers/voters think. Besides, as I wrote above, in many cases it is not the matter of adding new paragraphs but simply ilinking some of the existing data - and even if you were to add all of my notes in separate sentences I doubt it would even be more then an additonal ~1k - hardly noticable considering the current size of the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose (though not strongly) for the reasons stated above by Piotrus. I understand that the article needs to be a selection of facts, or else it gets too long. However, the present version of the article seems pretty one-sided, especially in the 20th century parts. This needs to be corrected first. Halibu tt 22:26, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Support - the article is much better now, thanks. Halibutt 15:37, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Each of Piotrus' points (Dymitriads, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Partitions of Poland, Napoleon's invasion of Russia, Polish-Soviet War, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Winter War, 1956 Hungarian Revolution, Prague Spring, Solidarity) are now integrated into the article. [5] As for being "one-sided," I am an American academic, and I have no dog in the fight between the competing Polish and Russian patriotisms on Wikipedia. Perhaps I do tend to go through the military history a bit more rapidly than other areas. My work as a historian focuses mainly on how the social and economic context of the domestic order shapes institutions, war, and diplomacy. So, perhaps this can disappoint Eastern Europeans interested in the dynamics of all the battles between Poland and Russia. But, as you can see from my recent edits, I will accommodate readers from regions that have borne the brunt of Russian imperialism in the past, as long as the edits can be well integrated into the rest of the text and not stay off topic. All the specific objections should be resolved now. 172 00:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - You see, it was possible to incorporate those things in the article without much change in size :) As a note, I consider those events important on a world scale - after all, when a country (Russia) fights for few hudreds years with another one (Poland-Lithuania), both at some point lose their sovereignity to another (granted, Russia loss during Dymitriads was much shorter and less complete then Polands during the partions, but still the Dymitriads are compared in Russia to the Napoleonic Campaign and The Great Patriotic War, so they should be mentioned), when relevant articles exist and can be easily ilinked - I think it is simply writing history, not accomodating some regions or nationalistic viewpoints (for which there is no place in Wiki). In a few hours I will go over the article adding various ilinks I can think of. Don't worry, I don't plan on any major expantion or POV twisting, just linking the relevant articles. A note: war of 1632-34 - the Smolensk War - was not a success for the Muscovy. Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. Impressive achievement. Mark ¹ 02:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Huge, but well organized and very extensive. --L33tminion | (talk) 02:49, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Support Object. 1. The references and further reading needs to be split into those sources actually used as references and those simply made available for the interested reader to go find more. The distinction is very important. As it is now, the article could have only one actual reference and all of the others could have been unused. 2. Could use more inline citations for any potentially contentious facts noted. (Could always use more. What is mundane to one person is novel to another) ~~3. What Muscovy is and if it is different from Moscow is not immediately clear in that section.~~ 4. Otherwise looks great. I will have to take your word for it that it covers everything it needs to, but it looks very comprehensive and well written. - Taxman 22:11, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- This thread should have been archived already. I'm not sure why it was not before the last objection. (1) They are all references, and I have clarified that. [6] (2) Most featured articles lack inline citations. When we are writing at this level of detail (summarizing a 1,000 years of history), general knowledge and facts from other sourcebooks are sufficient for writing, and does not necessarily require specialist knowledge. In contrast, for contentious topics of recent history that go into a higher level of detail, inline citations are necessary and I use just about every few sentences, e.g., History of post-Soviet Russia and Russian constitutional crisis of 1993. (3) Done. [7] 172 22:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - I didn't mean to add last minute criticisms, this just happened to be the first time I checked out this nomination in detail and I had noticed there were few votes. specific bits: as to 2), yes they do and I won't continue objecting on that basis alone. I still think this article needs them though and there are plenty of facts in this article that could use it. The FA criteria are also very clear on the need for them. For 3) That makes even less sense to me now. I'm not sure what principality and vassal mean in this context (they could use short inline definitions or rewording), and not sure what Vladimir is. So Muscovy absorbed Vladimir? Then what, did it turn into all of Russia? The rest of the muscovy section doesn't answer that I could find. Unfortunately I saw another problem, that the coverage of WWI and its effects on Russia is very short. I know you agonized over what to summarize and leave out, but the glossing over in one paragraph of something so significant doesn't seem good. I guess since I have commented late we could extend the voting on this article to allow more time to adress or withdraw these objections as needed. That seems to be what is done. - Taxman 05:53, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
    - (2) No, they don't. Only a handful of featured articles have inline references, and many of them are mine. Just a couple of days ago, e.g., Battle of Warsaw (1920) was just featured without footnotes, despite the fact that the subject matter is obscure at times, unlike a very general survey on over 1,000 years of history... ~~Now, if you can tell me where you see a potentially contentious fact, I will provide an inline reference.~~ (I added some footnotes where they may be the most helpful. Otherwise, it is unnecessary in most sections, where the article goes into the same extremely broad level of detail as (say) a few paragraphs on Peter the Great. [8] 172 07:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) It is not necessary to add the kind of footnoting used in, e.g., Russian constitutional crisis of 1993 or History of post-Soviet Russia to an article in which essentially all of the facts can be backed up by other encyclopedias online or the LOC handbook on Russia (also online). (3) The info on Vladimir, Muscovy, Moscow, and Russia is in the article has been clarified, i.e. that Vladimir-Suzdal' was a principality, that Moscow was the capital of Muscovy, that the term "Russian Empire" was formally adopted under Peter the Great, etc. More content was also added on WWI. [9] ~~Now, hopefully you can clarify where you think that inline references are needed...~~ (Never mind-- footnotes are now added where they are most needed as guides to futher reading to support the work in the article. 172 07:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) 172 06:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - (2) Thats what I meant. I was agreeing with you. Nice job fixing up last minute suggestions/objections. - Taxman 21:50, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Support for a beautiful piece of rework. I only regret that you had to nominate this yourself! +sj + 05:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wish sj would elaborate on this "regret", because I don't understand it—is there something between the lines there? Many people prefer to self-nominate (I know I do, if only because it's a good way of getting it done at the best moment in the article's life—those who wander past an article and like it may easily be premature). There's not usually any "had to" about it. Bishonen | Talk 15:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. This is to country history articles what Sarajevo is to city articles. Neutrality^talk 07:16, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Reluctantly object. This is one of (if not the most) amazing articles I've yet read on Wikipedia, but there's some nasty POV issues in places - i.e. "Alexander was succeeded by his son, Nicholas II (1894–1917), a weak man with below-average intellect and hardly any constancy of character." Meanwhile, Nicholas and his empress were strongly influenced by a small clique of scoundrels, most notably Rasputin. Rasputin gradually won astounding influence. Generals and ministers were dismissed on his whims, seriously impairing the work of government departments, until his assassination in late 1916. In spite of broken health, Lenin worked unceasingly until his death in early 1924. I'm no expert on the matter, but even I know that these are disputed, and thus, that a moderation of these statements and attributing them to someone would be helpful. ~~The coverage of the Red Terror is fairly one-sided, too. The changes in Russian society fails to mention any negative ones.~~ Ambi 12:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- (1) Well, I suppose "Passion-bearer Holy Tsar Martyr Nicholas II" is now the politically correct standard. (The hysterical vilification of everything Soviet on Wikipedia goes hand-in-hand with the enthusiastic embrace of all that preceded it.) I deleted those two sentences, first on Nicholas II and then Lenin. [10] They are not important. Readers can find out more about their bios in the relevant articles. (2) Rasputin's role in the dismissal of a number of ministers and generals is well documented, and mentioned in the Rasputin article. There is no need to modify that paragraph. (3) The coverage of the Red Terror is fairly one-sided, too. This is neither here nor there. Reread (or read?) the section on the Russian Civil War. Do you object to the following: "...a reign of terror was begun within Russia as the Red Army and the Cheka (the secret police) destroyed all enemies of the revolution... [T]he Bolsheviks did not have the consent of all elements of society and thus had to force their rule over Russia during the civil war. They swept away the tsarist secret police... but ensured the survival of their own regime by replacing it with a political police of considerably greater dimensions, both in the scope of its authority and in the severity of its methods." Are you saying that it is one sided because you are under the impression that the Bolsheviks did not set up a political police of greater scope and brutality than the tsars? (4) The changes in Russian society fails to mention any negative ones. First, note the fact that the section comes before the one on Stalinist industrialization and collectivization. Hence, the section covers the years immediately following the revolution, the early-to-mid 1920s-- years of relative economic recovery before Stalin's consolidation of power. Second, is this "positive" to you: "...the Soviets persecuted religion... Many religious leaders were sent to internal exile camps. Members of the party were forbidden to attend religious services. The Church was shorn of its powers over education. Religious teaching was prohibited except in the home and antireligious instruction was stressed in the schools." My guess is that most people consider anything mentioning "persecution" and "internal exile camps" to be "negative." 172 13:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - 1) Don't assume to know what my opinions are (indeed, I largely agree with the sentiment) - but that statement was just not NPOV. Thanks for fixing the issue, though. 2) The role of Rasputin is disputed - that he had influence in this way is undeniable, but this article takes a definite stance on how much influence he had, which is disputed, and characterises him as a complete villain, which is also disputed. I'm not exactly happy with 3), but I think you make some good points, and I don't think it's worth an objection, and I think you have a point on 4). I've crossed out some of them, but there's still a couple of concerns left. Ambi 10:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - See [11] 172 10:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - Excellent. Now, wholeheartedly support an excellent article. Ambi 20:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ Withdrawn, will take point to talk page Way, way, way too long. There's 2 or 3 articles' worth here. Sorry, jguk 22:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and over 1,000 years of history too. And this would not be the longest FA. The article has to provide summaries of a series of a dozen-or-so articles, and it is as brief as it can possibly be given that function. The above objection is dubious. 172 22:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be better to break it down to 2 or 3 articles (each one of which may be worthy of featured article status) cf History of the United States, jguk 09:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It already is broken down into more articles. See Template:History of Russia. In fact, History of Russia summarizes 13 individual articles. Some of those individual articles are of comparable length or even longer. History of post-Soviet Russia is of comparable length. History of the Soviet Union is even longer than History of Russia, and hence broken up into four individual pages. Imperial Russia is also longer, and hence broken up into four individual pages (Russian history, 1682-1796, Russian history, 1796-1855, Russian history, 1855-1892, Russian history, 1892-1920). It would be utterly impossible to produce a shorter summary of all these articles on over 1,000 years of history while being comprehensive. In that sense, take a look at some of the resolved objections above. Many users still feel that article could still stand to be even more comprehensive. In short, the objection is dubious. 172 09:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While I'm normally strongly opposed to really long articles, this a special case, and I agree with 172. This already does a very good job of summarising a record number of articles, and trying to break it down yet more would damage the article as a whole. Ambi 10:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

cf History of the United States? That article sucks. (I wrote much of it, so I can say that.) 172 09:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I still think this would be better as 2 or 3 featured articles rather than 1. There are a number of guidelines for articles - one of which is a pragmatic 32kb limit. I had problems making a save on this page myself when making a minor adjustment. Now, I'm happy to bend the rules slightly in the interests of good writing - but not by too great a deal. Split up into 2, I think we have 2 featured articles here. But I am nervous about the length - has 172 considered what the article would look like as 2 separate articles? This is not a negative comment, and I am disappointed that 172 has taken it negatively. I never vote "oppose" for an article that I would not support if my concerns are addressed, jguk 13:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The function of the article is to summarize the 13 individual articles on Russian history, and thus has to correspond with the history of Russia template. We cannot have two separate articles because there are not two separate history of Russia templates, as there should not be. The only possible split would be to divide into into separate pages (not articles) along the lines of History of the Soviet Union (one of the components of the history of Russia series that this article summarizes). 172 17:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On reflection, although I am still concerned about the length of this article and believe there are good reasons for converting this into 2 or 3 articles, I don't think there's any need to argue this point here and this shouldn't get in the way of promoting it to featured status. It is more suited to the talk page, and I will raise the issue there in the next few days. I would add that I would have preferred 172 to have chosen constructive dialogue rather than incivility, which makes it all too tempting for me to dig my heels in and oppose. But that is not the proper approach, and I will resist it. I hope we will soon have a more constructive discussion on the talk page, jguk 19:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Length is not an issue if the topic warrants it, and covering Russian history from Muscovy to the present is pretty wonderful. Will people read it from top to bottom? I don't know. What's important to me is that this is an exemplary show for a Wikipedia article, showing it to have as much breadth and substance as any print encyclopedia. This is an article to be proud of. A shrunken form would, I'm afraid, probably not be (I'm not at all impressed by the History of Germany article, as a contrast). --Fastfission 13:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support, I agree with every word Fastfission said. Bishonen | Talk 15:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John Day (printer)[edit]

Self-nomination. Spent a week on peer review (comments) without much comment. I realize it's on the short side for an FA, but it seems an appropriate length for the subject and I think it covers all the significant points. PRiis 05:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Not bad, but I think it would benefit from a little more appropriate wikification. Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I did some wikifying myself. --JuntungWu 09:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment:. Peer review does not have much traffic and articles can spend some time there without much comments. --JuntungWu 08:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Anyway, object (1) any information on personal life? (2) the early life bit seems short, although I know there was limited info (3) can you elaborate (one line) over the use of patents in this context? I don't really know enough about this subject of exclusive printing patents so would want to know more if I am a reader. --JuntungWu 08:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - By the way, I'd support otherwise. I understand (1) and (2) may not be actionable especially if the book referred to by Bishonen has no info but (3) should be. --JuntungWu 15:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - I added a bit to hopefully clarify the patent issue (which is key, so thanks for that). I'll also see what other relevant info I can add about early years and personal life. PRiis 01:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support, great article, note especially the wonderfully individual woodcut portrait from 1563, I suppose Day's own work (most all woodcut portraits look horrible, and could be anybody). Comprehensive account, limpid prose, interesting, a good test case for whether we mean it when we say excellent short articles are also appropriate for featuring. Only nitpick (sorry, I had plenty of opportunities to think of this earlier, I know): I don't have implicit faith in the DNB, having been disillusioned by the quality of their John Vanbrugh entry. Have you had any chance to consult e.g. C. E. Oastler, John Day, the Elizabethan Printer, 1975? It's an Oxford bibliographical society "Occasional publication", only 87 p., but might hopefully represent independent research.--Bishonen | Talk 10:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. No, I haven't looked at Oastler. The Univ of Ill Chicago has a copy in "remote storage" which might take me a while to get by interlibrary loan. Yeah, the DNB is not the best--the 1973 ed. is just a reprint edition: I think the Day entry was probably actually written at the end of the 19C. I followed the Evenden bio, which is very up-to-date, when there was a disagreement. PRiis 01:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Oh, right, that's fine, then. I see Evenden takes Oastler into account, and Evenden's essay is clearly no mere rehash, but the real thing, being based on her PhD thesis, supposedly a forthcoming publication. Apparently it didn't forthcome yet, but I'm happy without it; I never thought you needed more info, just to make sure it was up to date. I agree with Johnleemk, and I don't understand why Everyking says "comprehensive" when he means "long". Long is not a featured article criterion. Bishonen | Talk 07:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Object. Expand significantly. Needs to be comprehensive. Everyking 17:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific? PRiis 01:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I find one of the most ridiculous parts of FAC culture to be objecting based on comprehensiveness simply because the article isn't long enough. Objecting without even providing areas where you think there are holes is another equally bad issue. Johnleemk | Talk 05:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - The alternative is that articles that might make the grade in a paper encyclopedia, but not Wikipedia, would get through. My objection stands. I don't like to object, but it's just not nearly long enough. Should be at least doubled in size. Everyking 05:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Policy states: "Some people feel that every featured article should have a certain length, and if not enough can be said about the article's subject to reach that length, it should in most cases be merged into another article. However, excellent short articles are also accepted." (My italics). Since you really cannot merge a biography into something else, and there's limited scholarly research or even records on that guy, I have trouble figuring out how to double the length of the article. --JuntungWu 08:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - In the past, I've supported short articles when it was clear to me that there was no realistic possibility of future expansion, because everything that was known was already there. Is that truly the case with this guy? Everyking 14:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        Okay, you've got a point there. Let's see what happens. Anyway, support as I am not actually seeing much realistic hopes for expansion and it looks good enough as it stands. I hope I am proved wrong and that the article does expand. --JuntungWu 15:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - One thing to bear in mind is the fact that though Day was for a time at the top of his trade, he was still a sixteenth-century tradesman. We can't expect the kind of documentation to survive that we could from, say, a nobleman like Cecil, a churchman, or even a scholar like Camden, who corresponded widely and whose letters were kept by their recipients. Usually records aren't kept unless they're percieved as having some value. What biographical material we do have on Day is largely from the business records of the Stationers' Company and from legal proceedings. For example, we only know his year of birth from a portrait which happened to give his age and its date of creation. I shouldn't pre-judge the Oastler book, but considering who published it, there's a good chance that its orientation is biblographical rather than biographical. PRiis 22:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        My earlier vote was based on the assumption that the article could be longer but was not simply because some facts were not deemed important or some such logic. If it is a case where there simply is nothing more to be written, then consider my vote an abstain rather than an object. Everyking 22:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - Well, I don't mean to mislead. It would be a lie to say the article contained every piece of information that was speculated or known about John Day. As is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, there is some selectivity--there has to be: this is an encyclopedia, not an Imperial Chinese collectanea. I am saying that there are no significant areas that are missing, the article, in my opinion, gives a complete picture of who he was, what he did and what his significance was. My point was that there's little hope in holding out for a tranche of fresh biographical data. I do firmly believe that some facts are more important than others, and failing to make that distinction does the reader a disservice. PRiis 00:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support Seems complete and well written article. The first image is not showing on my screen though, is that the server or and edit fault? Giano 17:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can see it now too! Giano 19:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. (I can see the image). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Death Valley National Park[edit]

I've been working on this off-and-on for nearly 3 years now and have written almost all of it (I had a great deal of help from many copyeditors). So, what else does this article need to truly shine? If this article is already there, then I can switch focus to filling some of the red links in it and getting Geology of the Death and Panamint valleys area up to standard (the geology of this place is convoluted). --mav 08:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Object for now. This looks quite good, but since this is not a specialised article on geology, I'd like to see some more explanation where necessary. F.e. "alluvial fans", "tectonic deformation", are terms not understood by the average reader, but that could be briefly explained in a few words. Also, it may be useful to add time indications to the geological periods (Mesozoic, Paleozoic); the picture here helps a bit, but is not immediately clear. Other than that, this looks like another good NP-themed article by Maveric149. Jeronimo 09:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Will do for the terms (in fact I already started on this after my post-nomination copyedit) - but I need to go to bed now. However giving ranges for geologic time periods and eras is highly problematic. Its like saying that an event such as a death occurred last year but then in parenthesis after saying that you give a range of 1 January to 31 December 2004. This tends to confuse readers into thinking that the event occurred over a much longer period that it actually did. --mav 09:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - OK - made some edits along the lines of what I wrote above. Is this good Jeronimo? --mav 04:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, this is good; you solved the geologic time issue quite nicely too. Support. Jeronimo 07:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Depth and breadth make this an example for all Wikipedia treatments of small, defined geographical areas— including US National Parks of course. This must be one of the Internet's best pages on the subject. --Wetman 05:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- What a nice thing to say. Thank you. :) Btw, the Britannica entry only covers the valley, is very short, and still refers to 'Death Valley National Monument.' Columbia and Encarta aren't any better (I checked all as potential references - but didn't use them due to their extreme brevity). --mav 07:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Lovely. jengod 21:28, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Gene Nygaard 17:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Truly an example of wikipedia's finest. Jun-Dai 07:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Excellent article. Wish I had time to do this level of detail! My only suggestion is: Image:Geologic events in Death Valley.png is very difficult to read. I would either 1) convert it to an HTML or Wiki table (lots of work), or 2) don't include a thumbnail in the article, just make a link to the image page as a "see also". -- hike395 14:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll try that. --mav 19:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. --mav 23:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Excellent article. --L33tminion | (talk) 02:47, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

History of post-Soviet Russia[edit]

Another important article for the main page, and a potential boost to our editing pool of users on still underdeveloped Russia-related pages. Partial self-nom. 172 08:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Something about the very important recent Ukrainian election should be mentioned. Business oligarchs should also be mentioned, as well as Russian organized crime. Neutrality^talk 08:11, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
- A note on the recent election has been added. [12] There is already considerable detail on the oligarchs and organized crime. 172 08:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Have previous objections (see here) been resolved? Jeronimo 08:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that all of the specific objections have long been resolved, barring the ones from the 32K stickers. Going through the objections of Dan Gardner and Dan Gardner, A. Shetsen, Andris was especially helpful. But since the FAC process lately does not seem as biased against relatively long articles, I thought it would be worth trying again. (I note, e.g., your response to Everyking on History of Bulgaria.) 172 09:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

~~Object.~~ Abstain. The article is quite extensive, but seems to forget about any darker sides of recent Rissian history. 1) The article 'First Chechen War' section is very short, and the Second Chechen War is simply mentioned as a link. This important conflict is not mentioned in the lead, and all examples from the text are one-sided. There are examples of Chechen actions against Russians, but nothing is said of the devastation of Chechnya and Grozny brought by the Russian intervention, human rights violation by Russian troops, controversal elections won by a Russian backed candidate, etc. From the reading of the relevant sections one can get the impression that there are 2 sides: good guys and bad guys. Rather POVed, I think - not what I'd expect from such NPOV warrior as 172. 2) Article doesn't mention any controversies about Putin moving away from democratic values and more towards autocracy. 3) A note about Putin in the lead would not hurt as well - for such an important topic I'd expect lead to take almost one screen. 4) External links should be moved to 'external link' section, and linked through notes (especially as the article already does so for some of the external links). 5) I'd like to see something about history of foreign relations in that period - for example how Russia reacted to its former satellites or parts breaking away and eventually some of them joining NATO and EU, or the note on Russian continuing support to Belarus and Aleksandr Lukashenko. 6) Why isn't the Soviet coup attempt of 1991 mentioned? If such an event is not mentioned, it makes me wonder what else could be incomplete...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- (1) You seem to be accusing me of whitewashing Russia's role in Chechnya, which is obviously nonsense, if you take a look at First Chechen War, an article with quite some detail on the brutality on the Russian side, which I wrote. As for the Second Chechen War, I've been the one taking the word "terrorist" out and coming under fire from some Serb and Russian nationalists; so, I suppose my biases are anti-Russian to a (say) Russian or Serb nationalist and anti-Chechen to a (say) Polish or Ukrainian nationalist. However, perhaps a few more sentences are needed, so I've added some content. [13] (2) The article makes it quite clear that there are signs that the presidency increasing its already tight control over parliament, regional officeholders, and civil society. Maybe not for Polish Russia-hating POV warriors, but we have an NPOV policy, so comments like "Putin moving away from democratic values and more towards autocracy" aren't going to fly. (We can discuss his actions, but being within such a recent realm of history, we are in no position to speculate about his "values." (3) A note about Putin in the lead is not a bad idea. I added one [14] (4) Some of the external links are a part of the references. They serve a more important function there than in the references section. (5) This belongs in the Politics of Russia or the Foreign relations of Russia articles. The recent election in the Ukraine is mentioned, but NATO expansion can be addressed in other articles. (6) Russia was officially a part of the Soviet Union during the August 1991 coup, so the coup is covered in the last Soviet history entry, not this article. 172 19:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - I honestly don't understand why you have to accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you of being [insert random nationality] nationalist. Aside from that, your recent clarifications about Chechenya and Putin make this article much better now. I still think at least a paragraph on foreign policy history is needed - since the article discusses 'history of economy', why not politics and foreign relations? And as for external links in text - I don't like them. External link and note sections were designed just for the very purpose of ensuring that article main body doesn't contain off-wiki links. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Well, the "nationalist" comments were honestly tit-for-tat for you calling me a 'POV warrior,' which is somewhat odd because I have no personal, ideological, ethnic, family, etc. connection to Russia or the Soviet Union; and insulting, considering all the time I spent in school in order to start working as a historian. There is nothing wrong with Polish patriotism, though. My comment was just meant to point out that your background shapes your own POV, as my background shapes my own POV. At any rate, regarding the article, I'll work in a survey on foreign relations. I don't know what we can do about the external links. It is important to have them embedded into the article in order to substantiate a number of important facts that may be new to a lot of general readers. 172 00:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - There is now more coverage on Russia and the expansion of NATO, Lukashenko, the recent disputed election in the Ukraine, the recent recentralization of power under Putin and the erosion of fragile democratic institutions, and the airwar on Yugoslavia. [15] All of Piotrus' specific objections have been addressed. 172 01:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        Very good work. All but my external links complain, but as it is a minor technicality, I changed my vote to abstain - as I said they could be transformed to ilinked notes in the text, clicking on which takes reader down to the note section which can contain either external links themselves or references (actually, it may be prudent to simply merge notes into the references entirely). If/when it is adressed as well, I will support - as far as I can tell, the content is quite comprehensive and NPOVed now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support, it's excellent work. Everyking 18:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. Excellent work - only one quibble; have there been any books published on post-soviet russia? because a print section would enhance this fantastic resource even more. CGorman 17:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support, despite two curious omissions (IMHO): 1) the rapid rise and influence of organized crime gangs in Russia after the Soviet collapse, and 2) the role of Russia in the "War on Terror". Edeans 05:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- They're both in the article, just with no specific link to "war on terror." I'll look into working one into the article in reference to Putin's relationship with Bush. 172 06:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object - The structural issues I mentioned before have not been fixed yet. A 'main article'/specific topic article is a place for more, not less detail on a topic. This gives readers a choice as to how much detail they are exposed to (many people will need to have a more condensed history than is presented here - maybe about half the current size - but may need more info on just a few topics). For example, Russian presidential election, 1996 is still a stub but its section in this article is rather long. I'd like to see something a bit longer than the ==The 1993 constitutional crisis== section (btw, the Chechen War info seems to be under-represented). I'd also like to see Putin administration become its own article and a summary left here. Same for ==Dismantling socialism== (which is already long and detailed enough to be an excellent article on its own ; esp if merged with info for the pretend 'main article' link under the heading). ==Change and continuity in post-Soviet Russian culture== is also another interesting topic that could be expanded into its own article so more a summary is left here. In short, great stuff but needs more condensing so it is more useful to a larger readership. This can be done by moving and summarizing - no deletion of content required. I'll help if I'm asked since I'd like to see this topic featured. --mav 06:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- (1) Russian presidential election, 1996 is not a stub but a complete article. This article and similar articles tend to be data lists, e.g., Russian presidential election, 2000, an article started by Adam Carr from which I borrowed the format for '96. The section on the economic reforms ("Dismantling socialism") is aleady a summary of a main article. See Russian economic reform in the 1990s, to which the section is already linked. (2) We are not ready to summarize a main article on the Putin administration and the last section on culture ("Change and continuity in post-Soviet Russia"), since these sections already go into roughly the same amount of detail relative to other sections. Right now Wikipedia is lacking pertaining to the Putin administration in general; so this is a problem with our body of work on this topic on whole, not the post-Soviet Russian history article. (Vladimir Putin in particular needs a lot of work, along with the article on the Second Chechen War. They are not ready to be main articles) Out of consideration of these problems, the vote ought to be changed to abstain, IMHO. (3) This article would hardly be largest FA. A few others are quite larger. 172 01:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Even if Russian presidential election, 1996 is not a stub (which it is), it is still tiny compared to the amount of detail for that section in this article. The 'main article' you mention is just a link to a subsection of another huge article;Economy of Russia#Economic Reform in the 1990s. The size of this article is a symptom of the structural issues I mentioned. Size by itself (either way) is not an automatic disqualifer (some things do need more space - such a summarizing the history of a 1000 year old country). --mav 06:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Krag-Jørgensen[edit]

Selfnomination. Was listed for FAC earlier [16] without success - but I think all issues raised then has been addressed, as well as the article significantly expanded in all areas. I believe the article, as it stands now, give a comprehensive overview of the subject (one of the early repeating, bolt action rifles, adopted by Denmark, the USA and Norway). WegianWarrior 08:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support. Excellent! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. The references and notes might benefit from a reformatting according to guidelines. Otherwise, excellent. Phils 11:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Have reformated references and notes according to the guidelines as I understand them, hopefully this is the way they are meant to be understood ;) WegianWarrior 10:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain. Will support when Philis note about references is adressed. Also, See Talk:Krag-Jørgensen for more details of the sources of the different sections. doesn't look to good to me. See also Talk? Add the relevant info to the article, please. Also, the long list of similar notes may be shortend by using Ibid or similar notes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Will attemt to get references and notes into compliance with guidelines tomorrow (too late right now, sorry). Have taken the suggestion of using 'ibid' to heart. All info on sources are in footnotes / reference section - had just forgotten to remove the line. WegianWarrior 21:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Excellent work, I shifted the notes to above "References" - Ta bu shi da yu 21:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support now. Good job. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. A model of clarity, crispness, and encyclopedic quality. Bishonen | Talk 14:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. Quality work. JuntungWu 02:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. I concur with the supporting remarks above. I will add that although I am not a true "gun nut" (unlike some of my relatives), I still found the article quite interesting. Edeans 05:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Wow, nice work. Much improved from when it was first on peer review. I didn't happen to check all the images, are they all properly licensed? - Taxman 21:59, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Yes - the lineart is from Norwegian Army manuals in the years up to 1923 and the black and white photo is from 1905; so they should all be free of copyright. The colour photos are taken by me last saturday and can be used freely. WegianWarrior 04:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evolution[edit]

I found this article a few days ago, and it had potential. I've spent a few days polishing it up, and I think it's now ready to be a featured article. →Raul654 04:43, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

~~Object. No references.~~ Johnleemk | Talk 05:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. ~~The article is not complete without a Monkey/Ape to Modern Human morphing picture. Plus what Johnleemk said.~~ Squash 06:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- (For the consideration of those reading this) - That first sentence (about the morphing picture) is a joke from a discussion we had in IRC and is not meant to be taken seriously. →Raul654 07:27, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
- References have now been added. GeneralPatton 08:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - I didn't relized that my sentence turned out to be a joke (coincidentally) because I have never been on IRC for like 2 or 3 months due to my "self-exile" and "self-imposed ban" from it. Other then that good job. Squash 20:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. This

looks good. I cannot judge if the contents are all factually correct, though. Jeronimo 08:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support. Great article. GeneralPatton 11:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain. Good article, but whenever I see such a long 'See also' list I get a feeling that this article is far from comprehensive. A feeling is not enough for an objection, so I will just comment on this, read up and possibly change my vote later. As a sidenote, I'd love to see the morphing picture added - not as a joke, but it is perhaps one of the most common symbols of evolution and should be added if possible. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. Very well written on a potentially contentious topic. A long 'see also' can also come from the editors of the article doing a diligent job of linking to related material that would simply distract from this one by including all of it. I tend to believe that is the case here. - Taxman 14:32, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Support. I find the article well written and interesting, and im particularly happy at any attempt to promote the theroy of evolution in light of recent shifts in US education allowing for creationism to be thaught in some public schools in the mid-america. CGorman 21:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. A good article that overviews the subject very well. Joshuaschroeder 22:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose, only because I feel Steven Jay Gould's contribution to a 20th century understanding of evolution needs a little more recognition. A very well written article otherwise. Denni ☯ 04:58, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
Comment - Much of the article seems more like defining certain terms than being part of a unified narrative... Just a comment - I don't want to get into this because it reminds me too much of school (I have a BS in biology but for some reason I really don't like writing about it). --mav 05:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. It seems to me that this article has sufficiently evolved into FAS. ;-) Edeans 06:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support U$er 06:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object. 1. The article should include a section summarizing criticism, regardless of how ridiculed it is. 2. There should be a small section on areas of active research / unanswered questions. 3. The recently added section on Roman Catholicism is inappropriate to the article. (What about other denominations and religions?) In the past, when I added a few similar sentences to the article, it was suggested that a more appropriate place is evolutionary creationism. Hence the similar information there. Comment: A small section on simulations of evolution would be nice.--Johnstone 02:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support -Exigentsky

Support, Good Article GeZe 01:26, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Support Very good article 67.167.20.252 06:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I like it. I wouldn't mind seeing some references to Evolution in Japanese pop-culture/anime (its not just Pokemon). I'll still Support its FAC--ZayZayEM 03:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Big Bang[edit]

self-nomination -- I believe this page deserves consideration because it provides a thorough and straightforward introduction to the Big Bang. Joshuaschroeder 17:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: "See also" contains many duplicate links from the text, while the section is meant to link articles not linked in the text. Maybe you can add a footer to include the articles most important to the big bang on a central spot, but right now this section is too big. The rest of it looks good, but I'll have to read before I vote. :) Mgm|^(talk) 18:00, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Should we eliminate the entire section? I'm not sure what to do with it.

Looks like User:Fredrik has cleaned up the section. Joshuaschroeder 17:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support. With thanks to User:Fredrik for cleaning up the see also. Mgm|^(talk) 19:23, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Support Object for now - I'd like to see a bit more of religious interpretation and quotes from more religious leaders, and also creation scientists - how many of them think the big bang happened? Anybody from the ICR think so? As Mgm mentioned, the See also is too big. And finally, I think it might be better to standardize the external links/references section by splitting it up. Other than that, a great article, not too technical, and very informative. --Spangineer ∞ 23:15, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

External links/references is split up now. 67.172.158.8 04:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would say, in defense, that I think that the religious implication section is handled really well. There really aren't that many comments made on the Big Bang by the major religions (they generally worry about other things). It's not exatly clear how one would go about adding what creationists think about the Big Bang. There are a large group of them (Old Earth creationism, for example, Hugh Ross) who believe it occurred. The objections to it, if there are any at all, are usually for literal Genesis reasons (especially the age issue) and most of the time the YECers don't focus their critiques on the Big Bang because there are only about three or four people that claim to understand that physics of the situation that are involved in creationist enterprises (in other words, it seems to suffer from the non-notable problem). The two people I know who have worked against the Big Bang from a creationist perspective are Russel Humphreys and Barry Setterfield, and both have suffered from creationists attacking them. According to Ungtss, the Answers in Genesis and ICR folks (staunch YECers, both) believe in something called "white hole cosmology" for which there is a single piece of documentation and no attempt to be thorough (it's more of a "what if" paper than a real proposed alternative). I think that most of the creationist stuff can be handled on the non-standard cosmology page if you think it needs to be added for encyclopedic purposes, but let's leave the Big Bang about the Big Bang and not about POV on non-standard cosmologies. The rest of your comments are good, but I'm not sure how to edit the See Also section. I would love to hear if someone has an idea in this regard. Joshuaschroeder 04:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I guess I've revealed my ignorance on the subject - I've read a few different works by creationists/intelligent design proponents, and I haven't seen much related to the big bang, except from the non-scientific types who really have no clue about any perspective other than the literal Genesis accounts. I had figured that some of the actual scientists had attacked the theory somewhere (especially the YEC folks), but if it's true that they haven't produced anything particularly notable, then it doesn't need to be mentioned. And now that I think about it, I suppose quoting Genesis or other religious leaders would be more difficult than quoting the Koran, since there is nothing there that could be seen to strongly support or oppose the theory. As for the See also section, I like the new layout better, though I'm still not sure why Einstein is listed there when he could just as easily be linked to in the second paragraph of the history section. And even though my other concern about the references/external links formatting hasn't been addressed, I'm not too concerned about that, so I'm changing my vote. --Spangineer ∞ 20:13, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Good Job. I disagree that See Also is too big: this subject is huge; it would be asking a bit much to ask that it fit on a bumper sticker. (There is a student-level explanation of the Big Bang in the observation article.) As a nit, the temperatures ~10^32 K - ~10^27 K during the Planck Epoch are not mentioned; the estimated epoch of Cosmic Inflation is incompletely mentioned (~10^-35sec to ~10^-27 sec). As a Gamow fan, I would have liked to have seen him mentioned more prominently, and Einstein actually believed in a static universe, so why should he get prior mention. My understanding is that Einstein didn't revise his GR equation until after he visited Hubble. I think that the Dicke's role (The Flatness Problem) in stimulating Guth's idea for Cosmic Inflation could have been more prominently mentioned. I like how the Dark Matter information is integrated, but I think we could mention how we don't even know what Dark Matter is (as I understand it, it's non-baryonic). I like how the acceleration of the expansion of the universe was integrated into the text. (Does anyone know how this is fitting into an Inflationary universe.) All in all, I vote

Support Ancheta Wis 03:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As a nit, the temperatures ~10^32 K - ~10^27 K... well, that's true, but I'm not sure that they should be included necessarily. If someone wanted to know the temperatures, they could look up that part themselves. After all, it's not clear whether the temperatures during the Planck Epoch really were that high since we don't know if the physics is consistent then. Joshuaschroeder 04:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the estimated epoch of Cosmic Inflation is incompletely mentioned (~10^-35sec to ~10^-27 sec) Indeed it is, but the middle value is mentioned. This is akin to quoting an age without error bars, but the error bars in question here are due to model uncertainties rather than point of fact completeness. I'm not sure exactly how to handle this.Joshuaschroeder 04:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As a Gamow fan, I would have liked to have seen him mentioned more prominently, and Einstein actually believed in a static universe, so why should he get prior mention. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you talking about the history section? Joshuaschroeder 04:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that the Dicke's role (The Flatness Problem) in stimulating Guth's idea for Cosmic Inflation could have been more prominently mentioned. Maybe a bit too technical for this summary article. Would it fit better in the cosmic inflation article? Joshuaschroeder 04:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

but I think we could mention how we don't even know what Dark Matter is (as I understand it, it's non-baryonic).I think that's mentioned in the missing matter section, isn't it? Joshuaschroeder 04:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I checked, and indeed it is: "Dark matter particles have not been directly observed in laboratories, but the required interaction cross sections are well below the detectability threshhold."

(Does anyone know how this is fitting into an Inflationary universe.) there are superficial similarities. In particular, both of them are dependent on something like a scalar field (especially if w=-1). I think that is a bit too technical for this article, though. Joshuaschroeder 04:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support. The article now has a good balance between detail and brevity. JHG 16:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. Excellent written and well balanced article on a difficult topic. Deserves to become a featured article. JoJan 23:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. Looks fairly comprehensive to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support--ZayZayEM 03:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

X Window System[edit]

Self-nomination, went a month on Peer Review. I wrote quite a lot of the text that's there at present and have made most of the recent edits. I nominated this last June and it failed, but I think it's ready now. If there's a gap, it's perfect coverage of XFree86, though I did try. I asked on the X.Org list as well, and a couple of people said they could help with historical stuff ... in weeks or so. So I'll put it forward as is and make it the perfect article in due course ;-) - David Gerard 01:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a FAC regular, but after David's request for help I studied the article a little and I must say I find it very impressive. Support. --fvw * 01:30, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
Support. Phils 11:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support - seems fine to me! Excellent work. Ta bu shi da yu 13:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. Fascinating. I am no expert in this (I've used KDE and Gnone twice, that's it) but it looks good. --JuntungWu 15:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If it gives you a better idea of what was actually going on and how it works, and the interesting things you can do on a network, then that's what I'm after! - David Gerard 16:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support: Learned a lot from the article, and clarifications by David. Thanks. ~~Comments~~:
- 1. Popularity: How many users actually chose to use X? On which platforms is it most popular? Is the user base increasing or decreasing? How about user base growth in other nations? If X is popular, why does X enjoy the type of support that it garners?
  As it says in the intro, it's standard on the open-source Unix-like systems - if you want a graphical interface, it's the only real option. As it says in "Competitors", the competitors are negligible. The user base pretty much matches the growth of the operating systems (largely Linux). I'll see if I can make it clearer why these questions aren't so very applicable.
  The 'Competitors' section now starts "X is the near-universal system for graphics on Unix-like systems." There really aren't any other options unless you're experimenting on new things - David Gerard 00:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- 2. "The X client-server model and network transparency" section describes process, but not enough design: the communications protocol should be described in more detail, especially to show how it succeeds in providing network transparency. Are there other design considerations that make X unique? If the design section is well-written, it should be intuitive to guess the type of criticisms/issues that might occur with X, but I can't do that from the way that its written right now.
  This is described more in X Window System protocols and architecture, which I budded off from this one when it hit 30 kilobytes. The sub-article isn't very good at present (I estimate it'll be about the 30KB max length itself when it's complete, with its own nest of subpages), but goes much more into the nuts and bolts than I think this article can in 30KB. I'll see if I can make it a bit clearer.
  
  From the article: "The communication protocol between server and client runs network-transparently: the client and server may run on the same machine or on different ones, possibly with different architectures and operating systems." It's the same protocol whether on the same machine or different ones. How is this unclear? Rewording suggestions welcomed - David Gerard 17:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  Well, I'm clueless about X, but this is the general idea of what I'm thinking about: X provides network-transparency by enforcing a standardized communication protocol between the server and the client: the client and server may run on the same machine or on different ones, possibly with different architectures and operating systems. The (foundation name? X.org?) maintains and updates the standards for X's communication protocol. Since X is a GUI interface (unlike telnet), it needs to know the underlying video hardware to run. This is implemented by (creating a video driver library?).
  You've got it. It's implemented by the server knowing to do something to make video output - it may be an application displaying to a window of another display system (running under Windows or MacOS X), it may be a system program controlling the video card of a PC (XFree86 or Xorg Server on Unix/Linux) or it may be a dedicated piece of hardware (an X Terminal). The client can't tell and doesn't care. I've expanded on the theme - David Gerard 00:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  
  Aside: If X uses a standardized communication protocol, shouldn't it be trivial to implement network-transparency for sound as well? just create the standard and add the necessary drivers?) --Confuzion 18:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  Because that used to be a bit of a load on a network. Now they're talking about media servers, i.e. fast audio and video streaming. It's more a process of create a protocol, write the extension and then get anyone else to use it - that last step is where a lot of X ideas fell down - David Gerard 00:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- 3. How closely does current X design follow the design principles described in 1984?--Confuzion 04:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  Pretty closely, which is why I didn't elaborate further - David Gerard 15:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support - Congratulations on the research. -- Poli 04:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Robert Oppenheimer[edit]

This is a self-nom of sorts (I've worked on this article on and off for some time), but I think that as it currently stands it is a well-balanced article, with just the right amount of comprehensiveness, on the complicated "father of the atomic bomb." --Fastfission 00:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment I haven't got time to read the whole article now but I notice that there's a section at the end titled "Further reading". These look like at least some of the works might actually be "References". As for the "External links" they should be listed as references if, as I suspect, they were used as such. -- Haukurth 00:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I re-labeled the "Further reading" section as "References" (and cleaned up the section on Oppenheimer's own publications) as I know that I at least used about half of those as actual references for what I know about Oppenheimer. I did refer to one of the external links at times but, for reasons I won't go into, it's a somewhat complicated situation in that respect. --Fastfission 04:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Have all previous problems - see here - been resolved? Jeronimo 07:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I had forgotten it was previously nominated; I think they're all satisfied, more or less, except for something on his cultural meaning/legacy/etc. I wrote up an additional section as a preliminary version of this which covers most of the important bases, I think. If you think anything needs expanding, please feel free to let me know, most of it can be done effortlessly for me but I've tried not to go too overkill on things (I figure that if people want a blow-by-blow of his trial they will consult external references rather than an encyclopedia, for example). (And the reason why it talks about his illnesses, etc., is because those are why he first goes to New Mexico, which connects up with his other history). --Fastfission 20:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The article seems to have been expanded over that time - see history comparison. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. The previous objections seem to have been satisfied, more or less, although some things are only briefly mentioned. On the other hand, these are very complicated matters and one article isn't going to be able to do justice to them all. Nicely written and just as good (if not better) than other Featured Articles. --C S 08:46, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
Support Seems to be a nice long and interesting article. Squash 09:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak object. The content seems good enough but I think the prose could probably be improved. The article seems to have some slightly rambling sentences, such as: "However, while undertaking postgraduate work at Ernest Rutherford's famed Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge, he came to realize that his forte was theoretical, not experimental physics, as he was quite clumsy in the laboratory working under J.J. Thomson." This sounds a bit like Oppenheimer would not have been clumsy in the laboratory working under some other guy. Another minor point: Shouldn't Göttingen be consistently spelled? -- Haukurth 11:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Point taken! I thought I had gotten rid of the poorer prose with the edits I did before nominating, but I can see a few unfortunate sections slipped by (I also thought I had fixed the Göttingen problem, but I see I did not). I've gone over it all one more time with an eye for unfortunate constructions (of which I think there were only a few real major offenders). --Fastfission 20:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Yeah, uhm. I complained about a rambling sentence and you made it longer. :D "While at Harvard he was introduced to experimental physics during a course on thermodynamics taught by Percy Bridgman, and was encouraged to go to Europe for future study, as physics in the USA had not yet acquired significant infrastructure to provide a world-class education, and he was accepted for postgraduate work at Ernest Rutherford's famed Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge, working under the emminent but aging J.J. Thomson." Maybe this is acceptable English prose, I'm not the right person to judge. I'd best leave others to criticize the style and move from weak object to neutral for now. (Some of the wiki syntax was leaking after your recent changes, I fixed what I saw.) -- Haukurth 20:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Yep, that sentence needs help. Preferably split it into 2. A minor point, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Ha ha, gosh, you're right about that (I first tried to make it more coherent, then I tried to make it more revealing, then I didn't bother to try and make it more coherent again). I'll work on that one once again. --Fastfission 23:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. It seems to adress all important issues I heard about, which makes it comprehensive - the most important thing about an encyclopedic article. Not that more expansion would be bad...it never is. But do adress other objections, language is important. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. Very good article --Neigel von Teighen 23:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. Phils 09:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support 172 19:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support I was about to nominate this myself when I saw that it was a candidate allready. BrokenSegue 16:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. Impressive. Edeans 06:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Warsaw (1920)[edit]

Partial self-nom. The eighteenth decisive battle of the world in the mostly forgotten war. References, battlebox, pics, maps (yes, plural), the plan, the prelude, the chronological narration and the aftermath. I invite your comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little worried about the quote at the beginning of the Aftermath section, lest it give the impression that we are endorsing that POV, but it does appear to be an excellent article. Everyking 20:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I like that quote, as it gives some 'life' to the encyclopedia prose, but if you think it should be moved to Wikiquote, I won't mind. So...you support, object or...?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Neither. I would support if not for the quote, but the quote isn't enough to make me object, either. Everyking 22:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Well, the quote is off to wikiquote now, for better or worse. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support. alteripse 02:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) Old comments: Nice article! I did some copyediting and offer a couple of suggestions: I think you might recheck consistency of spelling of some of the names (like Budyonni?); a couple vary a bit in different paragraphs and I wouldn't dare to judge which version is correct. Second, to my taste there are too many "might have beens" in the main narrative. A Russian point of view could have written the same thing as a tragedy, with all the might-have-beens described as lost opportunities. I'm not asking you to completely abandon a patriotic POV, but maybe move all of those statements to the end section where you describe the significance of the battle. You could have a paragraph or two describing how much a "near thing" it was, and what key different events might have led to a different outcome. Third, stick to the simple past indicative tense for the main narrative-- avoid the contorted perfect future constructions. Finally a couple of quibbles about the significance: most people would consider communism a product and aspect of Western Civilization, unpleasant as it was, so it doesn't sound right to claim that the temporary defeat of communism saved western civilization (from itself?). Likewise, since Christianity survived the 40-year Soviet occupation of Poland a generation later, that claim also seems a little questionable to me. All these are minor suggestions, and I wouldn't bother to do the copyediting and suggestions if I didn't think it an overall great article. With most of those items addressed I would support featured status. alteripse 03:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Spelling of Semyon Budyonny unified to the one in his article name. As for might have beens and POV objectios - could you be more specific and quote exactly what do you find arguable? The article has been to my knowledge read and worked on by Russians as well. Few days ago we have reached a consensus regardin POV on the main war article, and with moving the quote to Wikiquote I think all specific objections should be resolved - but then there may still be some POVed sentences in the Battle article we missed. I would be the first to agree that Wiki is no place for *any* patriotic POV. We are here to present the facts, not alternative history (as interesting as it might have been). But please note the fact that one of the Soviet goals was to spread the revolution and by losing the battle (decisive in the war) they were significantly delayed (by ~20 years). D'Abernon did not called this war 'The eighteenth decisive battle of the world' for nothing - and he was no Polish (nor Soviet) nationalist :) As for communism being a product of Western Civilisation - it was, partially, but the fact is that WC has adopted a diffrent set of values then communism and more or less actively actually fought against communism (thus, yes, in some way it did fight against itself). Note that in the same fashion we could argue that Nazizm was a product of Western Civ, and the Second World War was a kind of a civil war for the Western Civ... I don't understand your 'questionable claim' reference to Christianity in Poland, could you elaborate? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment. According to the image caption guide you're not supposed to write "Polish defences near Warsaw at Miłosna" but rather something like "Although the Polish defences near Warsaw at Miłosna were only weakly supported by artillery they were nevertheless instrumental in turning back the Soviet onslaught". (<- made up non-sense). I personally think this is a bit silly but you should at least know about it. -- Haukurth 15:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well then, if some caption specialist wants to improve them, go right ahead. I can't think of a better way atm. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose. Polish patriotic POV. 172 01:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) On second thought, neutral. The problems do not compare to other related articles, which are somewhat slanted toward a POV. Statements like the following, though, raise some concerns: ...destroyed Lenin's hopes of spreading the communist revolution westward and helping the communist sympathisers in the German Revolution. 172 01:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) Abstain Better now. [17] I can only vote "abstain" for now since I am not competent enough in the realm of the military history. 172 15:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- Well. Lenin had plans - and hopes - for spreading communist revolution westwards, true or false? The Battle of Warsaw destroyed those plans, true or false? There were communist symphatisers in the German Rev, true or false? If something here is false, by all means, let me know so I can correct it ASAP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - We had this dicussion on Polish-Soviet War. The above statement makes it out to be like the Battle of Tours or something, when it was really one part of a rapid series of setbacks for communist revolutionary activity in Eastern and Central Europe following the end of the war. 172 20:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - I removed this sentence from the lead entirely, and added a new paragraph in the aftermath section. After all, that sentence refered to aftermath of the entire war, not the battle, so you are right, no point to mention it in such lenght in the battle lead. The new paragraph is toned down with agreed NPOVed words from PSWar and I change it a bit so it refers to the aftermath of the Battle, not the entire War. Is it better?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - Much better. Nice work on the article. 172 15:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support - I find it strange that there are so many comments and no clear votes... Halibutt 17:33, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Yep, especially as I think I adressed everybody's comments...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support.--ZayZayEM 06:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support--Emax 14:05, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Support --Space Cadet 14:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Minor object. This article is good, but the mixed use of Bolshevist and Soviet is confusing. This needs to be unified, or at least clearly explained (like is done in the Polish-Bolshevik War article (which is actually named Polish-Soviet War). I would personally prefer to see the word Bolshevik used, because the word Soviet is associated with Soviet Union, which did not formally exist until 1922. However, main point is that usage should be consistent, or clearly explained in the beginning of the article. Jeronimo 07:33, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support Balcer 20:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations[edit]

Not a self-nom. Nicely written, comprehensive article with a good set of external links. --ashwatha 20:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support Interesting read indeed. Squash 20:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support --Pmeisel 16:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. Leaving the uses and benefits info til the end held my interest, as I always wondered why so many nations want to be part of this (largely) ceremonial entity. One suggestion: I would prefer to have the governance section come before all the stuff about membership/suspension/expulsion, since in the current sequence it is not clear just who are these "Heads of Government" who are able to boot out and readmit members. Sfahey 18:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Object. This looks pretty good, but 1) The list of members of the commonwealth is split off, expect for the previous members. This is silly; why not put these four nations there as well. Mentioning the suspended nations while there are non is also not necessary. 2) The "Non-governmental links" section and "Culture" partially overlap, and should probably be combined. 3) I think some statements need to be references. E.g. "The Commonwealth has often been likened to an English gentlemen's club". In addition, some more reference (if used) or further reading would be appreciated. 4) The lead section should be modified. It does not explain the purpose/goal of the Commonwealth. In contrast, the discussion of the head of state is not relevant for the lead section, and should be incorporated somewhere in the main article. Jeronimo 19:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I made changes to address the above in the article; basically, fixed the list of members, merged non-governmental links and culture, gave reference to club comment, fixed lead section. Please take a look. --ashwatha 15:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support--ZayZayEM 06:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Object. A good article, close to a FAC. Few minor points and one major. Minor: 1) some more ilinks wouldn't hurt 2) More printed references, better formated (publisher, date) 3) move the odd 1 or 2 external links either to notes or external links away from the main article body. Major: Article mentions in lead that Commonwealth of Nations was created from the British Commonwealth, but gives no year for this. In addition, British Commonwealth article redirects here, so I am left to wonder whether the date givin in origins (1920s and the Imperial Conferences) is the date for the creation of the BC or the transformation of BC into CoN. In addition, Imperial Conference article makes the British EMPIRE a successor to the Commonwealth - confusing, confusing...I'll support after those issues are adressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I provided a few more printed references. Added them in "Further Reading," since I haven't used them for the article itself.
Added Publisher and date to all references.
Regarding date of formation, User:ALoan has clarified this in the article, thanks. The organisation was formed from the imperial conferences of the 1920s, and was formalised in 1931 (see article).
"British Commonwealth" and "Commonwealth of Nations" are one and the same. The change in nomenclature has just occured gradually, with the "British" being dropped. This is the reason for "British Commonwealth" being redirected here.
Moved the one external link in the article body to "External Links".
I checked the Imperial Conf article, but it doesn't say anywhere that the Empire was the successor of the commonwealth. If it did, it had the wrong info.
ilinks - I see that you added some. At the moment, it seems to have quite a few. Please take a look. I will add some more if they are necessary. --ashwatha 02:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Graffiti[edit]

previous nomination discussion

renomination, I feel this article has addressed the previous concerns. I look forward to seeing what else is objected to. ALKIVAR™ 07:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support, but what do the non-legible characters under the Germany external link mean? Rick K 07:52, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

That extremely bizzarre set of characters is the artists name! I know I dont get it either. ALKIVAR™

08:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support (the article, not graffiti in general <gr>). Well-written, good lead, and nice images. Vaoverland 08:30, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Support I like this a lot, and the images are great. I'd like to see no red links, because they make the page look untidy, but that's just a personal quirk. SlimVirgin 08:38, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Working on it but I just dont have enough background on some of them to put even a stub up. ALKIVAR™

23:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support. I can't find my previous objections in writing, but it looks like they've been adressed. Nice pics, and comprehensive writing. Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Support. The lead section could be touched up, I'd like to see a tad more on the negative social consequences side of things, and it'd be nice to find a better picture for the radical/political section. That said, these are all minor, and all my major objections from last time have been addressed. Ambi 11:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did add quite a bit to the legality section. What exactly would you like to see address on the negative social aspects? ALKIVAR™

23:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Object Where are the references? Is that what the non-standard section title "Resources" (which looks more like a further reading section to me). Also, an article this size really needs a much longer lead section - two short paragraphs simply will not do. More of the article needs to be summarized there (think of the lead as a concise/desk reference encyclopedia article in its own right; would what is there be OK all by itself?). --mav 18:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A great majority of the content I've added comes from first hand personal experience (all of the Washington DC and most of the NYC references) having been a graffiti artist for the past 12 years. The rest of it comes mostly from the external links and from several of the books/dvds listed as "resources" a section label I do not personally like. Some content does come from other external sources but they are linked within the body of the article itself such as the Safety issues ALKIVAR™

23:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is a bit unfortunate since Wikipedia is not a primary source. References are needed so that others can check the accuracy of the article. Without them, the article could simply be made-up (not saying that is the case here but since I know very little about this I have no way of knowing). Listing references that can be used to confirm the information in the article will solve this probelm. --mav 07:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I said, the US printed/filmed "resources" are all things i've seen/used. And anything else has links in the text to back it up, I cant think of any references that arent already there to back up the text. I really consider this a non issue if you actually bother to check the links, or open any of the books listed. ALKIVAR™

07:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a very important issue because a reader of the article will not necessarily be able to read your mind. If there are no clear references, then this nomination fails by default. If you cared to read the featured article criteria, you would know that. --mav 07:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you only briefly skimmed that to quote from it "Include references by extensive use of inline references" which this article CLEARLY DOES. If there was even a remote factual discrepancy in this article PERHAPS then it might matter. As it currently stands the references section contains probably 3 or 4 works that support each point. ALKIVAR™

01:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Object - I don't think the "Neo-Nazi defacement of a Jewish cemetery in France" photo can be considered fair use; off the top of my head news agency pictures generally cannot. Also, the arrangement of pictures towards the intro part looks somewhat weird (big white space), but that's to taste and does not have to be changed. JuntungWu 11:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry your wrong, it does qualify as fair use. Objection is therefore invalid. ALKIVAR™

03:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Qualifying on what grounds? Reuters is actively hunting copyright violations right now link and Wikipedia is high profile enough to catch attention. I am slightly worried that they may pick on Wikipedia but I admit to being paranoid about copyright due to the nature of my job. Anyway the description does not have the "fair use rationale" requirement under Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale so fill it in and I'll change my vote to support instead since I actually quite like the article. --JuntungWu 04:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Relax, m:Avoid copyright paranoia, it is a legitimate fair use claim, and unless your a lawyer representing wiki you really shouldnt be worrying over whether something is fair use or not. We've had blatant copyright theft labelled fairuse in the past, and we (the {{PUI}} regulars) do a damn good job of finding it. As for the wierd big white space I dont have a freaking clue what your talking about, I certainly dont see it. ALKIVAR™

06:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My day to day job involves handling copyright issues so I may indeed be paranoid. Okay. Strong support then. By the way I was referring to the area next to the table of contents. --JuntungWu 09:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh that white space always happens, its just more noticeable on longer articles with bigger TOC's. ALKIVAR™

09:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Object. "References and additional resources" is entirely ambiguous as to which were used as actual references to verify or add material to the article, and which are just made available to the interested reader for more information than is in the article. That could mean there is only one actual reference, which would be inadequate. Otherwise looks like an excellent article and I would support. - Taxman 14:48, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
Support. I think people are being to harsh on the old referencing frount. If you check out the resentlly featured articles none of them get any were never ref'ing every fact. Most just have a few ref's at bottom of page. For example check out the refencing for recently featured article Battle of Hampton Roads, their are less ref's here then on graffiti page!--JK the unwise 19:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. I think this article's become quite good. GTBacchus 01:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

comment - There is brief mention in the article about tags on railroad freight equipment, but little else about them except for the section on New York subways. I've uploaded an image that would be suitable to illustrate railroad tags and linked it on the article's talk page. slambo 11:50, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that, I went looking but didnt want to put yet another "fair use" image in there, we need stuff that could conceivably make it to a printed edition. I will try to flesh out a little more on rail graf (a subject of which I have first hand experience heh) ALKIVAR™

23:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added a couple small paragraphs on freight train graf, I didnt want to go into depth because the page is already 38k. But if there is something you want to add, or something you want ME to add, feel free to say so here :) ALKIVAR™

02:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note: I glanced at the article and the capitalization of Graffiti seems inconsistant. I think it probably should be lower case so all the headings and text should be changed. BrokenSegue 03:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization has been fixed, thanks for pointing that out :) ALKIVAR™

03:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

a few quick comments

who are these graffiti historians?
"If one's definition of graffiti is broad enough," - this sounds strained and upsets the flow when reading
"Many times in history graffiti were used as form of fight with opponents" - i'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean.
i suggest using "latter-day saints" instead of "Mormons". the latter is more of a nickname, the former is official. eg "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"
and that's about as far as I got before I was completely bored

--Alterego 02:14, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

To your first question I dont understand your context? The first two sentances I did not write. However I disagree with the assessment of the first quotation, it does not feel strained to me based in its context. Your second quote to me seems horribly written by a non native english speaker and has been removed. As for the third point, I am responsible for this particular paragraph. In the DC area its known as the "Mormon Temple" period. It is never referred to as anything else not even by the Mormons themselves. You should also note the newsletter which is referenced in the same sentance is titled "Mormon News". ALKIVAR™

04:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I simply said that they are officially latter-day saints, and not "Mormons". the latter is a nickname. --Alterego 05:21, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I understand that, I was merely backing up my wording of the subject for the powers that be who decide upon the fate of the FAC's :) ALKIVAR™

06:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)