Wikipedia:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:36, 10 September 2004

Latest revision as of 00:05, 28 August 2025

Line 1:

{{short description|none}} <!-- "none" is preferred when the title alone is adequate; see [[WP:SDNONE]] -->

{{inuse}}

{{for|the criteria to become a featured article|Wikipedia:Featured article criteria}}

{{FAC-instructions}}

{{TOC limit|limit=3}}

{{shortcut|WP:FACGO}}

'''''Add new nominations on <u>top</u>, one section per nomination.'''''

<!--Add new nominations at the top of the list below this comment. Before nominating, please make sure the article meets the FA criteria.-->

<!--Nominate by using the template {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} -->

==Nominations==

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abraham Weintraub–Wikipedia controversy/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/War of the Antiochene Succession/archive2}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jayden Daniels/archive2}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carcharodontosaurus/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Assassination of Lord Mountbatten/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Cook/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tomorrow's Pioneers/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Central Africa Regiment/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Julio and Marisol/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nihilism/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mongush Buyan-Badyrgy/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1993 Four Corners hantavirus outbreak/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BoJack Horseman season 5/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greensburg tornado/archive3}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nynetjer/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Federation of Central America (1921–1922)/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Effects of the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane in Florida/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Poisoning of Abbot Greenwell/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Manupur/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jianwen Emperor/archive2}}

==Older nominations==

===[[Goomba]]===

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Simon Cameron/archive1}}

An article about a very prevalent and famous video game character. Probably the very first video game enemy most gamers saw when they bought their first Nintendo game system. It has also become a very common character in the various Mario video games, cartoon shows, and toys. [[User:172.192.210.164|172.192.210.164]] 20:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2015 Trophée Éric Bompard/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Action at Sihayo's kraal/archive1}}

*'''Veto''' &mdash; It's missing detail on the Goombas from the [[Super_Mario_Bros_%28film%29|movie]]; and the information of their appearance in the things you listed. --[[User:Blade Hirato|Blade Hirato]] 02:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Colonel Sun/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macrobdella decora/archive1}}

===[[Aliasing]]===

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NASA Astronaut Group 3/archive1}}

An article about an import effect in signal processing, which is most well written. I especially appreciate that it first explains the subject with en easy-to-grasp analogy, then with some not-too-technical explanation using graphs and even sounds (synthesized specifically for this purpose) as examples in order too then finally give the mathematically interested and literate user all the details. That's how it should be: one part for the interested layman, one for the expert. [[User:Sanders muc|Simon A.]] 20:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Louis Abramson/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mark Hellinger Theatre/archive1}}

===[[Livestock]]===

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whenever You Call (Mariah Carey song)/archive1}}

COTW, drastically improved, FA worthy IMO. [[User:Ludraman|L<small>UDRAMAN</small>]] | [[User talk:Ludraman|T]] 23:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/East Island (Hawaii)/archive2}}

*Object. There is a lot of good material there, but it is not very well organized. The lead section is way too long and does not cover only the most important overview topics. Some sections are disorganized. The disease section specifically contains some misinformation. I will try to fix the latter especially, but I think the article needs some significant editing before it should be listed here. Peer review would have been better. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 03:09, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Intraproboscis/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1934–35 Gillingham F.C. season/archive1}}

===[[Charles I of England]]===

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Born in the U.S.A./archive1}}

-- [[User:Lord Emsworth|Emsworth]] 23:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yan Ruisheng/archive1}}

*Support. [[User:Zerbey|Zerbey]] 08:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ivan the Terrible (1945 film)/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Algemeyne Entsiklopedye/archive1}}

===[[History of Iraqi insurgency]]===

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sounder commuter rail/archive2}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prinz Adalbert-class cruiser/archive1}}

*Support. It's VERY text-heavy, but a fine article. Add some images, etc. --[[User:Etaonish|<font color="green">Etaonish</font>]] 00:38, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Brest (1342)/archive1}}

*Object - No lead section. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 05:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sebele II/archive1}}

*Support. That can be easily changed, and someone has a start on that. Overall, it's a good article. [[User:Colinrorr]] 1:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Teardrops on My Guitar/archive1}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Isla Bonita/archive6}}

===[[Game programmer]]===

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hedonism/archive2}}

Self-nom, but pretty complete. At least ''I'' think it is interesting. :-) [[User:Frecklefoot|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash; [[User:Frecklefoot|Frecklefoot]] | [[User talk:Frecklefoot|Talk]] 20:32, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alicella/archive1}}

*Object. Needs a copyedit and a picture first, but otherwise it's very complete. [[User:Zerbey|Zerbey]] 08:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nizaa language/archive1}}

::n/p. I'll work on getting a few pictures in there. It's been copyedited a few times, but I'll post it on peer review. [[User:Frecklefoot|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash; [[User:Frecklefoot|Frecklefoot]] | [[User talk:Frecklefoot|Talk]] 14:20, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

*Support. I like it. Looks complete and reasonably organized. [[User:Sanders muc|Simon A.]] 20:34, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

===[[Baseball]]===

Partial self-nom, as I've helped to reorganize and rewrite parts of it over the past few months. Its detail to rules has been cut down, (and preserved in appropriate articles) it has a brief history, and more notice is given to international and non-American baseball. Hasn't been nominated since May, I think. [[User:Siroxo| ]]&mdash;[[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>siro</font>]][[User talk:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>''&chi;''</font>]][[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>o</font>]] 07:30, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

:Support. I think it's a good article without becoming too detailed. [[User:Revth|Revth]] 08:18, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:Support. Minor nitpick, can the diagram of the baseball field be replaced with a bigger one? --[[User:Zerbey|Zerbey]] 02:35, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

::I increased the size, but maybe we just need a diagram with bigger words? [[User:Siroxo| ]]&mdash;[[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>siro</font>]][[User talk:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>''&chi;''</font>]][[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>o</font>]] 19:02, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

:Support. Nice pictures, links and references. One nitpick, the paragraph on strikes needs to be made clearer. It doesn't seem to fit with the paragraph before it, and I'm not sure when any of the other strikes referred to occurred or else I would fix it myself. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 03:44, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

::Tried to fix that up, I just don't want that section to grow too much. [[User:Siroxo| ]]&mdash;[[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>siro</font>]][[User talk:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>''&chi;''</font>]][[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>o</font>]] 19:02, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

:Support, although it really needs copyediting. Can someone just read through and fix minor issues like capitalization of proper nouns? [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 04:38, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

*Object - Made a huge list of clarifications needed and disambiguations required in the [[Talk:Baseball]] page -- Please go through it. TOC is also lopsided. [[User:Nichalp|&#x00b6; <font color="teal">&#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57;</font> | <font color="magenta" size="+8">[[User talk:nichalp|&#x2709;]]</font>]] 19:09, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

::Just like to respond that there is no problem with a "lopsided" TOC, if the article is written in that way; myself and others will be working through your objections as we find appropriate. [[User:Siroxo| ]]&mdash;[[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>siro</font>]][[User talk:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>''&chi;''</font>]][[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>o</font>]] 02:10, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

===[[COINTELPRO]]===

nominated by [[User:LegCircus|LegCircus]] 20:40, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

* Object. 1) Lead section is too long. 2) No images. 3) Most importantly, the article is rather short, vague ("other organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan") and misses vital information, f.e.: what did the FBI want to achieve? Why did they exactly want that? What was actually achieved with the programs? 4) Article contains some POV terms such as "anti-Communist paranoia" 5) The first sentence of the article is the same as that of the first external link [http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm], so this might be a copyright violation. [[User:Jeronimo|Jeronimo]] 21:37, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Object. Way too short. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades.tk]] 17:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

===[[James Joyce]]===

Partial self-nom. I like it and he's an important figure in world literarure. Not built by slashdot! [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 13:58, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* support. Bit late for it to be on Bloomsday, unfortunately... [[User:Kiand|Kiand]] 18:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* Support. Reads well, comprehensive, ordered, nicely formatted, images, full reference section and external links. [[User:Zoney|'''zoney''']] '''&#09619;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&#09618;''' [[User talk:Zoney|'''talk''']] 20:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support. [[User:Benc|&bull;&nbsp;Benc]][[User_talk:Benc|&nbsp;&bull;]] 20:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support. Good stuff. [[User:Markalexander100|Markalexander100]] 09:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Here's to Aloysius. Support. [[User:Ludraman|J<small>OHN</small> C<small>OLLISON</small>]] | [[User talk:Ludraman|(Ludraman)]] 16:38, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

===[[Penis]]===

Well written and researched. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 09:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Comment: It's all about the human penis. Isn't that a bit, um, POV? ;) Seriously though, it should include much more about non-human (specifically non-mamalian) penises. If it was called "[[human penis]]" I'd support.[[User:Rparle| ]]&#8212;[[User:Rparle|Rory]] [[User_talk:rparle|&#9786;]] 14:03, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

*Object: We don't want to turn off newcomers with such a potentially objectional article. It deserves to be in the 'pedia, but we don't want to shove it in visitor's faces. :-) [[User:Frecklefoot|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash; [[User:Frecklefoot|Frecklefoot]] | [[User talk:Frecklefoot|Talk]] 00:01, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

**Not an actionable objection, is this? I remember reading that objectionable articles can become featured, but discretion is advised about featuring them on the front page. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 14:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Object: For a while now, all articles on Wikipedia that could in any way be seen as involving the issue of circumsicion have been the victims of frequent revert and edit wars. If you look at the edit history, you will see that [[Penis]] is under constant revision... and these people are ''unrelenting'' in pushing their POV, (both those for and against). <tt>[[User:Func|func]][[User_talk:Func|(talk)]] 00:17, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)</tt>

*'''Object,''' but only until the following fixes are made. 1) The link to the Cat Dick site under Oedema is inappropriate. A true medical "case" would be appropriate; but the Cat Dick pornography site is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It ''is'' however a very funny prank. :)) Under the "Animal penises in general" section 2) the last two sentences on animal circumcision need a citation to a medical or anthropology reference--preferably a direct quote with citation; otherwise they should go. 3) As [[User:Rparle]] notes above, the shortness of the "Animal penises in general" section makes the article out-of-balance. You should go through samples of the major vertebrates that have penises. You need about three more paragraphs. I changed the section title from "Animal penises" to "Animal penises in general" because "Isn't a human an animal?" Other than my three objections, in my last reading, I thought this page should get Featured Article status. Bravo to the editors for all your edit war pains. :) Are you ready for the big leagues of what will come under Featured Article status? ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] 03:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Object - human-centric. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 05:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

::Darn humans!!! Are there ''no'' animal writers on Wikipedia at all ?! <tt>[[User:Func|func]][[User_talk:Func|(talk)]] 20:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)</tt>

===[[Kasparov versus The World]]===

Fascinating reading with stories of human conflict and cooperation. --[[User:Yath|Yath]] 07:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Strong support, but...could we have a slightly more condensed lead section? Perhaps a picture or two of the influential players, such as Kasparov and Krush? Still, this is a brilliant article. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 11:26, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support - a wonderful, engaging read. Some photos would be nice however (a screenshot of the forum?). --[[User:David Crawshaw|d]] 14:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Oppose, briefly : I'd like captions on the diagrams to tell me after which move each corresponds to. [[User:Gareth Owen|GWO]] 14:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Oppose. This article does not follow encyclopedic style and is not written from a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. Bits like the game being "''fantastic''" and comments along the lines of "''While chess lovers can take from the game lessons in the opening, middlegame, and endgame, fans of open collaboration can learn about the importance of courtesy, patience, inclusiveness, and the attribution of original ideas''" need to be eliminated, and much of the analysis offered appears to be no more than one interpretation out of many possible. Wikipedia is not a place for original interpretation ("direct observation" is OK, but this article goes beyond that at several points). If the analysis offered here borrows from analysis by published commentators, attribute it to them instead. Finally, there is too much text without links and I also agree with GWO about captions. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 19:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Neutral, so far. It's a very good article, and the play by play recap is good, though perhaps as noted above a bit POV. What I think this article needs is a summary of the gameplay before the move by move description, an overview of why the game play was unusual and significant and the roles of the participants, esp. Krush. Right now this material is scattered throughout the move recaps. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]]]] 19:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:Okay, on a second reading, I noticed that the POV is a lot more pronounced than I thought it was on my first reading. It needs a lot of work in that respect. Also, I do like the sectioning as it stands. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]]]] 20:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Objection; the moves should be in the section text, not the headings. We should find a better model for sectioning this article. [[User:Sverdrup|{{User:Sverdrup/sig}}]] 12:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Objections: 1. Moves should be in the section text. 2. Article is not NPOV (I would not object to the mere retention of symbols like "!" and "?" however). 3. The article mainly addresses analysis, but does not make comments about the game's significance. 4. The last paragraph unnecessarily refers to this encyclopedia. 5. It might appear more elegant if the images were on the right side. -- [[User:Lord Emsworth|Emsworth]] 20:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support IF the NPOV issue is resolved: I agree, the POV seriously limits the article. --[[User:Etaonish|<font color="green">Etaonish</font>]] 00:40, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

*Neutral: Until the article makes at least some slight attempt to explain what things like ''1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+'' mean. Is there some link to somewhere where the chess ?math? is explained? <tt>[[User:Func|func]][[User_talk:Func|(talk)]] 20:20, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)</tt>

===[[Caterpillar D9]]===

Wow. What can I say? Interesting, well researched and informative. Plus has a [[:Image:D9-idf pic214.jpg|cool picture]]. :-) - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 04:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* Oppose at least as long as the article is qualifying the Palestinian as terrorists every 2 sentences. [[User:Ericd|Ericd]] 10:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* Oppose as unsubtle propaganda. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 11:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* Oppose while you fix all the spelling mistakes. --[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 11:46, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

:*Me? I didn't create it or even edit it. I only nominated it. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 13:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

::*Well, yes, but even it's not a self-nom, nominators traditionally fix the article, because there's nobody else interested in doing so. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 15:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:::*If an article is so uninteresting, why would it ever become Featured? [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 15:37, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

::::*Well, considering other authors have their own interests, you can't expect them to devote their time to fixing something. If they don't have the time, someone else will have to do it, and the onus is traditionally on the nominator to fix the article if nobody else volunteers. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 15:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* Object. 1) This article has one picture labelled as a copyright violation, and two more that are copyrighted without indication of public ___domain or so. 2) The lead section is way too long. Also, it duplicates many facts from the table. 3) The units in the table (and elsewhere) are not linked. 4) The sections headings are very general, but the sections themselves are much narrowers. "Military use" mostly focuses on Israeli military use, while "Famous incidents" only discusses a single incident. [[User:Jeronimo|Jeronimo]] 22:07, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

===[[Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area]]===

Self nom. What else (if anything) needs to be done? --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 01:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* Support. Good article, lot's of illustrations too. One tiny remark: I personally don't find it necessary to link the same page more than once, especially in case of topics that don't need explanation (such as North America or Earth). But I can live with it ;-). [[User:Jeronimo|Jeronimo]] 07:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**Thanks! I try to keep one link per section for important links. But I may have double/triple linked some not so important links that way and will take a look later to make sure. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 07:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

===[[Greco-Buddhism]]===

Well-written article on this little-known but interesting topic, with good images. --[[User:Erauch|Erauch]] 03:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Object: I find the liberally sprinkled quotations a little undigested into the main body of the article. [[User:Bmills|Bmills]] 11:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* Support. Fascinating, well-written article. [[User:Neutrality|[[User:Neutrality|<b>Neutrality</b>]] ([[User talk:Neutrality|talk]])]] 02:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

===[[Parliament of the United Kingdom]]===

-- [[User:Lord Emsworth|Emsworth]] 18:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support. [[User:Bmills|Bmills]] 13:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 14:17, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support. <tt>[[User:Func|func]][[User_talk:Func|(talk)]] 20:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)</tt> Very informative and well written.

*Support [[User:Deus Ex|Deus Ex]] 21:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Well written, coherent

*Object for now. There is no external links section (I'd expect at least a parliament homepage?). I'd also like to see a link to the lists of PMs past and present, on or off-Wiki, or at the very least a section on famour PMs. The article is also a bit long (38kb now), perhaps some sections should be moved to a separate artucles? The existing sections are very informative and well written, and I will likely support this after my concerns are adressed. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] 11:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**There is an external link to the UK parliment homepage! As for an article being too long, I personally do not think that is a valid objection, if the subject matter requires the space. I'd hate to see any sections removed from this candidate. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] 12:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**Yes; there is indeed an external link. As far as the length: the topic is an important one, and requires an great amount of space. Actually, I did not go into as much detail about ceremonies, procedure and constitutional theory as I would have liked, for I foresaw such an objection. -- [[User:Lord Emsworth|Emsworth]] 20:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

***Please do go into said detail, either here or in a sub-article. Personally I find the length objection ridiculous, but each are entitled to their own opinion. But certainly if you have good info add it somewhere. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 03:24, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

****Length objections are not ridiculous since we are an encyclopedia project not a book project. That said, I don't think the current article size is too large (given the topic) but if it does get significantly longer then, and only then, should there be an effort to summarize longer sections and move the more detailed text to daughter articles. See [[wikipedia:summary style]]. In fact I think that the lead section is woafully short for an article this size and therefore '''object''' until that is fixed. Otherwise this is a good article. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 05:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*****Expanded intro to two paragraphs.

*Support. [[User:Zerbey|Zerbey]] 08:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

===[[Exploding whale]]===

Re-nomination: last time it failed for technical reasons and they have since all been resolved. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 12:46, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) ''(It failed because 4 people supported while 3 people said it was too short [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]])'' ''(And those people who said it was too short have mostly said the length is OK now, during that time the article doubled in length [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]])''

*Oppose. A good topic for Weird World News, but neither the topic nor the tone strike me as appropriate for a featured article. The writing is inconsistent and the whole article needs significant tightening up. [[User:Denni|Denni]][[User_talk:Denni|<font color=#228822>&#9775;</font>]] 23:06, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

*Object. <s>The writing style is non-encyclopedic, specifically the lead section is not a proper overview, but instead a narrative continuation with the next section. The first sentence in the paragraph starting with "While this story was widely known..." needs some restructuring for clarity. Does the Usenet bit have anything to do with Dave Barry and his video? Finally the Taiwan section seems out of place and the title of the section doesn't properly introduce the idea the way the article is currently structured.</s> - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 03:03, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

** I've modified the lead section, the paragraph in question and with a modified lead section hopefully this makes the Taiwan connection more clear. Would you suggest modifying anything else? - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 11:23, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

***Nice work taking care of those. Only thing I see now is the noting that exploding whales are a "popular" or "favourite" theme of authors seems a major exaggeration. Perhaps you could say the idea has been covered by a number of authors. Three certainly does not a popular theme make. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 12:15, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

****Done :-) - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 22:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**After further review, I still object on a number of grounds. I see more non-encyclopedic writing. But primarily that it simply fails to reach the bar set in [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article]]. Specifically it is still very short, and being not a truly important topic nor notable beyond its humor, I'm not sure much more can be written about it. With that, the guidelines say a short article should be "excellent", and I find nothing compelling about the writing in this article. Much of it seems to be an attempt to pass off a humorous incident into an encyclopedia, which should only become featured if indeed ''excellently'' written. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 15:58, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

::*Again, which bits are non-encyclopedic? Also, may I point you to [[heavy metal umlaut]]? - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 23:03, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Neither support nor oppose, but note that we should not be biased against an article because of its topic; specifically, that's pretty far from actionable. [[User:Meelar|[[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]]]] 04:54, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

**Sure topic can matter. If the topic is Taxman's bikeshed, it will be summarily deleted, no matter how well written or researched. So a non encyclopedic topic could fail to meet the featured article standard just the same. I'm not saying that this article is entirely non-encyclopedic, but I don't believe that topic ''cannot'' affect whether an article becomes featured. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 15:58, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

***Taxman's bikeshed would be deleted because it would be an inappropriate subject for an article. The principle is that any valid article can, if good enough, be a featured article. [[User:Markalexander100|Markalexander100]] 02:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

****In theory, yes. But I'm willing to bet that [[List of dog breeds]] won't ever become a FA. :-) I support [[exploding whale]], by the way. [[User:Benc|&bull;&nbsp;Benc]][[User_talk:Benc|&nbsp;&bull;]] 02:38, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* Support. Its fun and its well enough written ([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 22:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)).

* Support, well written. The topic is fine. [[User:Siroxo| ]]&mdash;[[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>siro</font>]][[User talk:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>''&chi;''</font>]][[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>o</font>]] 20:28, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

* Support. A well-written article about an unsual subject, exactly what Wikipedia is best at. --[[User:Zerbey|Zerbey]] 02:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

===[[Holocaust denial]]===

Second nomination for this article, after the [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/June 2004|first nomination in June 2004]]. Changes made to the article since that time have included moving the lengthy section on debunking Holocaust denial to its own article, and an expansion and reorganization of the section dealing with the history of Holocaust denial to make it much more prominent. The article now focuses more on Holocaust denial itself, rather than simply proving why Holocaust denial is a hoax. -- [[User:Modemac|Modemac]] 12:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Object. No lead section. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 13:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* I objected to the previous version of this article, and I still object, as most of my objections remain (others have been addressed). [[User:Jeronimo|Jeronimo]] 11:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

** I still find the article as a whole to be somewhat incoherent. Also, some sections are just a combination of several facts, which doesn't read well (eg Public reactions to Holocaust denial).

** The history section talks about a denial movement. Does it have a name? Is is organised?

** "Beliefs of Holocaust deniers" is brief and unclear. Do they all believe this? If not, are there any major "streams" in who believes what? Some references to sources used for this are also desirable. It should also be rewritten as prose, rather than a bullet list.

** The question "Why do people deny the Holocaust?" is hardly addressed satisfactory. What are the scientific views (if any) on this? Are there pyschological reasons behind this? Related, who are the deniers? Are they "angry white men"? Which countries are they from? Or are their numbers too few for such observations?

** The fact that "holocaust denial" is illegal in several countries deserves more detailed information.

*"Why do people deny the Holocaust?" is a very interesting question, and should be addressed further. Possible answers:

** Deniers want to retain sympathy for Nazism, or for their more general right-wing beliefs

** Deniers may have participated in WWII on the losing side, and are in denial about the misdeeds of their countries

**Are there any detailed studies of this? -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] 12:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

***A (not NPOV) study or two of this have been done by [[Michael Shermer]], I think. But I haven't read them. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 15:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

****I like Shermer as a writer with interesting opinions, and I have read his thoughts on these questions, but we can't really call them studies. I'm not a psychologist, but I would say that Shermer's speculations on "Why people believe weird things" are pretty far from scientifically well-grounded -- most charitably, I think they could be described as the thoughts of an intelligent and openly-biased individual. He may be right much of the time, but I don't think we can quote him at all authoritatively -- at most, his theories would need to be balanced by significantly different perspectives. [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 20:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* <s>Object.</s> Other than for encourging revert wars, why would Wikipedia wish to ''feature'' this article? I find it hard to believe that there are enough people in the world who actually ''do'' deny the ''undeniable'' to make this article a prime candidate for being put forward as one of Wikipedia's best, (no matter how well written or not it happens to be). <tt>[[User:Func|func]][[User_talk:Func|(talk)]] 16:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)</tt>

** object to this objection: Firstly, the size of the phenomenon doesn't change the quality of the article. Secondly, the thing about Holocaust Denial is not that it is huge, but that it exists in such an important issue despite such strong evidence. This has made it a very important issue of study and debate by many people. Thirdly, if the article is good then we should not allow revert wars to intimidate us from decaring it good. They may, however, be a reason not to put it on the front page. Finally, according to the first source I could find on the internet, [http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n1p25_Raven.html] 50% of Canadians think the Holocaust is "exaggerated" and one in four people in Idaho answered "no" when asked "Do you believe that the Holocaust really occurred?", so at least surveys show that holocaust denial is actually a big issue. [[User:Mozzerati|Mozzerati]] 19:57, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

::::Idaho doesn't surprise me, but the Canadian statistic is rather shocking. I agree with [[User:The Anome|The Anome]], if there was more of a focus on ''why'' the denial occurs, I'd support. <tt>[[User:Func|func]][[User_talk:Func|(talk)]] 20:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)</tt>

* object. The article doesn't say how many holocaust deniers there are. It also doesn't say what level of influence they have. The title "Other Holocaust denials" should read something like "other denials of genocide and mass murder". The examples here should be expanded to show common examples of minimisation of murder of all kinds for political and other gain including by a larger variety of sources (Americans/Russians/Israelies/Maroccans etc.) The statement about Syrians and the Palestinian authorities having released holocaust denial literature (and several other statements) should be backed up with a specific reference. [[User:Mozzerati|Mozzerati]] 19:57, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

* Belief disturb me... Is it belief or lie ? Are holocaust deniers sincere or is it simply propaganda ? - [[User:Ericd|Ericd]] 19:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

** yes this should be differentiated. Certainly many of the leaders seem to be liars trying to make Nazism and Hitler acceptable again, but there are many people who learn from these people and honestly believe. So there are both liars and believers, a proportion of whom are probably self-decievers. Again, how many of each there are and their relationship to each other should be covered in the article. [[User:Mozzerati|Mozzerati]] 20:02, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

*** Assertions seems more NPOV to me ? [[User:Ericd|Ericd]] 22:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support, and please forgive me for my previous objection, (I often live in my own little world, which is much nicer than the real one). <tt>[[User:Func|func]][[User_talk:Func|(talk)]] 20:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)</tt>

===[[Fugu]]===

A large part of the featured article [[Pufferfish]] was recently moved to [[fugu]] (as for Terafugu, the poisonous fish eaten in Japan). When [[Pufferfish]] turned into a featured article, it was mainly about [[fugu]], and only later expanded into all fish of the family Tetraodontidae. Now most of the interesting parts of the former article are at [[fugu]]. Therefore, I would like to move the nomination to [[Fugu]] by nominating Fugu and remove the nomination from Pufferfish. See also Pufferfish on [[Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates]]. (Disclaimer: I contributed significantly to [[fugu]]/[[pufferfish]]) -- [[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 09:17, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

*Object. No <s>lead section and</s> references ([[Wikipedia:Cite sources]]). [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 13:48, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**Expanded lead section, and also changed style of two external links to refrence style. Not sure if the other external links can be converted to refrence style, or if it should be done this way.-- [[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 20:43, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

***Hm...maybe a couple of references for the history of Fugu and the list of species? [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 14:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Object. Very interesting article with a lot of potential, but it is <s>very repetitive and</s> even disorganized in places. <s> For example, the notion that some unkown number of people die but the risk is low must be stated 5-6 times in the article. The actual mortality stat of approx 50 food deaths per year by Fugu in Japan from the linked pdf would be a good addition too I'd think. It's actually from a 1979 source, so could use some verifying. </s>- [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 02:55, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

**Reorganized, added section about Fugu poisoning (including some info about death statistics), and weeded out a few "kills people" references, although there are still some left, since this is one of the main ''features'' of the fish -- [[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 07:15, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

***The article is still primarily about eating the fish, with very little about the fish itself, such as what is it's food source and various other biological information. Also the misc section needs to be merged into the other relevant sections. There is nothing in there that doesn't have a better place. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 12:28, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

(I am on a trip, and will try to address these issues on Friday. Please be patient. -- [[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 14:14, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC))

=== [[India]] ===

A self-nomination, this page is has all that epitomises a great article. Also has a huge list of linked articles for further reading. [[User:Nichalp|&#x00b6; <font color="teal">&#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57;</font> | <font color="magenta" size="+8">[[User talk:nichalp|&#x2709;]]</font>]] 21:08, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

*<s>Object - Two sentences does not make a [[wikipedia:lead section|lead section]] and there are way too many stub sections (overuse of the ''Main article'' set-up). The TOC is also huge for an article this size. In short, the article needs more fleshing out.</s> --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 21:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**Aren't articles to be 'fleshed out' only if it exceeds 30 kb? Also made some major structural changes. [[User:Nichalp|&#x00b6; <font color="teal">&#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57;</font> | <font color="magenta" size="+8">[[User talk:nichalp|&#x2709;]]</font>]] 20:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

*Object. <s>Overuse of the ''Main article'' set-up is most apparent in the culture section. Keep is a couple summary paragraphs and leave the details in the main [[Culture of India]] article.</s> There are also POV issues with the map caption. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 22:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

** Addressed the lead-in and TOC issue, also made some changes to the Culture section. Seeking further opinion on the culture section. [[User:Nichalp|&#x00b6; <font color="teal">&#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57;</font> | <font color="magenta" size="+8">[[User talk:nichalp|&#x2709;]]</font>]] 19:56, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

***My objection over the map caption is over the statement "<nowiki>Refer to [[Kashmir#Map_Issues|Kashmir Map Issues]] for a discussion regarding Indian, [[Pakistan]]i and [[China|Chinese]] claims</nowiki>". A quick glance at [[Kashmir#Map_Issues]] will show that the explanation is not NPOV and will not suffice. It also doesn't belong in the External links section. Therefore, this article should not feature that one so prominently. The culture section still needs to be converted into the a couple summary paragraphs. The '''bolded''' headings need to be removed completely and the cultural links made within the text, not as ''see also'' listings.--[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 04:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**Made several structural changes in the '''culture, sport and religion sections.'''' Please check if you still have any objections. I guaged the section size based on the [[Belgium]] article (a FA). As far as the map is concerned, what is mentioned in the caption is a fact, not a POV. While the linked article may be a POV, it shouldn't be a major objection as the focus currently is of the India page not Kashmir. I have also made some minor heading changes in the [[Kashmir]] page. Will see to Kashmir later [[User:Nichalp|&#x00b6; <font color="teal">&#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57;</font> | <font color="magenta" size="+8">[[User talk:nichalp|&#x2709;]]</font>]] 20:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

***Culture section now greatly improved. However, popping a link to the external links section of another page is bad form. Consider making a footnote on this page instead? Or will I be reverted if I decide to remove the link myself? --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 01:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

****I have delinked the Map issues in [[Kashmir]] under a seperate heading free from external links. I will consider making a footnote tomorrow. [[User:Nichalp|&#x00b6; <font color="teal">&#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57;</font> | <font color="magenta" size="+8">[[User talk:nichalp|&#x2709;]]</font>]] 20:08, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

* Object:

** Many sections are rather fragmented, and appear to be mostly a summation of facts.

***Could you be more specific? [[User:Nichalp|&#x00b6; <font color="teal">&#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57;</font> | <font color="magenta" size="+8">[[User talk:nichalp|&#x2709;]]</font>]]

**** Specifically: economy, geography (which fails to mention the major cities in the country) and demographics could use some editing. [[User:Jeronimo|Jeronimo]] 22:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*****Most populous cities are mentioned in demographics. Also added some data to demographics. What is missing in economy? [[User:Nichalp|&#x00b6; <font color="teal">&#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57;</font> | <font color="magenta" size="+8">[[User talk:nichalp|&#x2709;]]</font>]]

** The Indian States and Territories-footer looks weird in the middle of an article, and results in ugly layout. Please replace this by a normal table or list.

*** The <nowiki>{India}</nowiki> template saves valuable space, both in terms of real estate and page size (<30kb). If this is an unaccepted wikipolicy, I will certainally remove the template. [[User:Nichalp|&#x00b6; <font color="teal">&#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57;</font> | <font color="magenta" size="+8">[[User talk:nichalp|&#x2709;]]</font>]]

**** I don't think space-saving is the most important issue here. It looks plain ugly, and the footers seem to be more in place at the bottom of a page. [[User:Jeronimo|Jeronimo]] 22:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

***** Made necessary changes. Please review. [[User:Nichalp|&#x00b6; <font color="teal">&#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57;</font> | <font color="magenta" size="+8">[[User talk:nichalp|&#x2709;]]</font>]] 20:08, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

** This article lacks photographs. Even a few "corny" Indian subjects such as the Taj Mahal would qualify for a picture in the article.

***Added the Taj photo. [[User:Nichalp|&#x00b6; <font color="teal">&#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57;</font> | <font color="magenta" size="+8">[[User talk:nichalp|&#x2709;]]</font>]]

*** PRC [[China]] was a featured article. It too lacks photographs. [[User:Nichalp|&#x00b6; <font color="teal">&#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57;</font> | <font color="magenta" size="+8">[[User talk:nichalp|&#x2709;]]</font>]] 19:45, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

**** I didn't review these articles, and I would have objected against them if I had. It shouldn't be that hard to find one or two pictures of India. [[User:Jeronimo|Jeronimo]] 22:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

** I find an article about India without even mentioning the (arguably) most famous Indian, [[Mahatma Gandhi]] a bit dubious.

***Now mentioned. [[User:Nichalp|&#x00b6; <font color="teal">&#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57;</font> | <font color="magenta" size="+8">[[User talk:nichalp|&#x2709;]]</font>]] 20:44, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

** Could we have some books as further reading/references?

*** I have mentioned one, I'll try and scout around for some more. However this doesn't seem to be a major criteria for rejection as both [[Belgium]] and [[China]] (earlier FAs) lack comprehensive references. [[User:Nichalp|&#x00b6; <font color="teal">&#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57;</font> | <font color="magenta" size="+8">[[User talk:nichalp|&#x2709;]]</font>]]

**** Again, the fact that other articles "have gotten away with it" doesn't mean I can't object to it here. This is not a major point though, but I personally prefer to have at least one or two written references. Books do not tend to change or disappear, like webpages, and often contain more and more reliable (or better traceable) information than webpages. [[User:Jeronimo|Jeronimo]] 22:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

****[[China]] is not a featured article. [[People's Republic of China]] is. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 01:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**** One book is mentioned. As for more refereces, I have put up a bulletin on the talk page asking for a few more. This is now out of my hands. [[User:Nichalp|&#x00b6; <font color="teal">&#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57;</font> | <font color="magenta" size="+8">[[User talk:nichalp|&#x2709;]]</font>]]

** [[User:Jeronimo|Jeronimo]] 13:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* Re-summarizing my objections (some resolved), because this is getting messy: 1) Picture added is nice (more would be great), but ___location is a bit strange, since the economy section doesn't discuss tourism at all. 2) I'll await your search for further references. 3) The subdivision section is much better now, I like the reference map. However, on my screen the two images overlap with one corner. I'm not sure this can be solved easily. 4) The economy is section is very brief, and for example fails to mention that - despite being one of the largest economies in the world - India's per capita income is rather low. Most of the other mentioned topics could do with some more text. 5) Similarly, geography section is mostly a summary of names. It might - for example - tell something about the fact that India is on its own tectonic plate. 6) The last paragraph of the history section fails to mention Pakistan, even though this country is related with to of the actions described. The "society and religion" section should probably be merged with the demographics and culture sections. Religion is already mentioned in the former, and the rest fits well with the latter. [[User:Jeronimo|Jeronimo]] 21:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**1)I know the pic is in a strange ___location, but I'm still searching for an apt pics+___location. 2)I can't find real decent print references (India in general) to qualify here. Hope for wikipedians to read the bulletin on the India Talk page and contribute. 3)I'm not sure what 2nd image you mention of. Is it a multicoloured state image? I removed that long back. 4) tackled per capita income 5)tectonic plate would have to do more with South Asia, I don't support mentioning it here. 6)Pakistan mentioned (although... 1 war was fought against China. The nuclear explosions were carried out not because of Pak, but China.) 7)I would personally prefer to stick with religion and society else it would make the culture section too large. 8) Although I would like to add more info on the page to address your objections, the page size is 29.5 kb. Since I do like being a perfectionist, I would hate it going above 30k. I also don't think current matter can be excided from the page as a compensatory measure. 20:16, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

*Weak support - recent changes have greatly improved the article but Jeronimo does have some good points. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

=== [[Mark Latham]] ===

Came across this while trying to find out about the Australian election and its just utterly sound. I'm keen on biography on wiki and this is an exemplar of a very nicely written piece. I've no idea who's written it but I feel featuring it would be very topical and a reward for tight, entertaining prose and also bring to the attention of people outside Australia a man who, firstly, could be the next Oz PM and secondly seems something like an alien compared to the sort of rather dry politicians we have here in Britian. With the exception of [[John Prescott]] of course who is similiarly punchy. --[[User:Mr impossible|Mr impossible]] 14:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*<s>Object. No references ([[Wikipedia:Cite sources]]) and no lead section ([[Wikipedia:Lead section]]).</s> [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 16:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*<s>Object - same reasons as John.</s> --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 21:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**I've removed my objection since there is now a lead section and inline references. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 04:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support. I've expanded the lead section, but it isn't exactly my forte, so it could probably do with some improving. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 00:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support. Of clear current relevance. [[User:Lacrimosus|Lacrimosus]] 00:27, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support - though I'd like to see <strike>the lead section compacted and</strike> a metion of Latham's political cue regarding superannuation. Many regard this is as the event that gave him credibility. --[[User:David Crawshaw|d]] 03:54, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*<strike>Object. For an article this size, the lead section should be only half as long.--[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 05:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)</strike>

**I've tried to shorten it somewhat. As I said above, lead sections really aren't my forte, so I'd appreciate someone else stopping by and giving it a go. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 06:03, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**I've reduced the lead section to two paragraphs. Is this better? --[[User:David Crawshaw|d]] 07:22, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* Absolutely object. This is ''nowhere'' near as complete as it should be. Where the heck is commentary of the five books he's written? What about his relationship to Gough Whitlam (get the latest Quarterly Essay if your an Aussie)? Where is the information on his leadership of Liverpool Council? <s>Where is the information on his colourful language?</s> (oops, that's there) I could go on and on... though I might just start adding to this. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 07:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

===[[Falklands War]]===

Having stumbled across it, I was truly impressed. It seems well written and well researched. There are numerous maps, links to other very good articles, and it concerns one of the most important naval conflicts since the end of the Second World World, (as the article points out).

I also think that there are many ''yanks'' of my generation who don't know very much about this important conflict. I was about 9 at the time, and the Falklands were barely a blip on my childhood radar screen. The conclusion of the war lead to important political changes in Argentina, and to important changes in the navel preparedness of fleets around the world.

What really recommends it in my mind is that, while being entirely encyclopedic, it is also entirely ''riveting''. It is simply a fascinating story, especially the section detailing the relatively small group of Royal Marines who undertook to defend the isle against a navel fleet and its commandos. <tt>[[User:AdmN|AdmN]] 10:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)</tt>

* Support after a references section is added. This is an article where this is necessary. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 11:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* Object for the moment - the writing style is clumsy (and grammatically incorrect in many places), and far too many of the links are red. I'll support if someone can go through and tidy up the writing and grammar - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 13:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

===[[Lord Chancellor]]===

-- [[User:Lord Emsworth|Emsworth]] 19:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Strong support. I've looked at this article in the past and have found it excellent. [[User:Neutrality|[[User:Neutrality|<b>Neutrality</b>]] ([[User talk:Neutrality|talk]])]] 19:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Also strongly support. Interesting and well researched. A good example of a high-quality Wikipedia article! - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 12:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 13:21, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support. Brilliant and thorough article [[User:Cyopardi|Cyopardi]] 16:45, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support. Emsworth edited this? No brainer :) --[[User:Zerbey|Zerbey]] 02:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

===[[Cogito ergo sum]] ("I think therefore I am")===

Previously this page just featured a short entry outlining the argument. As it is one of the most famous statements in philosophy (and influential in defining the prevailent mode of philosophical enquiry for a number of centuries) I thought it necessary to add a discussion of its validity. I've kept the previous entry as a helpful initial summary. ''Self-nomination'' (I hope this isn't really poor form) [[bjardine]], 3rd Sept. 2004.

*Object. Well I'm duty bound to end up supporting eventually ;-) But for the moment I will object with the following.

:#The lead section could use some simplification. What's there is good, it just needs a succinct summary of 'Cogito' before we get into discussing 'fallacious logic in the first meditation'.

:#No image - but this can easily be sorted the photo of Rodin's ''[[The Thinker]]'', or the [[Rembrant]] shown [http://www.wright.edu/cola/descartes/ here].

:#I think the Meditations were written in Latin, so there should probably be a note about who's translation we are using for the quote in the Introduction.

:#The article is a little unusual for being written in the first person, so it sounds more like a lecture than an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, this could be seen to be highly apposite.

:-- [[User:Solipsist|Solipsist]] 15:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Object- I agree that the first person in unencyclopedic (''dis''agree that it's highly apposite). Following on from the first person thing, accepting or rejecting particular arguments is not NPOV. Also, the scope is very limited- considering only three arguments against the cogito is fine in an essay or a lecture, but an encyclopedia article should be as broad as possible, covering all the major arguments for and against. [[User:Markalexander100|Markalexander100]] 06:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Object; As the above mentioned, the first-person references need to be removed. It could be a bit longer, too. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades.tk]] 21:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*'''Object.''' First, the ''Wikipedia'' reference must be removed. Second, I doubt that you can use the first-person to make this particular article work. Why? you might ask. My first explanation would be that, if you use first-person to do the explanation of Descartes's thesis, you becloud Descartes's use of the first-person in the quote that you are trying to explain. I would not contend that first-person is always a failed technique, but it is certainly a failure in this case. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] 01:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**Thanks for the interesting comments. That the article is limited is obvious, but so it goes&#8212;I don't really have time to expand it too much, and I thought that narrow but detailed content was better than a very short introduction. As for the first-person: I'll read through it again, and perhaps make it more 'encyclopedic'. Maybe there is a meta-argument about the value or subjectivity of this kind of subject (I like the idea of a humorous 'apposite' comment on Descartes' own method!). I stress, though, that the content and argument are, to me, succinct, i.e. happily limited. Perhaps if it were less subjective others could add to it. [[User:bjardine|bjardine]], 06/09/2004

===[[Soul]]===

*I like this. It explains the idea and gives it from a bunch of different viewpoints. The only problem I can find with it is its lack of picture, although what sort of picture you could use for a soul I'm not sure. -[[User:Litefantastic|Litefantastic]] 11:51, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:*Well, as a child I pictured the soul as looking like a white cabbage. Guess that doesn't really help, though. --[[User:Kbh3rd|Kbh3rd]] 21:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Object for now. This article does try to present a wide array of beliefs, succeeding for the most part. Objections listed below. [[User:Benc|&bull;&nbsp;Benc]][[User_talk:Benc|&nbsp;&bull;]] 12:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**1. Missing belief systems: Shintoism and various Native American beliefs.

**2. The prose style in places is excessively wordy (with lots of parenthetical statements).

**3. More references needed.

*'''Object'''. Seems to somewhat lacking in non Abrahamic religions, and has no mention at all of ancient religions - eg ''ka'' and ''ba'' of ancient Egyptian religion, which is fairly well known.--[[User:Gene Poole|Gene_poole]] 13:00, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**Er, the article has a lengthy Buddism section, and Egyptian belief is mentioned (at least in passing) in the "Other religious beliefs and views". I agree it needs expansion, though. [[User:Benc|&bull;&nbsp;Benc]][[User_talk:Benc|&nbsp;&bull;]] 14:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

***I didn't say ''totally'' lacking - I said ''generally'' lacking. The focus is strongly on one family of religions, and my suggestion is to broaden that. Inclusions on Zoroastrian views would I think be interesting too, given that religion's strong influence on Judaism.--[[User:Gene Poole|Gene_poole]] 23:28, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

===[[Noam Chomsky]]===

An interesting article, and an interesting man. Stumbled across it while looking at [[Linguistics]]. Leads into all sorts of other interesting articles too. -[[User:Jal|Jal]] 10:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*What a strange duck. Good article; interesting topic; support. -[[User:Litefantastic|Litefantastic]] 11:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support. Page has had some edit warring problems in the past, though. [[User:Benc|&bull;&nbsp;Benc]][[User_talk:Benc|&nbsp;&bull;]] 12:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support. Has had some trouble in the past but i think its turned out well. [[User:O'Dubhghaill|O'Dubhghaill]] 17:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support ([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 20:59, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC))

*Support as long as this doesn't go on the main page. [[User:Meelar|[[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]]]] 03:37, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

**Because...? [[User:Markalexander100|Markalexander100]] 05:09, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

***Because we&#8217;ll end up with a savage revert war if it gets on the main page. People like Chomsky always have that affect. [[User:GeneralPatton|GeneralPatton]] 05:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

****Oh please. That's not a very good reason at all. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 06:07, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Not an objection (yet) - can I get a license on that picture? [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 03:45, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

*Support. Arguably the greatest biography on Wikipedia, regardless of one's personal opinion of Chomsky --[[User:Cyopardi|Cyopardi]] 15:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support. [[User:Satori|Satori]] 15:59, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

*Support. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 16:37, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support. Meelar is right, of course. Support and ''Protect'', this article looks ''finished'' to me. <tt>[[User:AdmN|AdmN]] 16:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)</tt>

**It&#8217;s not our policy to call an article &#8220;finished&#8221;. The whole concept of wiki is that they&#8217;re constantly evolving and hopefully improving. [[User:GeneralPatton|GeneralPatton]] 18:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

***Sorry, I was being facetious. :) <tt>[[User:AdmN|AdmN]] 18:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)</tt>

*Support. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 17:49, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support, it&#8217;s a good, well written look at the man. [[User:GeneralPatton|GeneralPatton]] 18:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*'''Support.''' My congratulations to the writers, and a big hug abrazo sudamericano for each. This page very nicely covers a very complex set of human balances, competitions, and trade offs. Someone should specifically label the current version in the Description with a label something like "FEATURED ARTICLE VERSION--Start here" and resave this page to the History queue before this page, with its coming notoriety, enters the looming "Tunnel of Edit Wars." That is, the [[Bush Administration Disinformation Squad]] (BADS) has not found this page yet. ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] 20:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*<s>Object - Very weak [[wikipedia:lead section|lead section]], overwhelming TOC</s>, and no references section (see [[wikipedia:Cite your sources]]). --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 21:28, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Object. Sadly changing my vote: there are clearly still content issues to be sorted out. <s>Support, subject to references.</s>I've reworked the lead. The TOC is only about a third of a page printed out, which is hardly overwhelming for a 12-page article. Since we're here, I disagree that this article should not go on the main page: we feature articles because we want more people to read them, and putting them on the main page is a good way to do that. If silliness breaks out we can revert and protect as usual, but since there's plenty more which could be written about him I would hope that it would encourage positive contributions. (And there are no other "people like Chomsky" ;-) ). [[User:Markalexander100|Markalexander100]] 06:05, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support, with references. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 06:07, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support, although I am afraid that it would be a revert war. -- [[User:KneeLess|KneeLess]] 07:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*I'd like to see more on criticisms of [[Chomsky]] as a linguist by people like [[Del Hymes]], but support, nonetheless. [[User:Bmills|Bmills]] 14:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support [[User:LegCircus|LegCircus]] 20:41, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

*Support [[User:Denni|Denni]][[User_talk:Denni|<font color=#228822>&#9775;</font>]] 00:54, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

*Support --[[User:Zerbey|Zerbey]] 02:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

===[[I Want To Hold Your Hand]]===

Has been on [[Wikipedia:Peer review|peer review]]; I've left the section there for the reading benefit of voters (I don't really see how it's beneficial to remove requests for peer review of candidates). I understand the article could need some more work, but I think it's almost there, if not already, featured-level. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 10:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* Support. A few suggestions though: 1) put the sound sample in the lead section (or at least more prominent), and perhaps more visible (a small speaker icon perhaps?) 2) I doesn't seem very relevant to mention the German recording in the lead section, it has (I think) sufficient attention below. 3) The four references to the same website should be distinguished by name or description. This way, it seems like it is four times the same site. [[User:Jeronimo|Jeronimo]] 11:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**I know there's a speaker icon somewhere here, but I can't locate it. I think it would be inappropriate if placed in the lead section, and I think it'll be prominent enough once we have the icon. Secondly, the German recording's rather unique, because AFAIK, only it and [[She Loves You]] were ever recorded in German by [[the Beatles]]. Re references, I am following the style outlined in [[Wikipedia:Cite your sources]]. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 14:13, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

===[[Arabic calligraphy]]===

A fascinating article on an interesting topic. I particularly like the illustrations of the various styles showing the development through time. Could perhaps use some headings but the illustrations break up the text quite nicely as it is. [[User:Lisiate|Lisiate]] 23:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:A minor objection. What do these scripts say? Are they a verse from Qur'an or simply listing alphabets? Having what they mean makes them more intersting to compare. [[User:Revth|Revth]] 04:25, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* Object for now. 1) The article's a bit short, and has no clear structure (no sections). 2) Can the different types of calligrahpies be categorised? Surely there are more scripts than just those given here. 3) The images are all without source information. 4) There are no references. [[User:Jeronimo|Jeronimo]] 07:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:Sections and categories ought to be done by someone with more knowledge in the subject than I (I just came across the article by accident). The illustrations were uploaded by [[User:Mr100percent]] back in 2003 so I'll leave a message on his talk page. I'll also ask what the scripts say. He may be able to provide references as well. [[User:Lisiate|Lisiate]] 21:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

===[[French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools]]===

A very controversial issue treated in an exemplary way. Very well written and informative. [[User:Eric B. and Rakim|Eric B. and Rakim]] 10:03, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:Not a vote, but could we have a picture or two? It helps a lot if at a later point we want to feature the article on the main page. If of the ''[[hijab]]'', the picture could be reused in the ''hijab'' article too. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 12:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

===[[Renaissance]]===

At the risk of creating work for myself, this is the best non-featured product of [[WP:COTW|<s>Article</s>Collaboration of the week]] project and looks (to me) to be ready to be featured. Inevitably I have made some minor amendments, so this is partially a self-nomination. Only two previous <s>A</s>CotWs have made featured status ([[siege]] and [[academia]]), but others (such as [[Iranian Revolution]]) will be coming here soon. See the [[Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/History|history]] and the [[Wikipedia talk:Collaboration of the week|talk]] pages for more information. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 22:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 01:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Oppose. "Literature and poetry" section far too short. [[User:Neutrality|[[User:Neutrality|<b>Neutrality</b>]] ([[User talk:Neutrality|talk]])]] 01:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**Ah - not something that I am really qualified to write up, but I have added to the [[Talk:Renaissance/to do|todo list]] on the [[Talk:Renaissance|talk page]]. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 09:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**Section expanded. [[User:Benc|&bull;&nbsp;Benc]][[User_talk:Benc|&nbsp;&bull;]] 05:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support. <s>Object for now: pictures are this article's weak spot. A few more images are needed to illustrate the text &mdash; it was such a colorful era, so the article deserves more. And that piecewise photograph of Florence has got to go (though it isn't terrible, for a Frankenstein's picture).</s> [[User:Benc|&bull;&nbsp;Benc]][[User_talk:Benc|&nbsp;&bull;]] 02:03, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**I'll see what I can dig up. I quite like the Florence picture, but a proper fisheye lens one would be better. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 09:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**Added a few images, and Florence replaced - better? -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 11:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Comment: OK, I've recently switched my opinion on references (hey, I'm flexible all right?). Maybe we could make the references section be more like APA style? - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 13:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**Had a go - something like that? -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 13:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* Object. The "Historiography" section makes a point that there was no *The Renaissance*, and that there have several such periods throughout history, and names them explicitly. I would then expect a brief discussion of each of these renaissances (or at least the most important ones), yet the next section is "Start of the Renaissance" which is in contradiction with the earlier text. Only the Italian and Northern Renaissance are then discussed. The Italian section refers to a main article (twice, actually) but this main article is shorter and messier. The other renaissances are not mentioned anymore. The best way to resolve this (IMO) is to make this EITHER an article about renaissance in general with references to (and short discussions of) more specific "renaissances" OR an article about what most people generally recognise as the Renaissance (also making up the majority of this article), namely the Italian Renaissance. [[User:Jeronimo|Jeronimo]] 08:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**I think the fact that certain scholars think there was no ''The Renaissance'' deserves to be there, and the other "renaissances" need to be mentioned too, but the article is (and should be) about ''The Renaissance'' as commonly understood - that is, the Italian Renaissance and the Northern Renaissance (whether it/they actually happened or not, an awful lot of people think it/they did). I'll see what I can do to resolve your objections - it is rather unfortunate that the "main articles" are shorter and less polished. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 11:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**It's not the article's fault that there's so much historiography to churn through &mdash; blame the historians. I think the article does a good job in working its way through all the "re-[[periodization]]" issues as succinctly as possible while still remaining comprehensive. If anything, I think the Historiography could be subsectioned to help the reader know what's going on. [[User:Benc|&bull;&nbsp;Benc]][[User_talk:Benc|&nbsp;&bull;]] 13:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**I've added two subsection headers to the "Historiography" section; it should be easier to digest now. [[User:Benc|&bull;&nbsp;Benc]][[User_talk:Benc|&nbsp;&bull;]] 06:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**Re-reading your objection, did you mean that [[Italian Renaissance]] should be merged into this article? Given that [[Renaissance]] is 36k and counting, I should have thought that the traffic should be the other way. Other than the Italian Renaissance and Northern/English Renaissance, which other renaissances do you think should be included? -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 17:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Object, a great deal more needed on the art and culture of the Northern Renaissance and how it built on and differed from that of the Italian Renaissance. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 19:59, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

**Give that the article is already 36k, there is not a lot of space here to write a "great deal" about the Northern Renaissance (although there is a separate article on the [[English Renaissance]] which is developing). If your concern is that the section on "Northern Renaissance" is too small in comparision to "Italian Renaissance", perhaps some of the section on the Italian Renaissance should be separated out to the 'main article' [[Italian Renaissance]] (which is now lagging behind [[English Renaissance]] in terms of structure and content). -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 17:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Object for now. The article is still unclear as to what it is about. In fact, I think there is a real case for calling it The Renaissance as a way of addressing the issues raised in the historiography section. Also, there are some extremely dodgy statements of 'non-fact' like this humdinger: 'His disciple, [[Giovanni Boccaccio]], became a major author in his own right. His works, such as ''[[Decamerone]]'' and ''[[La Teseida]]'', would be emulated centuries later in the [[English Renaissance]] by [[Geoffrey Chaucer]] and [[John Dryden]].' Chaucer was born a mere 50 years after Boccaccio, not centuries, and Dryden is a key 17th century writer, well after the Renaissance period. This may seem like a small thing, but it is the kind of problem that lends fuel to those who claim that Wikipedia is inherently unreliable. [[User:Bmills|Bmills]] 07:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**Taking your two objections separately:

**#'''Unclear''': the article is about ''The Renaissance'' - to quote the first sentence: ''a [[cultural movement]] and time period in the [[history of Europe]], comprising the transitional period between the end of the [[Middle Ages]] and the start of the [[Modern Age]]''. The first section ("Historiography") discusses whether there was a Renaissance or not, and then goes on to discuss how it started, and what happened, concentrating on Italy and then looking at northern Europe.

**#'''Errors''': [[User:Benc|Benc]] added the section to which you object to address the objection that there is too little on "Literature and poetry" but I agree that lumping Chaucer together with Dryden looks a little odd, particularly the way that it is phrased. What are the other "extremely dodgy statements of 'non-fact'"? (Of course Wikipedia is inherently unreliable, all sources are: but we have the best error-correction mechanism :) ) -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 17:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**Whoops, the "centuries later" bit was a misstep. Fixed. (I never claimed to be an expert on Renaissance literature &mdash; though I do make an honest effort at research and citing sources.) As to lumping Chaucer and Dryden together, this I got from the Encarta encyclopedia, which I cited. [http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761563851] [[User:Benc|&bull;&nbsp;Benc]][[User_talk:Benc|&nbsp;&bull;]] 21:17, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

***I took the liberty of working on the Petrarch/Boccaccio section, hopefully I've addressed the problems and not added any errors of my own. I don't know if I'd rely on Encarta too much, perhaps it's snobbishness on my part, but E. seems a bit off to me on this topic. Not so much in error but skewed in a way I can't quite put my finger on. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]]]] 05:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support. Would like to see less of red links though. [[User:Nichalp|&#x00b6; <font color="teal">&#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57;</font> | <font color="magenta" size="+8">[[User talk:nichalp|&#x2709;]]</font>]] 19:21, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

===[[JPEG]]===

Have you wondered how JPEG image compression works? Have you wondered about the patent fuss? I wondered, and found [[JPEG]] covers both questions thoroughly but succinctly, stopping appropriately short of an implementation manual for which there are external links. -- [[User:Ke4roh|ke4roh]] 01:16, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

*'''Oppose, for now.''' [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 01:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*#Wouldn't it be appropriate that an article on image compression featured at least one image? For example, an illustration of how an image compressed really hard with JPEG looks (artifacts and all).

*#:Agreed. I'm working on putting in all or some images from [[pl:JPEG]], though the translation is a bit dicey. -- [[User:Ke4roh|ke4roh]] 00:11, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

*#There should be some more references to some of the information.

*#:I added the JPEG main page and the JPEG FAQ to the list of external links. Does that address your concern? -- [[User:Ke4roh|ke4roh]] 00:11, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

*Agreed. Say take an image and compress it lowly and then highly with JPEG, and possibly JPEG2000.

[[User:Kiand|Kiand]] 17:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

* Oppose. No picture (maybe an example how JPEG works). No history. -[[User:PedroPVZ|Pedro]] 01:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* Objection; for example, the Encoding section is inappropriately written. It should maybe not use that many subheadings, and be written in a less step-by-step way. Also, the Decoding section is just one line.[[User:Sverdrup|{{User:Sverdrup/sig}}]] 12:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* Oppose. An article on JPEG without a picture? [[User:Davodd|Davodd]] 17:44, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

===[[Saint Petersburg]]===

Visited this city recently, so checked out its article. I find it well written and it has some decent photos. --[[User:David Crawshaw|d]] 23:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

* Object. This article only has decent sections on history and landmarks, and even these are not that great; it reads like a summary of facts rather than a "story" (also, "Sankti-Pitersburh" is certainly not a Dutch name). More importantly, this article lacks (extensive) sections on politics, geography, culture & sports, economy and education. [[User:Jeronimo|Jeronimo]] 06:54, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

* If you need some pictures, I visited the city as well and put some pictures in the [[:de:Sankt Petersburg|German Article about the city]]. -- [[User:213.7.138.158|213.7.138.158]] 21:48, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

===[[Mona Lisa]]===

Was reading through this article and noticed it is not featured. It is a well writen article covering many aspects of the painting - history, sitter, the aesthetics. Even if it is not quite feature-worthy yet, please add constructive criticism to help make it such. --[[User:OldakQuill|[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak]] [[User_talk:OldakQuill|Quill]]]] 10:22, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*Refer to [[Wikipedia:Peer review]]; there's just too many things that need work. I've noted a few of them on the article's talk page, and have started to try and fix them. I agree that such an important painting deserves a featured article, but it's not there yet. [[User:Benc|&bull;&nbsp;Benc]][[User_talk:Benc|&nbsp;&bull;]] 21:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**Agreed. It needs some fairly significant copy editing and structuring. [[User:Eudyptes|Eudyptes]] 22:15 30 Aug 2004 UTC

===[[CPU cache]]===

Just stumbled across this- it's got pretty pictures, it goes into detail, the terminology isn't too bad (and there's a quite readable intro...) - very good work. - [[User:Fennec|Fennec]] [[User_Talk:Fennec|(&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;)]] 04:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*Nice article. I do not object, but for me to support I'd like a more concise lead-section (redistribute superfluous information into another section(s)) - ensuring the leadsection appropriately conveys the concept to a layman; a more aesthetic image in the lead section; and better paragraphing. --[[User:OldakQuill|[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak]] [[User_talk:OldakQuill|Quill]]]] 10:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**Tell me how to fix that image and I'll do it. [[User:Iain.mcclatchie|Iain McClatchie]] 18:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support - if lead section were reduced to 3 paragraphs. --[[User:David Crawshaw|d]] 00:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support - cool article! - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 02:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support - some of it seems wordy and technical, but it's still a very good article with great information. -- [[User:KneeLess|KneeLess]] 07:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**The technical bit is deliberate. If things seem wordy, just let me know, and I'll take another whack at it. Overall, I think the article needs a good hard round of criticism before it's ready for prime-time. [[User:Iain.mcclatchie|Iain McClatchie]] 18:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Under "More hierarchies" the article reads "This section should be rewritten." Presumably it should be, or the notice removed. [[User:Dan Gardner|Dan Gardner]] 17:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**I've got quite a bit to do in that section, but other commitments... you know. I'm hoping to fix this bit in a month or so. [[User:Iain.mcclatchie|Iain McClatchie]] 18:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

===[[Windows XP]]===

Nominate this article, it's pretty much complete, not badly written and though it's been a controversial article it's had many eyes looking over it doing fact checking. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 03:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

* Support. Well-written, comprehensive, and concerns something recognizable to just about every reader. [[User:Solver|Solver]] 16:22, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*<strike>Object for now. The first paragraph says "Two versions of Windows XP are most commonly available: Home which is targeted at home users and doesn't allow users to join a ___domain, and Professional which has additional features such as dual-processor support and the ability to join a ___domain." The article should explain what "join a ___domain" means, possibly by making that text a hyperlink.</strike> -- [[User:Cabalamat|Cabalamat]] 18:48, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**Rhobite has added a section on domains. Not sure if this is useful. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 14:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

***Yes, I hope I've addressed these concerns. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 14:58, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

****I withdraw my objection. I've started the article [[Windows Server ___domain]] but cannot write further about it since I dson't know the subject matter -- [[User:Cabalamat|Cabalamat]] 22:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*<s>Object - Needs a ==References== section. See [[Wikipedia:Cite your sources]].</s> --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 03:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

** <strike>I've started on this, but my question is: why? other articles don't, and they often went to the front page. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 05:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)</strike>

***OK, it's completely done now. Actually, it was a good idea to do the references! No need to answer my question, I answered it myself. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 12:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*Object, only slightly. Perhaps more running prose - I notice the greater part of the article consists of lists and bulleted sections. More images, there are plenty of things to see. --[[User:OldakQuill|[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak]] [[User_talk:OldakQuill|Quill]]]] 10:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**Good point. I've coalesced the lists in the Security Issues sections into running prose. Also, I've added two comparison screenshots of classic mode and default mode. Is this enough? I don't want the article to get too cluttered with images! - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 03:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Object. Although this article has improved out of sight in recent months, it still consists largely of lists, and it might be nice if the references section wasn't so massive (maybe it's necessary, I'm not sure, but still). [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 06:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**Gah! - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 10:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

***Quickly, we must devise a metric to determine the acceptable number of references based on an article's size, controversy, and airpeed velocity. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 16:00, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

**Lol, poor old Ta bu, do we have an article on [[The parable of the old man, the boy, and the donkey]]? [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 07:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::*Truer words were never spoken... - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 10:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*Support. (Is this a self-nomination, since I've done a lot of work on this article in the past?) I think it's a solid article, and Rhobite and Ta bu have been doing a terrific job in accommodating peoples' suggestions. - [[User:Brian Kendig|Brian Kendig]] 14:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*Support. I appreciate that a lot of work has been done NPOV this article, and it's just about as good as it's going to get right now. However, I'm kind of want to rename "New and improved features" section; it sounds like it should be in a brochure with an exclamation mark after it. --[[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] [[User_talk:DropDeadGorgias|(talk)]] 15:38, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

:*I changed this to "New and updated features" - is this enough? - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 14:16, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support. After some edits, it looks to be a really great article. -- [[User:KneeLess|KneeLess]] 22:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Object, at this time. Wikipedia has a large amount of articles on computer related topics, and these, in my view, make up a larger percentage of the total 'pedia than is appropriate to the goal of the project. We should not highlight this higher proportion by regularly featuring computer related articles, but seek to feature those which show the diversity and full scope of wikipedia. [[User:LegCircus|LegCircus]] 20:53, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

**For the record, this objection is not actionable. [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 20:54, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

***I don't know what that means, but if the objection breaks a wiki-code of behavior, allow me to apologize. [[User:LegCircus|LegCircus]] 16:08, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

****The directions at the top of this page say: ''All objections must give a specific rationale which can be responded to. If nothing can be done to "fix" the objected-to matter, the objection may be ignored.'' - in other words, if you object to the article because it is about a computer-related topic, there's nothing that anyone can do to "fix" your objection. Therefore, your objection is invalid. [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 16:33, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

=== [[Du Fu]] ===

Self-nom. One of the world's great poets. [[User:Markalexander100|Markalexander100]] 07:18, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*Support. --[[User:Shibboleth|Shibboleth]] 19:42, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*Support, brilliant article. --[[User:Alxt|Alxt]] 19:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*"Tu Fu" is more common: [http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=%22Tu+Fu%22+-wikipedia&q2=%22Du+Fu%22+-wikipedia&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us] --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 21:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**This objection is unactionable. If we moved the article to [[Tu Fu]], others may well object that [[Wade-Giles]] is not "standard" enough. The googlefight is a dead heat: a 7% difference in usage doesn't amount to a clear victory for "Tu Fu", and there are counterarguments in favor of "Du Fu". Anyway, it's a really minor point, because there is a redirect. This well-written article shouldn't be held up over petty romanization disputes. --[[User:Shibboleth|Shibboleth]] 21:47, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

***I didn't object. I'm just noting a fact. Don't expect the article to stay where it is on that argument alone though. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 03:04, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

****"Tu" may be minimally more common on the Internet (although searching for each term individually gives "about 10,500" for each, and not all the hits for "Tu Fu" ''or'' "Du Fu" refer to our man); but "Du" is more common in current sinological (is that a word?) work, and the balance is shifting towards "Du". [[User:Markalexander100|Markalexander100]] 04:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*Would it be possible to include information about his calligraphy? Since handwriting is so valued in Chinese culture I think it might be appropriate. I do not object to this article, in fact I like it a lot, I just think it could be a bit more complete. -[[Use:Eudyptes|Eudyptes]] 02:49 29 Aug 2004

**I'm fairly sure that we know nothing about his own calligraphy, even in copies. I've added a sample of someone else's calligraphy of one of his poems, but I think that's all we can do. [[User:Markalexander100|Markalexander100]] 04:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

***Good, then. Thanks. [[User:Eudyptes|Eudyptes]] 15:41 29 Aug 2004 UTC

*<s>Object - Nice article, but it needs a ==References== section. See [[Wikipedia:Cite your sources]].</s> --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

**I've renamed "Further reading" as "References"- I hope that helps. [[User:Markalexander100|Markalexander100]] 03:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

***Were each of those listed items used as references? --mav

****Yes. I've always used "Further reading" as a synonym for "References", firstly because I wouldn't direct readers to something I haven't read, and secondly because "References" usually translates as "don't bother to read". But I'll use the latter if it's preferred. [[User:Markalexander100|Markalexander100]] 05:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**"Further reading" would have been a useful category at Wikipedia. I used it when I arrived but was told not to. [[User:Wetman|Wetman]] 05:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*Support. Great name! - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 10:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*Support. [[User:Sverdrup|{{User:Sverdrup/sig}}]] 16:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*Support. [[User:PedroPVZ|Pedro]] 19:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*Support. [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 19:32, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Objection: The paragraphs of the lead section are rather short (especially the first); they should either be extended or merged together. There are several short paragraphs in the article itself, as well (seven with one or two sentences each). -- [[User:Lord Emsworth|Emsworth]] 00:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**The first paragraph of the lead is short for a very good reason: it allows readers who don't want to wade through all the Gongbus and Shaolins (which are boring but necessary) to skip them and start on the real article. The other paragraphs of the lead are three and two sentences respectively, but the last sentence of the two sentence paragraph is a long one. And as for the short paragraphs in the article: well, sometimes paragraphs ''are'' short. I've expanded a couple slightly, but the others contain as much information on the topic as is known. Extending those paragraphs would make the article worse by conflating unrelated information or by introducing useless verbiage. And there's nothing in the MoS against short paras. [[User:Markalexander100|Markalexander100]] 00:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Support: good article on a really important figure. What more can you ask? [[User:Bmills|Bmills]] 13:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

=== [[Anarchism in Spain]] ===

Self-nomination. I keep thinking it should be longer, but its over 32kb; I think I'm just a perfectionist. It's pretty comprehensive, methinks. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades.tk]] 22:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*Support - This is a very detailed account. I haven't really seen any featured anarchist articles, and considering the huge amount of influence of the anarchist party had in Spain, I think this is a worthy topic. [[User:Lockeownzj00|Lockeownzj00]] 23:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*<s>Object.</s> Strong support. After thorough nitpicking session, no unresolved objections. [[User:Benc|&bull;&nbsp;Benc]][[User_talk:Benc|&nbsp;&bull;]] Very well-written; this article is <s>very close to</s> featured quality. <s>A few rough edges, though (all of them easily actionable, I think):</s>

**<s>1. Captions needed underneath each image.</s> Fixed... MediaWiki's image syntax is a pain.

***I'm having trouble with the captions here. They're there when you try to edit it but they don't seem to appear in the actual page... --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades.tk]] 00:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**<s>2. Need a date for the founding of the FAI.</s>

***Added (1927) --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades.tk]] 00:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**<s>3. In [[Anarchism in Spain#Relationship with Socialists and Communists|this section]]: "A Socialist leader once said...". An exact attribution if possible, please.</s> Okay, this is the primary source's shortcoming, not the article's. Objection withdrawn.

***No attribution in the book I got it from, can't find it on google either --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades.tk]] 00:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**<s>4. Why is the ''Criticisms of the CNT-FAI by fellow anarchists'' section not a subsection of the ''History'' section?</s>

***Should it go in the section on the Spanish Civil War, perhaps? --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades.tk]] 00:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

****Maybe. OTOH, it is nice to end the article with a quotation. It just looks a little out-of-place as it is, though. [[User:Benc|&bull;&nbsp;Benc]][[User_talk:Benc|&nbsp;&bull;]] 01:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*****Moved it. It makes sense, since the criticisms were only made around the time of the Civil War. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades.tk]] 03:11, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**<s>5. There's a sore thumb in the ''Morality'' section: "It should be noted, however, than any generalization of Anarchist thought in Spain or elsewhere is inherently flawed; the lack of coercion or standardization allowed a wide variety of opinions." Is there any way to phrase that so it doesn't have the effect of "The preceding paragraph is pure speculation"?</s>

***Good point; I added that to point out that this was an organic thing, that it wasn't like, CNT policy. I removed the sentence entirely, because it was basically saying "not all anarchists had these qualities," which is fairly obvious. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades.tk]] 00:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**<s>6. Consistency: anarchist isn't capitalized, but Socialist, Communist, and Republican are. Is this intentional, and if so, what is the rationale?</s> I've NPOVed the article as you suggested below.

***It was intentional, but thinking of it, it's probably POV. I see anarchism not as an official dogma, but as more of a philosophy. There was no "Spanish Anarchist Party" with members who could be called Anarchists, capital A, as with the other three; in reference to members of the CNT-FAI, etc. the capitalized spelling would be appropriate, though. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades.tk]] 00:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*:Minor objections:

**<s>7. Two or three historical photos from the pre-Franco era would help illustrate the text of the lengthy ''History'' section.</s>

***Added three images. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades.tk]] 03:06, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**<s>8. ISBNs for book references would be nice.</s>

***Done. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades.tk]] 00:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**<s>9. Expand the ''Today'' section ("Cause of the split, comparative size, influence").</s>

***I fixed that part up a bit, I didn't quite understand the split myself. Seems good now. The "Today" section still could use some expanding; it was a an afterthought (it is still essential, don't get me wrong), my main focus was 1868-1939. :( --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades.tk]] 09:27, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*:Forgive me for being so nitpicky, but I really like this article, and would like to see it reach perfection, too. :-) [[User:Benc|&bull;&nbsp;Benc]][[User_talk:Benc|&nbsp;&bull;]] 23:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*Neutral - Could use an expanded lead section and the TOC is a bit much. Suggestion: move the ==History== section to [[History of Anarchism in Spain]] and leave a summary (1/3 to 1/2 the length it is now) at [[Anarchism in Spain]]. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 03:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**That doesn't seem necessary. I really don't want this article split up like that. I'm against article splitting as a rule, but whatever. Just my opinion. :) --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades.tk]] 05:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*Neutral. Seems very comprensive and NPOV (at least, as far as I can tell without being familiar with Spanish politics). However, I feel it is not written in enough of a top-down form. By which I mean that each section, and the article as a whole, should start with the important generalities and then go down into specifics later. I should be able to read just the lead section to get a general idea of what anarchism in Spain is all about, and then only go into the details if I want to. As it is, I'm drowning in details and I never get the big picture unless I take the time to read all 15 pages of the article. I emphasize that this article is excellent as far as research goes, it's just that I feel the way it's set down is not appropriate for a reader with only a casual interest in the topic. --[[User:Shibboleth|Shibboleth]] 06:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**<s>Good point. Fortunately, the solution to this problem is as simple as adding an "Overview" section in front of the "History" section. :-) [[User:Benc|&bull;&nbsp;Benc]][[User_talk:Benc|&nbsp;&bull;]] 20:02, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)</s>

**So you're suggesting the lead be expanded? [[User:Benc|&bull;&nbsp;Benc]][[User_talk:Benc|&nbsp;&bull;]] 22:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

***You're right that my criticism was rather vague :). Yes, adding a 4-5 paragraph overview of the important events of the history would do it. When that's done, support. --[[User:Shibboleth|Shibboleth]] 04:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

==Pictures==

The first list is featured articles that do not have a picture and hence would be problematic to put on the main page. Please add pictures and then move to the second list. GFDL or PD preferred &mdash; avoid fair use images where possible (they may not be fair use on the main page).

Tangentially connected pictures may also be suitable for the main page, even if they wouldn't sit well with the article itself. Use your common sense.

===Featured articles missing pictures===

*[[Chuck Palahniuk]] (needs picture of author)

*[[Computational complexity theory]]

*[[Computer security]]

*[[Donegal fiddle tradition]]

*[[Gram Parsons]]

*[[Have I Got News For You]] (now has title picture, but Trademark needs checking)

*[[Illegal prime]]

*[[Indus Valley Civilization]] (fair use picture)

*[[Negligence]]

*[[Not the Nine O'Clock News]]

*[[Peloponnesian War]]

*[[Vacuous truth]]

===These now have pictures===

*[[Ackermann function]] - use [[:Image:Ackermann.png|pic of equation]]

*[[Anno Domini]] - [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 19:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

*[[Application programming interface]] - use [[Unified Modeling Language|UML]] lollipop symbol for an [[interface]].

*[[ASCII]] (a lame one)

*[[Jazz]] (still needs free image)

*[[Jim Henson]] (still needs free image)

*[[History of the English penny]] <s>(fair use picture)</s> A new GFDL image has replaced the old one

*[[Korean name]] - use [[:Image:Hangul_seong.png]]

*[[Madonna (singer)]] (still needs free image)

*[[Markup language]] (well, sort-of; suitable for main page? [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

[[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 15:02, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)) (don't see why not [[User:Lupin|Lupin]] 00:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC))

*[[Milgram experiment]]

*[[Social history of the piano]] (Used on of sevearal pictures on [[piano]]

<!--Add new nominations at the TOP of this page. Before nominating, please ensure that it meets the FA criteria-->

[[de:Wikipedia:Kandidaten fuer exzellente Artikel]]

[[frCategory:Wikipedia:Proposition articles defeatured qualitecontent]]

[[Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed]]

[[ja:Wikipedia:&#31168;&#36920;&#12394;&#35352;&#20107;&#12398;&#36984;&#32771;]]

{{User:Dispenser/Checklinks/config|interval=daily |generator=heading }}

[[simple:Wikipedia:Brilliant prose candidates]]

[[sv:Wikipedia:Nomineringar till Utvalda artiklar]]