Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Gerard (talk | contribs) at 16:54, 6 July 2004 (→(Contested -- Jul 1) [[Lawrence_v._Texas]]: the lawyer pic?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

The purpose of this section is to determine which pages can be listed on Wikipedia:Featured articles. A featured article is an article that exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work. (For more information see what is a featured article) Articles featured on the front page are currently chosen as a subset of the featured articles - see Template talk:feature.

Anyone can nominate any article. If you are nominating an article you have worked on or copyedited, note it up front as a self-nomination. After nominating an article, you may want to place a notice on its talk page to alert readers by adding the message {{fac}}. It is strongly suggested you only have one nomination at a time, so that you will have time to fix objections. You may also consider taking an article to Peer review first.

Please read any nominated article in full before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • If you oppose a nomination, write "Object.", followed by the reason for your objection. (Note - all objections must be actionable. That is, they must give a specific rationale for the objection. If nothing can be done to "fix" the objected-to matter, then the objection is invalid. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed.) Sign your objection. If the heading of the article says "Uncontested", please change it to "Contested". You may wish to draw attention to the objection by replacing {{fac}} with {{fac-contested}} on the article's talk page so that it can be dealt with by editors who do not follow this page.
  • If you withdraw your objection, strike it out (with <strike>...</strike>) and, if you are the only remaining objector, change "Contested" back to "Uncontested." Do not change the heading's date.
  • If you approve of an article, write "Support" and state your reasons.

If there are no objections after at least one week, candidates can be added to FA. If there are objections, a consensus must be reached. If enough time passes (approximately two weeks) without objections being resolved, or if 24 hours passes with no support, an article may be removed from the candidates list. Anyone may add approved pages to FA or remove prospects that have failed. After an article becomes featured, a link to the article should be added in the proper category on FA. The nomination statement should be removed from the article's talk page replaced with {{featured}}.

Nominations

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

(Contested - July 5) 13 Colonies

This nomination was removed prematurely by our malevolent dictator, Raul. anthony (see warning)

  • Do you plan to work to repair objections? - David Gerard 22:04, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC
    • Depends how hard the objection is to repair. anthony (see warning)
      • You haven't even bothered addressing the ones below. If you're not going to bother, this nomination isn't worthy of consideration and should be removed - David Gerard 15:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Needs significant lengthening - it is barely more than a stub at the moment. Things I can think off of the top of my head to write about include - What did these 13 colonies have in common that made them rebel? Why not any of the others? It doesn't give dates of founding, any geographical or population information about the Colonies at the time etc etc etc. Morwen - Talk 19:58, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It's a bare-bones article at the moment. Worthwhile subject; needs more depth in all areas. 81.168.80.170 20:29, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This is the poor stub considering the subject Avala 12:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This is just a list, with almost no content. Given the topic, this article is very poor. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:11, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

(Uncontested -- July 6) Mount St. Helens

I think this is a pretty exceptional article. Well written for the most part and well illustrated. The only involvement is have with this article (other than a few sp. fixes) is the addition of Image:NASAMtStHelensaerial.jpg. All images seem to be properly documented. Has just about everything I'd ever really want to know about Mount St. Helens. blankfaze | •• | •• 10:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested - July 6) - People's Republic of Poland

This article is an in depth, and illustrated account of Poland under communist rule. Includes things such as the anti-Semitism the repressive communist regime causes, something which you wouldn't normally expect in an article such as this. And perhaps the interest that this stirs will cause someone to add more detail to the "fall of communism" section. DO'Иeil 10:39, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. My only real concern is that 5 out of the 6 images in the article don't have source information. Other than that, seems like a nice article. blankfaze | •• | •• 12:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This is a potentially controversial topic and needs a considerable degree of NPOVing. Everyking 16:08, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I find the naming of the article awkward. The article is one in a series of the history of Poland, not one about the People's Republic of Poland. That article should be more like the Soviet Union article. This one could do well as "History of the PR of Poland", or something fitting better in the "History of Poland" series. Also, a "section awaiting development" doesn't belong in a FA. Jeronimo 16:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested - July 6) Russian constitutional crisis of 1993

Self-nomination. Wikipeida's articles on post-Soviet Russia are dreadfully underdeveloped. Perhaps this is the one article in this area that's complete enough to go through the featuring process. I hope that a feature will act as an impetus encouraging some much-needed substantial work on recent Russian history and politics. 172 09:22, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Images need source information at the very least. Morwen - Talk 09:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested - July 5) Tank

Seems stunningly complete, dealing with form, history, usage doctrines, relationships to other types of military unit and ammunition types, and practical considerations going beyond the theory. 81.168.80.170 18:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could do with images. Will look around at other Tank articles and see if I can find any. Morwen - Talk 19:17, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
http://www.army.mil has some great ones. They're all modern U.S. tanks, unfortuately, but better than nothing. Added two photos. Any PD/GFDL sources for foreign/older tank photos? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I added one, still US but it's older at least --Taak 00:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Comment: The captions could use some editing (see Wikipedia:Captions). -- ke4roh 21:24, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
Comment about images, US tanks are lovely, but do not represent a good cross-section of tank history. Images of the first tanks, Da Vinci's "tank" and others will have passed into PD by now. Oppose until we can get some other pictures here. Burgundavia 00:36, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
I have added 1 WW1 one. Burgundavia 07:54, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
1 WW2 image as well
  • The article seems well written and complete, but where are the references? Exploding Boy 07:23, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • The history of the tank is far more varied than just what is presented. Oppose until this is expanded. Burgundavia 07:54, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes I have found the History of Tanks article, which I kind of missed, oops. However, the history section on Tank still needs a rewrite to include all of tank history, not stop at 1916. Burgundavia 08:04, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • I've added a summary history from 1918-present. (Does that make this a self-nomination? I'm the same user as 81.168.80.170.) I think the material I've added needs some more editing, and some of the WWI material should move to tank history. 195.167.169.36 12:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • If you want to place the tank article as a featured article real soon, then the section on the types of tanks should be moved out to the tank History article because it mostly deals with tank types of the 1930s and 1940s There should be a section on tank types in the tank article but it should be more generic, and a bit more modern as is the case with the other sections. AlainV 08:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jul 5) Politics of Taiwan

nice article about not so wide subject-politics of one small islandAvala 15:44, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Object. Towards the end it is just a copy and paste from the CIA World Factbook. This needs rewriting and putting in prose. Morwen - Talk 16:22, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Object. Lead does not provide sufficient context - seems like article is probably meant to be read as an expansion of Taiwan and does not completely make sense on its own. (Probably could be fixed with a quick sentence or two noting what Taiwan is, and the particular aspects of its history.) Article needs to better explain the relationship between Taiwan and China. Article needs to be reordered somewhat - the current political situation section does not make sense coming before the section that explains the historical dominance of one party. Also, article needs a picture. Snowspinner 17:56, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jul 5) Calvin and Hobbes

Self-nomination, though the best work is done by others. Images are of book covers so they fall under fair use. Alanyst 06:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Pretty good article, but something needs to be done with the organization of the cover images. Everyking 06:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I think I managed to do something nicer with them; it's actually really cool to have all of them in the article. (Nominator/uploader should tag them with fair use and rationale though) [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 15:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for several reasons. Image overkill. Possibly too short, if you take out the images. Thirdly, if it stopped being syndicated in 1995, why? Ambivalenthysteria 06:27, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Good points. I'll try to add some more background on the strip's history, Watterson's issues with syndication, etc. I have concerns about copyvio for some of the images added recently, so unless we can get those resolved I might have to withdraw the nomination. Alanyst 23:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • All intro, no article. There's several paragraphs of text and a pile of images and lists. Where's the article? - David Gerard 13:52, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • In all fairness, there's not terribly much that can be said about the topic, so I think that's a bit harsh. Still, it's not quite up to feature standard. Ambivalenthysteria 13:54, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Surely there is. A vastly popular cartoon strip that ran for many years? I want to read the article I'd like to see ;-) - David Gerard 14:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • It could do with a bit more analysis as to whether Hobbes is real. ISTR he was sometimes seen doing stuff that Calvin couldn't possibly have witnessed. Morwen - Talk 14:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • I've reorganised things, which I think helps a lot, but I I didn't add much contetn. Morwen - Talk 20:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • David Gerard, do you see any improvement in the content now? I've added quite a bit more on the background of the strip. Is this the article you'd like to see? Alanyst 08:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I think that this article has grown considerably, I have copyright concerns about all of the new images. I don't think that fair use can just be thrown around to justify use of any images, particularly considering that Bill Watterson has been very diligent in prosecuting copyright violations of Calvin's image in the past. If the images' copyright status are cleared up or if alternate images can be found I will change to support. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:07, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • "Any" images is a bit strong; after all, the book covers certainly seem to fall under fair use. I have removed the individual character images because I think they were indeed copyright violations. As of right now, I believe the article is in compliance. Alanyst 15:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jul 5) Kylie Minogue

this was nominated a couple of months ago, the only objections then (I think) related to possible copyright violations of images that have since been removed. partially self nomination because I've worked on it, but the recent reworking by User:68.36.175.254 has given it the cohesive structure it previously lacked. In my opinion one of the most comprehensive, logically structured and up to date celebrity bios. Rossrs 01:09, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Previous nominations: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations#Kylie_Minogue and Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations#Kylie_Minogue_.28Contested_.26mdash.3B_24_Jun.29
  • I support of course! Let's hope third time's the charm :) Earl Andrew 02:15, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support as well. I nominated it recently so yeah, third time is time to go I hope.  :) CyclopsScott 03:16, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks great. Ambivalenthysteria 06:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The "Single Discography" presents the information quite poorly; it'd be OK in a list if it was purely the single name and year, but including the position on various countries' charts probably warrants a table. — Matt 23:45, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC) (copied from previous nomination).
    • I agree with you in theory and considered creating a table, but then decided against it for aesthetic reasons. I think a table would be big, clunky and ugly, and to see a perfect example of how ugly tables can be, have a look at ABBA. The chart positions are not essential, however I think they demonstrate a valid point - ie there are a large number of artists that could release 41 singles over a 17 year period, but very few who could land 26 of them in the British Top 10, and the majority of them in the Top 5. That's what I was trying to illustrate, and the reason I chose the format I chose when I added the info, was to deliberately avoid creating a table. A table is going to be about twice the size of the (in my opinion) unwieldy ABBA table. I disagree that the information is presented quite poorly. It's not difficult to read, and certainly easier than the alternative. Rossrs 08:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Hmm... The ABBA table (which is indeed a bit unwieldy!) includes a numbering column, exact dates and weeks in the chart and info on four (not three) countries; more information than we have at Kylie. For this case, a table would not be much larger than the list, except that the information would be aligned in columns looking neater and easier to read. (Just one example, if you came to the article asking, "How many top ten hits has Kylie had in the UK?", currently your eyes have to dart all over the place.) — Matt 09:22, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - it reads like a musical hagiography. Wikipedia is not a fanzine - David Gerard 12:12, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree: at least some mention of criticisms of her 'music' and 'acting' should be here. Bmills 12:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. For the same reason as before. None of the images has source information. One of them contends to be fair use; the other has no such indication, and appears to be copyrighted. Jeronimo 17:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jul 4) Middle-earth

Self nomination (I worked on it a bit, and a lot on other Middle-earth articles). A good starting page for Wikipedian Tolkienists. Ausir 20:57, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's a good article, but too much of it is lists, really. Oh, and there is too much text before the TOC. Morwen - Talk 21:16, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Way, way, way, way too much list - that's 80% of the article. →Raul654 21:18, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
I agree, much of it reads as though it's trying to perform the role of a Category. Oppose, for now, at least. — OwenBlacker 11:11, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
I've moved the whole list to List of Middle-earth articles by category. Ausir 11:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, thats sort of an improvement I suppose. However now its rather shorter. It needs a detailed summary of the whole creation myth; the Ages; who the principal races are - that sort of thing. Summaries of the plots of the Hobbit and LOTR perhaps. Morwen - Talk 14:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The map image is copyrighted, per the website from which it was taken. Jeronimo 17:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    The website's conditions of use indicate that items can be used for non-commercial purposes, under certain conditions, which are, in this case, met. See [1] Snowspinner 18:10, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll support. Could use another image. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Specifically, it could use an image of Middle-earth as a whole- at the moment there are only parts. Markalexander100 07:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • There's an image of the whole Arda. The action of the books never takes place in other areas of Middle-earth than the north-western part, so there is not much info about the east of Middle-earth. Ausir 07:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've added a wodge of summary of history. Support. Morwen - Talk 22:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jul 4) James Clerk Maxwell

Good article with a good deal of information on his life and discoveries.--Alsocal 20:11, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • No vote, but the image needs source/licensing information (probably PD as he died before 1923). anthony (see warning)
    • It's a photo. No way it's not PD - David Gerard 21:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've marked the photo PD (can't not be) and have added several more - David Gerard 22:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • There are many ways this could not be PD, but whatever. anthony (see warning)
  • Can I second this having worked on it? If so, second. - David Gerard 21:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I oppose this nomination: 1. It would appear from the title "Later years and afterwards" that the section would relate not only to the last years of Mr Maxwell's life, but also to his lasting legacy and events occurring after his death. Nevertheless, a mere sentence relating to his literary works concerning him appears. Thus, the "Later years and afterwards" section warrants expansion. 2. In the "Early Years" section, the following sentence appears: "The family name Maxwell was adopted by the terms of a legal requirement made upon his father to inherit an estate." The sentence's structure is awkward; furthermore, it does not mention whose estate is to be inherited (an individual from Clerk's maternal family, perhaps?). I would suggest something such as: "When Clerk inherited the estate of name (his relation), he adopted the latter's surname, as was required by the will," or words to the same effect. 3. The article uses single quotation marks instead of double quotation marks. 4. The article contains many unexplained names and terms, such as "elastic solids," "oscillating electric charge," "the progressive condensation of a purely gaseous nebula," "temporary double refraction produced in viscous liquids by shearing stress," and so on. Such phrases are unintelligible to those not well-educated in science. At a minimum, links to articles on such topics should be placed, if not a minor explanation. 5. Unlinked names, including "Herapth, Joule, and particularly Clausius," "Faraday," and several others, appear. Not only should links be provided, but also should one use full names for first references. 6. Several passages appear opinionated (possibly being from the 1911 Britannica): for instance, "valuable papers," "original and powerful essay," "a man whose knowledge was co-extensive with his ingenuity," "most profound admiration and attention," "the ideas of that master," "great treatise," "admirable generalized co-ordinate system," "munificent founder," "distinguished alumni," "excellent elementary treatise" and "great contributions." I do not ask that all of these be changed, but the level of subjectivity now present must definitely be reduced. -- Emsworth 01:48, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jul 4) Plate tectonics

very good with nice images and lots of information Avala 19:51, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Tentatively support. Well-written, but perhaps it could be longer - citing specific papers, people, &c. in the history section, perhaps? I'm not sure... Also, did plate tectonics actually contribute anything other than theoretical understanding, because, if it did, I didn't get such an impression from the article -- perhaps something on resultant predictions/findings, or theories based on this? James F. (talk) 20:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • This needs a list of the major plates in the article. Morwen - Talk 21:17, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • (not a vote) Does the plate image really need to occur twice? Jeronimo 17:57, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • they are differenr
  • Comment: Please edit the captions. See Wikipedia:Captions. -- ke4roh 21:46, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- July 4) History of the Jews in the United States (Colonial Era-1906)

Awesome entry. Neutrality 05:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. No lead section. No images. Does this belong in a series of multiple articles? It should say so. Not part of the objection: the TOC takes up more than the first page of the article. This is extremely ugly. Jeronimo 07:40, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This article is too long and goes into too much deep detail for the casual reader. As someone with no more than a passing interest in this topic, this gigantic article is intimidating and far too much for me to read. It needs to be split into subarticles and keep only a summary of the important points in the main entry. I notice this article was copied from the Jewish Encyclopedia, the same source as the Dreyfus affair, which had the same problem. Some of it is out of date (The total number of Jews in the state at the present time (1905)is estimated at 2,500.) This topic can and should have images. There are not enough links to other articles. --Shibboleth 22:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. When did an article's being long become an issue? Bmills 14:57, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Info: the article is currently 98k long. See also: Wikipedia:Page size, and Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive3#Length.2C_arbitrary_size_of_30k (discussion of page sizes for Featured articles). — Matt 15:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, needs an intro and a picture, starts with a TOC currently. --AEvar Arnfjoerd- Bjarmason 15:25, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

(Contested -- July 3) Mount Everest

Recently involved in the naming controversy. Radhanath Sikdar and his contribution to finding this magnificient peak was widely underestimated in the world media. The article and the controversy existed before my revision. I added a bit of impetus to this tall problem! Drbalaji md

  • Object. Not bad, but it needs more:
    • There's virtually no geological information. What kind of material is the mountain made of? When did it form exactly? Also strange: the range, the Himalayas, isn't mentioned in the article (only the table).
    • What about the pre 19-century history? The Tibetans/Nepalese give pretty interesting names to the mountain, does it play a role in their history or mythology? Why do the Indians think the mountain has the wrong name?
    • The "ascents" section is not that different from the "timeline", each section is a point, not part of a story. Perhaps the less important parts of the ascents could be moved to the timeline, or otherwise the the ascents section should be rewritten.
    • There must be many books written about Mount Everest, but there are none listed as a reference.
    • Jeronimo 07:54, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- July 3) Air India

Self-nomination. I have tried my best to bring to surface this wonderful airline which is often overlooked by many. The article existed before my revision. I have tried my best in organising the article to appropriate standards. The factual figures represented in the article have backing which can be easily verified either on the internet or on the printed literature. Drbalaji md

  • Object:
    • The Tragedies-section is literally copied from a website, which is even mentioned in the article with copyright. This is very obvious copyright violation. I'm consid
    • One of the three logo/mascot images has no source, and the others come from the company's website, where there are no indications these pictures may be used. Perhaps they fall under fair use, but then the images should note this.
    • The article looks a bit messy. F.e., both Bombay and Mumbai are used in the article; this is the same city.
    • Is this nomation so important that it has to be mentioned in the lead section?
    • Much of this article reads like a company advertisement to invest. It's nice to read passenger figures and revenues for last year, but an encyclopedia article should either not include those, or give a historical overview of such figures.
    • Jeronimo 08:02, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. Not very well written or laid out. Seems incomplete (the tragedies section at least is missing information -- the so-called Air India Trial is ongoing). Exploding Boy 07:20, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- July 3) Science fiction on television

Self-nomination. This article did exist before I came to it, but in a pretty sparse and loosely-written form. A couple of months ago I added a substantial history of British science-fiction television, which is my area of interest, and re-structured the whole article. I assumed that somebody else would add greater detail to the section on US television science-fiction, which I know much less about, but after a while nobody had. So after an attempt to get someone with greater knowledge of that area to contribute on the Requests for Expansion page failed, I decided to research US TV sci-fi myself and add to it. I feel that the now-complete article is a very good general history of international television science-fiction, and it even has a picture, albeit perhaps a little over-literal one. Angmering 19:40, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • For such a long article, the TOC is pretty skimpy. Could you improve that with more section headings - not too many, but a few more would be a definite improvement. →Raul654 02:42, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • If this article ever makes it to the Main Page section, you *must* mention Doctor Who, Raul. ;-) - Mark 03:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object:
    • First of all, the article is mostly about the US and the UK. I'm pretty sure there are science fiction series in other countries, especially the non-English ones. Japan must have loads of such series. This is only briefly mentioned, which is absurd. Also, it seems like US and UK SF didn't influence each other at all. Is that correct, or is it just missing from the article?
      • For various cultural and financial reasons, it's fair to say that US and UK TV SF have had surprisingly little influence on each other -- they have very different traditions, particularly in the early years. -- Arwel 17:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I'll do a little research on my own and try to write something about SF in Japan. Anyway, I oppose for now. The article is too long and tedious. It should be rewritten so you don't have to read the entire article to find something. Revth 10:09, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The article is a boring read (I didn't even read all of it), just being an expanded list. Being a general article about SF on TV, it should be far more condensed. A discussion about the major trends, most important series should suffice, with the details in the articles on the series themselves.
    • The section general is absurd. It's not general at all, it just list some SF series producers/creators.
    • Surely there must be more images. The TV showing Dr. Who-image is a bit lame, too.
      • You have to be careful with TV image copyright as the producers tend to be litigious b******s -- taking a photo off your own TV is probably the safest way to cover yourself! -- Arwel 17:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Jeronimo 08:14, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- July 3) Coca-Cola

May be self-nomination (I fleshed out the history a little). However, I believe it's a good article -- well-organised and with good content, not to mention brilliant prose. If anybody has questions on Coke's history, I borrowed Mark Pendergrast's "For God, Country & Coca-Cola" from the library (originally for leisure, but then I realised it's an untapped gold mine for expanding the Coca-Cola article). Johnleemk | Talk 13:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Overview needs more citations, and the list of brands needs more wikilinks. anthony (see warning) 13:14, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've edited the page to fix this criticism, but hopefully someone with a more experienced hand can correctly wikify the Brands section - I only linked to those brands whom I recognise. Johnleemk | Talk 14:21, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • There are still a few statements there that could probably do with a citation, but I withdraw my objection. I'd also like to see an image better than Image:Cokebottles.jpg. anthony (see warning)
  • Support. A glance at the amazing list of international brands oif Coca-Cola reveals that opposition on that score is subversive comedy. My criticisms: the classic shape that made "cokebottle" an adjective is missing among illustrations; "Spin-the-bottle," the Santa Claus iconography and "Coke collectibles" need to be touched on and linked Wetman 19:33, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC).
    • Subversive comedy? We should add wikilinks to at least the articles which we already have created. anthony (see warning)
  • Object. Most of my earlier objections were solved (I removed them from this list), but this one remains: The Heatlh/Environment/Labor Controversies surrounding Coca-Cola section seems totally out of place. It just lists some facts from three events. Are these the only controversies? How did they affect the company? This needs removal or expansion.Jeronimo 08:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've fleshed them out, moved the Mecca-Cola thingy to the urban legends section, and made that a subsection of the Controversies. Johnleemk | Talk 10:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've fixed about half of Jeronimo's concerns by refactoring the article. I'll get to work on the rest of it tomorrow. Johnleemk | Talk 13:51, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I have spun out the two bottom-most lists into Coca-Cola brands and Coca-Cola slogans (they might be more suited in the singular, though). I have deleted the "Notable Employees" list as they are all mentioned in the History section. Johnleemk | Talk 09:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. There's absolutely no mention of any of the company's current (and past) controversies regarding trades unions or the exhibition over here (in London) about the Coca-Cola company trading with Nazi Germany (see [2], [3] and [4], for example). For completeness, I think that at least a cursory mention would be in order. — OwenBlacker 10:47, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think I've addressed that now. Johnleemk | Talk 11:27, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I'm happy with those aspects now. I'd like to see a little more on each point, but that would prolly make it less NPOV, if I'm honest with myself. It's a good article; I support. — OwenBlacker 20:07, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The lead says, "Coca-Cola also registered a trademark on the distinctive bottle shape" — we need an image showing this shape. 2) The "History" section is pretty long; could it be broken up into two or three sections, or subsectioned? 3) Style: some of the section titles are in capital letters. 4) The related articles: Coca-Cola brands, Coca-Cola slogans should be summarised in this article (for the former, we currently mention Fanta and Sprite). 5) The lead section needs expanding to summarise the entire article >and to give some indication of its importance as a global brand. 6) Could we have some dates for the introduction of Coke variants, like Diet Coke, Coke with Lemon, etc? 7) Could we have some explicit mention of the rivalry with Pepsi? It's mentioned implicitly in various places in the article, but it would be good to have it spelled out. — Matt 11:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • All have been addressed (with the exception of perhaps number 4; I don't know how summarised you want them, so right now they're rather sparse since the articles themselves are quite small). Johnleemk | Talk 12:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your refactoring, I think it's much improved. — Matt 13:22, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Noticed you're still objecting though — any reason why? ;-) Johnleemk | Talk 13:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Oops, sorry, misplaced tag (I'll probably try and nitpick some more tomorrow, though...!) — Matt 13:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- July 3) Punctuation

This page is comprehensive and international, looking at the different usages of various punctuation marks. From it may be learnt the 'real' names of many punctuation marks, and the links are comprehensive too. It does not just cover 'Western' punctuation, but 'East Asian' as well. EuropracBHIT 08:07, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. This article doesn't tell anything about the history of punctuation. When did it first appear - concurrently with the arrival of the script, or later? How did it evolve afterwards? I'm sure many of the article on individual punctuation marks explain a lot, but a bit more information on commonly used punctuation marks (comma, period) would be nice. Do new punctutation marks still appear? Do they disappear? Also, are there other punctuation systems than the Wester and East Asian ones? If so, there should be something about them here. Jeronimo 11:28, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It's just a stub with lists. Nowhere near something that could be considered for Featured Article status. Tannin 11:39, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Interrobang is not a commonly-used punctuation mark. Morwen - Talk 12:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • but it is punctuation mark and if we want this to be featured article then we need all info
      • Yes. Certainly it needs mentioning. However, it shouldn't be included an example of a commonly-used one, because it plainly isn't. Morwen - Talk 10:58, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Avala 19:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Are mad scientists always male? Why? Are there any female ones? Exploding Boy 16:00, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jul 3) Mad scientist

This page seems very complete, with an unexpectedly large amount of detail (e.g. "Untouched fields"). Brilliant picture (which is already a featured picture) with hilarious caption. -- Shibboleth 07:16, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Neutrality 03:57, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • (No vote). Can we have some specific licence info for the cartoon? Markalexander100 08:06, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • This picture was made by the same user, User:J.J. at about the same time (July 2003) as the one for villain, which was GFDLed in May 2004, I think when he was asked about it in the context of the featured picture candidacy. He didn't bother to do the same for mad scientist, but presumably he's willing to release it under the same license. He'd have to be asked directly for something explicit, though. --Shibboleth 13:08, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) I'm not sure that we need the lists of "Fields of research" and "Untouched fields"; maybe this could be removed, or condensed down into a short narrative paragraph? 2) I have some concerns about the section "Real life prototypes": how can we be sure that all these people actually contributed to the stereotype, rather than coincided with it? Is this section verifiable? — Matt 16:23, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jul 2) Fractal

I noticed we don't have many featured articles on mathematics. This is one of the few math topics with widespread appeal and lots of pretty pictures. Although it looks a bit short at first, if you follow the links to the specific types of fractals, there's a lot of material. I've verified the image copyrights and they all appear to be GFDL or public ___domain. --Shibboleth 23:56, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Having spent hours upon hour exploring microscopic regions of the Mandelbrot set, I can only say, "It's about time..." Denni☯ 05:49, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
  • (Not a vote). It looks like all of the images are in the public ___domain (created by Wikipedians), but some fail to note so explicitly. Jeronimo 11:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Now the only picture that does not explicitly specify public ___domain or GFDL is the Koch snowflake picture. Unfortunately the user who added it is not around anymore, so we cannot ask him to add the label. But I am inclined to think an elementary mathematical illustration like this cannot be copyrighted anyway. If it really bothers someone, it should be easy to re-create. --Shibboleth 21:38, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The lead section needs to be longer, including a mention that "fractal"s is derived have "fractional dimension", amongst other things. 2) We should discuss Fractal art in this article to some extent, given that most laymen encounter fractals in that form. 3) Similarly there needs to be a much more in-depth discussion of applications: Fractal landscape, Fractal compression...; we currently have "Fractal techniques have also been employed in fractal image compression, as well as a variety of scientific disciplines." 4) The article emphasises self-similarity; an image sequence would be one obvious way to illustrate this concept, e.g. a sequence of zooms on a fractal, showing self-similarity on different scales. — Matt 16:39, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[Etymology of fractal: although some web sources say fractal is derived from "fractional dimension", Mandelbrot himself says he coined it from the Latin fractus - see, for example, Mandelbrot's essay "Fractals - a geometry of nature" in "The New Scientist Guide to Chaos". I have added this to the article.Gandalf61 11:41, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)]
Ah, great. Maybe it's worth mentioning the mis-etymology of "fractal" as well, since it's quite common? — Matt 15:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've added a sequence of images demonstrating self-similarity. [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 13:54, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, spot on. — Matt 15:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This is good but I don't find the sequence of images quite clear enough as it is. The problem is that since they all look so similar, it's hard to understand at first sight that the fourth image is a 100x (or whatever) magnification of the first: it looked to me at first like just a big rotated chunk of the first, until I understood that your red squares meant "zoom". I would like a label added to the top of each image saying "Magnification: 1x", "Magnification: 5x", "Magnification: 25x" (or whatever the exact numbers are). Or even better, nice arrows linking the red square of one image with the next image. Though come to think of it I don't really know which would work better. --Shibboleth 21:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Avala 19:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Uncontested -- Jul 2) Cities in the United Kingdom

Self nomination. This isn't just a list of cities, it contains background info about the peculiar definition of cities in the UK, the various statuses the cities have, etc. Morwen - Talk 21:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good article, but a list is an almanac article while the prose in that article is encyclopedic (only one part of the article is a list!). I suggest renaming the article to City status in the United Kingdom so that readers know to expect to find an article on the topic instead of just a list (if and when the list on that page gets too long, then it can be spun off onto its own page). The lead section needs some expansion as well as the 'City councils' section. Also, the article on the whole also seems a bit short. So until then, I regretfully oppose. --mav 01:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I *strongly* agree with Mav's suggestion. →Raul654 06:03, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
Moved it, started to expand bits. Not really suitable yet. Morwen - Talk 17:58, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
How does it look now? Morwen - Talk 22:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support. It's a really good article; my only comment would be that there's a very cursory mention to the title "Rt Hon", yet it doesn't say anything about whether or not these titleholders are members of the Privy Council and, if so, whether or not it is ex officio, by virtue of being the Lord Mayor of the relevant city (which I guess in some cases it is). I don't think fixing that is necessarily a prerequisite for FA status, though. — OwenBlacker 11:04, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Done. I think I will add a bit about the former cities of the UK too - ie the ones now in the Republic of Ireland. Morwen - Talk 13:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose In re "The Right Honourable"; I would like to ask that the sentence Six of these Lord Mayors and two of the Lord Provosts are styled "The Right Honourable" instead of "The Right Worshipful" - though they are not members of the Privy Council which this style usually indicates be rephrased, as it is now rather confusing. The new passage could indicate:
    • That Lord Mayors generally use "The Right Worshipful,"
    • That some Lord Mayors use "The Right Honourable" though not Privy Counsellors,
    • That either style is applied to the office, not to the personal name (as in "The Right Honourable The Lord Mayor of X" rather than "The Right Honourable John Smith," etc.),
    • That only Privy Counsellors use the form "The Right Honourable John Smith."
  • Furthermore, the table needs to be, in my opinion, reformatted. The blank cells could be filled by non-breaking spaces; furthermore, "Right Hon. the Lord Mayor" should, IMHO, be replaced by "The Right Hon. The Lord Mayor," or, better still, "The Rt Hon. The Lord Mayor." In addition, perhaps the key could indicate that a hyphen indicates city status since time immemorial. Finally, it would be nice to have the now-Republic of Ireland's cities listed in the table, rather than at the end. -- Emsworth 15:26, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Ok - shall do those. With respect to the last suggestion, I think would be a bit political, not to mention confusing, to have the Irish cities treated in the same way as the cities in the remaining parts of the UK. Morwen - Talk 15:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, for the Irish cities, I was hoping for a table of the same format as the British cities: one column for "City," one for "Mayor," one for "Since," and one for "Cathedral" (we need not have a "Gov." column. -- Emsworth 16:26, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
        • Ah, ok. Done. Morwen - Talk 17:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Objections withdrawn. -- Emsworth 20:16, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Too many red links. The lists should be spun off, as they have very little to do with "city status of the UK". Article should be clarified to better discuss what "city status" means in an NPOV way. anthony (see warning)
    • I don't agree with splitting out the list. I think a list of entities with city status in the United Kingdom has a lot do with city status in the United Kingdom. Would any third parties like to comment? Morwen - Talk 12:12, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Maybe it's just the title. How about cities in the United Kingdom? This would probably address the problem of explaining what "city status" means, also, by not using that term at all. anthony (see warning)
        • Have renamed and fixed redirs. Morwen - Talk 13:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • The red links alone aren't enough for me to object. Looks acceptable as of now. anthony (see warning) 13:36, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jul 1) Lawrence_v._Texas

This has been nominated before, but was not selected as a featured article. I’ve made some edits [5], and it looks pretty good. Neutrality 04:42, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations#June_2003.)
  • Approve - It was a great artilce before your refactor and it is even better now. --mav 01:27, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Acegikmo1 21:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The public response should be noted as well - this one was international news. Are pictures possible? e.g. notable reaction from the public? - David Gerard 10:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Nice pics! Who is the other guy in the second pic? Garner? The public reaction and news quotes should be a section, that would cover public reaction reasonably easily. See Hutton Inquiry for an excellent example of media reaction coverage, though I'm not asking for something that good - David Gerard 22:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Er. The pics really need why they are fair use. At present there's just a link to the source and the assertion this is fair use - David Gerard 22:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Uncontested -- Jul 1) Prince-elector

Self nomination. The painting used was previously uploaded by another user; I uploaded the other two images from the German Wikipedia, which asserts that both are in the public ___domain. -- Emsworth 01:42, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me. The first image is a bit dark, but it's obvious the original painting is dark also...we're better off with it than without it, to borrow a phrase from Ann Landers. Jwrosenzweig 17:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jwrosenzweig about the pictures, but it's an excellent article. I've just added a link to List of Reichstag participants (1792) in the last section, as the content is very closely related, but it's a fantastic article; good job! -- OwenBlacker 18:22, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 21:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Query: "The German monarchy has since time immemorial theoretically been elective rather than hereditary." — is it possible to be more precise? "since time immemorial" means "reaching beyond the limits of memory, tradition or recorded history" (dictionary.com); surely that can't be verifiable? — Matt 16:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know what the precise meaning is in German law, but in English law I believe it means "since before the time of King Richard I" i.e. 1189-1199. -- Arwel 16:49, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I've removed the phrase "time immemorial." -- Emsworth 15:04, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: Some years (or rough periods in history) are needed in the lead section. — Matt 16:33, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jul 1) Melbourne

I think this article is up to standard - a long and detailed article about an interesting city. Ambivalenthysteria 13:20, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • We certainly need a locator map showing Melbourne's ___location within Australia. Morwen - Talk 13:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • And further to that, we need info about the City of Melbourne and how it differs from Melbourne. Does Melbourne have any government for the whole of it? Morwen - Talk 13:25, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • No, it has a bunch of local councils - there's no equivalent of the Greater London Authority. City Of Melbourne is one of the councils. The Melbourne metro area ones are generally called "City Of" - David Gerard 14:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Expand 'Culture' section. Marlowe 20:28, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs a proper lead section. --mav
  • Object. One of the pictures has no copyright and source info, the other two claim they are public ___domain images, but do not state a source either. Jeronimo 07:06, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • somewhat Object somewhat Support-written is great, but there are still lot of things to add , such as future projects in the city, everything about suburbs and neighbourhoods etc. Avala 15:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jul 1) Debian

I'd like to nominate this article since it contains a fair amount of detail and information on the subject -- certainly more than I would have expected. -- pne 11:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree. Is a screenshot possible? --Merovingian✍Talk 11:29, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. While not wishing to plunge the article into a holy war, 1) I'd like to see some comparison of Debian in relation to other distributions (carefully NPOV, of course). Currently we mention Debian's features, but don't give a context as to how this compares to other distributions. For example, the large number of platforms is described, but it's not mentioned that other major distributions typically support only one or two platforms. APT is mentioned, but it's not compared to other (commonly perceived to be...) inferior packaging systems, e.g RPM. Similarly for the free-software philosophy and the nature of the Debian Project. 2) Also, there's no discussion of the (commonly perceived...) weaknesses of the distribution; it's common to hear people criticise the user-friendliness of Debian (e.g. no pretty installation / configuration tools). -- Matt 14:39, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Not focused (is GNU/FreeBSD really deserving of a mention in the intro for more than the sheer novelty factor?) and the writing is not compelling. Both are fixable. Try news style for the intro? - David Gerard 18:13, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Uncontested -- Jun 30) Traditional counties of England

Self nom. This article has been the subject of huge disputes in the past, with it being more of an argument than an article. Getting involved led me to do a lot of research, and after a while thinking about it, I've refactored it entirely - with the agreement of one of the people on the other side of the argument. Morwen - Talk 15:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • It's a nice article, but the past editorial instability is a worry. I'd really like to see it stay relatively stable for a while, say a week or two, to show that the warring factions really can settle for the present version, structure and wording. Call this support if it's not warred over for a week ;-) - David Gerard 15:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Definitely support, it's a fantastic article; I've gone to it several times over the last month or so and amn't sure why it's never occurred to me to nom it myself. -- OwenBlacker 15:33, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting, detailed article. It's much better article than it was a month or two ago thanks to Morwen's work on it, and seems to satisfy those on the other side of the argument. Warofdreams 15:48, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- pne 14:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Good article! Yet:1) Can we incorporate the abbreviations list into the previous list of counties? 2) The "Names and Statuses" section might be better placed at the end of the list of counties, rather than a separate section; the sentences in that section are quite disjointed, but might work well as footnotes to the list. 3) It would be helpful to define "enclave" and "exclave" within this article. 4) Unusual colon style "lastword_:_" ('_' is a space); does the Manual of Style specify what we should do? "lastword:_" is more common. 5) Logically, it seems that the "Origin" section should come earlier in the article. -- Matt 16:44, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • 1) no - because then the numbered list of counties and the map will have trouble fitting on one screen neatly. I tried this is didn't work out.
    • 2) yes, can do.
    • 3) ok
    • 4) will look into ;)
    • 5) ok
    • Morwen - Talk 17:01, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • regarding 1) (the abbreviations); I can see it's tricky. The map won't fit neatly anyway at certain resolutions and font sizes (the map starts going off screen at around 1000px at my usual reading font size). Surely there's some way of getting the information in neatly without having to have a separate abbreviations list? -- Matt 17:14, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, please feel free to suggestion one. I really can't see a way to do it. Possibly the info could be moved to postal counties of Great Britain as they are mostly postal abbreviations. Morwen - Talk 17:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Would scaling down the image help (keeping the numbers visible, of course)? (Sorry, I'm not much of a layout guru). -- Matt 17:28, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • I've had a play around, and I think Morwen's right - merging the abbreviations into the map section just isn't going to work very well, sadly. Scaling down the image probably won't work too well, either... Moving to the postal-codes article is possible, I suppose, but they are perhaps rather less useful out of context. James F. (talk) 17:45, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
              • Most of the abbrevs are quite dull, so I've summarised the interesting ones into a short paragraph. Morwen - Talk 17:53, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
                • Right, I've rather boldly marked this Uncontested, since (1) is now moot.
  • Support. James F. (talk) 17:45, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • An excellent article, but certain minor typography-related objections: 1. Single quotation marks are used; they should, per Wiki policy, be replaced by double quotation marks. 2. Furthermore, one should use em dashes instead of hyphens surrounded by spaces. 3. My only "substantive" objection relates to the section "The counties." We mention the use of "shire" and "County of," but it appears that no explanation is given for the special usage "County Durham." -- Emsworth 21:28, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • All done. Morwen - Talk 21:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Then I support the article entirely. -- Emsworth 22:37, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The lead section need dates (or rough periods in history) of when these counties arose and when other county systems partially superceded them. Likewise, the "origin" section needs some more specific dates and time periods for a reader to easily grasp the history. 2) Are "enclave" and "exclave" synonymous? (The article uses both). Also, "exclave" is defined twice; we only need to define it once -- the first time it's used in the article. 3) There's an unnumbered region on the map (near the Scotland border, next to "7" and "36"; should it be numbered? 4) Curiosity: why is Yorkshire such a large county? 5) What's the smallest county? 6) I'd query the usage of "worn down by erosion" -- is that the usual linguistic phrase? (Just querying) 7) The "Usage" section is quite long; could this be broken up somehow into slightly smaller chunks (e.g. subsections or two sections)? -- Matt 13:21, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • 1) done. 2) we already have perfectly good articles about both those terms, i don't want to duplicate those articles here. 3) this is the detatched part of Lancashire mentioned. 4) 5) done. 6) done. 7) done. Morwen - Talk 13:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks; would it be possible /desireable to add a "19" label to Furness (presumably in the sea, but with a line connecting it)? -- Matt 14:14, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Already done. Try force-reload to get the new image. Morwen - Talk 14:15, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Ah, great -- thanks.
  • Support. -- Matt 14:22, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've done some cleaning, but nothing major. Markalexander100 07:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jun 30) Glasgow

Self nom. I worked on this article but it has developed a lot recently. The contributors have captured the contrasting aspects of a city that was famous in one period as the second city of the Empire and then for its slums. The article is not perfect, but neither is the city. Tiles 08:25, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Nice work. 2 minor objections: No history section and some minor akward wording in some places. Burgundavia 08:43, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The coat of arms picture is taken from a website for which the copyright policy does not seem to allow this use (see [6]). The same is true for the University of Glasgow picture (see [7]). Jeronimo 08:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. There's really a lot to add, particularly a lot of history. The geography stuff needs major work too - we need a map or two of the area (districts, rivers, motorways), and a photo both of Glasgow's nicer parts (Kelvinside, Bearsden) and its less nice (Drumchapel, Pollock). I can replace the uni photo, and take the photos above (I may need to weld a grille on my car windows for the latter) but not for a few weeks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:10, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Can a coat of arms be considered copyright? The latest version of the site does not have this image. The university seems keen to have its picture published see [8]. The constructive criticism is very helpful and I'm sure Finlay will have no problems getting in and out of Pollock - Drumchapel could be another story! Tiles 08:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm not a lawyer, but I'd guess the coat of arms itself is not copyright, but the image of it could be. Whether it is copyrighted or not, the image description said it wasn't, while the link in the discription didn't. This should be fixed. The same goes for the university picture. The picture may be released for use in works "promoting the university", but an article about Glasgow doesn't qualify as such, in my opinion. Jeronimo 09:10, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll remove both from the article Tiles 07:48, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Done Tiles 23:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Avala 19:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jun 30) Head of state

I haven't edited this one but just stumbled upon it a few days ago. What a fantastic article! As someone from a country that doesn't separate out the head of state function, it made for fascinating reading. The superb images, erudite quotes and well-analyzed breakdown of functions add a very professional flavor to the article, in my opinion. --TreyHarris 06:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Minor quibble - Under CEO, it mentions Sweden is somehow different is terms of executive power, but doesn't mention how. Burgundavia 07:58, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Image problems:
    • King Albert image has no source information
    • Putin image has source information, but it is not clear if there is permission to use the image.
    • Swiss council image has no source information
    • Bush signing image has vague source information, but it is not clear if there is any permission to use the image.
    • Jeronimo 08:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A pity. I don't know how to rectify the objection (it's actionable, just not by me), and if I swapped out the photos with others, I'd no longer support the article as a FA--the great photos were one of the things that drew me to nominate it. So I suppose I had better withdraw the nomination. Too bad there's not a "not a FA, but you should read this anyway" page. ;-) --TreyHarris 15:32, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think we can overcome this. All five photos were uploaded by User:J.J.. I've asked him if he can help with adding more detail about image origin. I think this has got to be a case of crossing the "t"s and dotting the "i"s. Images of heads of state are not likely to cause copyright problems; we can claim fair use as required. Pcb21| Pete 16:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Avala 19:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, assuming the image problems are solved. James F. (talk) 20:50, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jun 29) Great Mosque of Djenne

Self-nomination, but it has undergone a peer review. The article is about the largest mud-brick building in the world and the most prominent icon of Mali. The article has four sections (including External links), four pictures, and is three pages long when printed. If it is selected as a featured article it would only be the second building to be selected. -JCarriker 02:58, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:32, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Peer review as in Wikipedia:Peer review? It is a lovely article. My only complaint -- could someone create stubs for one or two of the red links on the first page of text? +sj+ 20:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Peer review: No just a peer review, I asked three wikipedians to review the article. Redlinks: Done. -JCarriker 23:39, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Burgundavia 21:00, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Wetman 01:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. One note: there must be some books written about this famous building. I'd like to see one or two of them listed as a reference in the article. Jeronimo 11:24, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. 172 11:54, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wikipedia:Captions: The captions look good, though the passive verbs diminish their efficacy. -- ke4roh 16:11, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (And I think the passive verbs in the captions are good- they emphasise what the picture shows). Markalexander100 03:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fascinating, well-written, well illustrated. ALargeElk | Talk 14:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Great article. 1) Can we beef up the lead a little? In particular, could we have perhaps one sentence each on the history and the cultural significance of the Mosque? Currently it takes a page of reading into the article until you learn when in time it was built, which makes it harder to get a grasp of what the building's all about. 2) "The walls are between 41 cm (16 in.) and 61 cm (24 in.) thick. The wall thickness depends on the height of the walls: the taller the wall, the thicker the wall, and especially the base the wall has to be thick enough to support the wall's weight." -- too many instances of the word "wall". 3) It's quite tricky to get a feel for the layout of the place from the article at the moment; a diagram would be great for this. Something along the lines of [9] or [10] would be ideal. -- Matt 16:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Numbers 1 and 2 done. Markalexander100 01:26, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • 3. Clearly marked links to those the diagrams have been added, under external links. -JCarriker 17:49, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
      • Hmm...I'm going to continue to (reluctantly) object — a featured article shouldn't have any obvious gaps, and I think an article about a famous building should include some kind of layout / plan / diagram, in addition to photos. If they're located behind an external link, then it's not really the best of Wikipedia as such. Would it be worth contacting the Getty Trust about releasing their diagrams into the public ___domain or licensing them as GFDL? — Matt 15:53, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I e-mailed the Getty Trust in early June, seeking permission to use photos(not the cross-section or site plan), and they have yet to respond. Perhaps they did not recieve my e-mail, however others I e-mailed at that time did. It certainly wouldn't hurt if you contacted them again. However, the only other building that is Featured is the Parthenon and it does not have a cross section or a site plan. I think it would also be difficult to include a cross-section or site plan with labels in the article at a readable size that would not be distracting. Including a cross-section really isn't pragmatic; when minimized the appear as nothing more than a vague connection of dots. I can make a grayscale and labless (the usual style) site plan using the Getty image. I'm would not make an exact copy, I would not go into the detail about the raised platform they do to increase clarity for when the image is reduced as well as aviding a copyright infringement; although I fear that may not be enoguh to avoid

an infringement Also if a site plan is included, it needs to be in a new section; it would be too distracting in any of the existing sections. -JCarriker 19:39, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

          • Not all images have to be reduced to thumbnail size, especially if they are a key diagram; check out Traditional counties of England. It would be great if you were willing to make a diagram. — Matt 08:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • I really think it's asking too much to demand a cross-section/plan. Effectively that means that no building will ever be a featured article, which would do no good at all. Yes it would be nice to have, but I realistically this is as good as we can get (and it's pretty good). Markalexander100 05:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • I don't think that "no building will ever be a featured article"; it's not that difficult to produce figures and diagrams. (Note also that my objection doesn't necessarily mean the article will not be featured.) I agree that this article is pretty good, but I object because I see an obvious way that it could be better. — Matt 08:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
              • Well, if you object we probably don't have a consensus. A featured doesn't have to be as perfect as it could possibly be ever; just good enough. I'd be sad to see this one not make it. Markalexander100 08:56, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
                • Consensus doesn't mean unanimity; this article has a lot of support. I agree that a featured article doesn't have to be the (legendary) perfect article, but I don't think we should feature articles either with obvious flaws or with obvious omissions. — Matt 09:09, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
                  • After further review, I beleive my proposal would infact be a copyright violation. Since the Getty images are the only ones on the net, I sincerly doubt that the objection is actionable. I hope you will consider withdrawing it. If you are able to secure an image, it would be too distracting to add a huge site plan to the article; it would need to be minimized or not present in the article at all. -JCarriker 14:10, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
                    • Why would a (medium-sized) site-plan / diagram distract from the article? I'd certainly find it useful when reading the description of the building, because on its own I couldn't grasp the layout; a large image helped in the "counties" example mentioned above. Also, is it really a copyvio if you create an original diagram of a real building, regardless of how you learned the information? Clearly, you couldn't simply duplicate the Getty diagram, but that's not necessary. IANAL, but I'd be surprised if this is a legal problem here. Finally, the objection is "actionable" because it is A) specific and B) something can be done to "fix" the problem — someone could create their own diagram; just because the information on the Internet is limited (although I think it is sufficient), doesn't mean that there's nothing that can be done. — Matt 14:29, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 14:06, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Avala 19:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jun 28) Charles Graner

Self-nomination. A truly fascinating person to write about. It's timely, relevant worldwide, and educational, since Lynndie England seems to be the only enlisted person that most people recognize. Neutrality 00:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. 1) Image caption is a little long (over two hundred words). 2) His early life and military career shouldn't be in the lead section. 3) The section numbering / depth isn't quite right (see the Table of Contents numbering). 4) "Considered by many to be a torturer, sadist, and war criminal, Graner held the rank of specialist in the 372nd Military Police company during his tour of duty in Iraq." -- the first clause doesn't really have any relation to the second. -- Matt 01:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Everything is fixed. I've shortened the image caption and added the copy to the article, separated the early life and military career into its own section, fixed the section numbering/depth, and taken care of that sentence. Neutrality 16:35, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the fixes. Maybe other people can comment on whether the extended caption is OK, I'm still unconvinced; (captioned images aren't intended to be a design element for constructing floating text boxes). Also, having a "biography" section seems a little redundant (any article about a person is going to be a biography); perhaps we could "bump up" the subsections to full sections? -- Matt 01:21, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Fixed. I've shortened the image caption, and renamed the "Biography" section to "Birth and early life." Also, the subsections are now full sections.
  • Neutral- I haven't read it all. But I think "Are you guys ____ing in there" is excessively coy. ;) Markalexander100 03:01, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • On the classic skin that I use, all the images are all piled together in a mess (no pun intended!) at the top of the page. Any way this could be fixed? Everyking 07:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Objections:
    • NPOV: The extensive use of Abu Ghraib pictures borders on gratuitous, and with them collected at the top in the Cologne Blue skin on IE 6, it gives the impression that the page is either about an orgy or some sadomasochistic activities. Grainer must have been more than an Abu Ghraib torturer, as the article states - but the pictures tell a different story. Put one picture at the top and others in the section about Abu Ghraib. ke4roh 15:44, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
      Of course there is going to be extensive use of Abu Ghraib pictures. This individual has no other claim to fame. 172 02:22, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • With regard to NPOV: please explain how the pictures are NPOV. With regard to the pictures being collected at the top: I have fixed that. So it's not a problem on any of the skins. Neutrality 23:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I suppose the best way to view the pictures (and text) as POV is to read it as if you were Graner's defense attorney. Are there any pictures (Library of Congress, for example) of the town where he grew up? Captions must state Abu Ghraib or Iraq, particularly when they are in a section dealing with a different part of his life. Does there exist a more flattering person of the man? -- ke4roh 03:14, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm not Charles Graner's defense attorney. It's a good article, and that's what matters. Neutrality 15:00, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • I'm suggesting that the article reads like the list of charges against him and circumstantial evidence to back it up (history of prison abuse, etc). The pictures, with the exception of the one with just Graner and England, are all evidence against him. Likewise, there are neutral facts (born in.., high school.., moved to...), but there's nothing redeeming - very little to balance against the allegations of atrocities. "Grainer denies the allegations" and the neighbor who said he joined the reserves because Grainer was fulfilling his duty both help, but there's nothing else in support of the character. Were I a juror reading the article, I'd certainly want to hear what the defense had to say before reaching a verdict. As it stands, the article would better be titled "Case against Charles Graner." For that purpose, the article is superb. -- ke4roh 16:02, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
              • Check the article now. I've made improvements you should like. Neutrality 20:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
                • Thanks for the new info. We're getting there. The text still needs more good facts. Did he win awards in high school or some recognition in the yearbook? Any other accolades? Do we know if he volunteered somewhere? -- ke4roh 10:14, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
        • It is much improved with the pictures spread out across the article rather than assaulting the reader at the top, though there are still too many pictures to tell the story (see below), and the story appears one-sided. Action: find out something good about the man in photo or prose. What is his legal defense? -- ke4roh 03:31, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • There are too many Abu Ghraib pictures to tell that part of the story. Select the most descriptive photos of the lot and use them. ke4roh 15:44, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't understand what you mean when you say "There are too many pictures to tell that part of the story." Please explain further. Neutrality 23:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • For the reader to understand the abuses at Abu Ghraib, there need only be a couple of pictures to accompany the prose. The one with the corpse and the one with the body pile and green hoods on prisoners are explanatory and expository of the types of events that occured. I suggest keeping them. The picture of Graner hitting prisoners is not as helpful because a) we can't see movement and b) it's not that clear to the eye what's going on in the picture and who's doing it. The picture of people with numbers on shirts and over heads conveys nothing. The picture of a pile of Iraqis mooning the camera is a duplicate - we have already gotten that information from the picture with the green hoods. The picture with England is a good I.D. shot in the absence of a proper pose. -- ke4roh 03:14, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Captions: Captions should help the reader understand the picture, tell something not obvious, and draw the reader into the article. Most of these captions are too long. If a section on the fate of Manadel al-Jamadi is relevant to Graner, put it there. (I do not think such a section would be relevant, but I would not object on that basis.) See Wikipedia talk:Captions#Mega Caption for a discussion. -- ke4roh 15:44, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
      • I have also shortened the Manadel al-Jamadi caption and included the information in the article. I hope that solves your objection. Neutrality 17:04, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, thank you -- ke4roh 03:14, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • It's a very article but I have to ask does this rather tawdry character deserve so much attention? All the discussion of his previous jobs and domestic situation seems a bit over the top for a person whose only claim to fame is to be accused (along with others) in a fairly vicious crime. I'm inclined to oppose the nomination. ~!Lisiate 23:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • He isn't a guy I'd like to have as my friend, but that's not what constitutes a good, featurable article. For me, it's important to have (and feature) articles of all matters. It's a serious subject, and it deserves all of our attention. Also, there is so much focus on Lynndie England that some focus on Charles Graner is necessary. Thanks for your feedback. Neutrality 23:40, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Parts of this article are poorly written. For example, one sentence states, "...no displinary action was taken aganist Graner during his employment at the county jail except for refusing to work mandatory overtime one night to care for his children." In addition to the misspellings of "disciplinary" and "against", this simply doesn't make sense. Who refused to work overtime? And how was this a punishment? Another confusing sentence is, "..Yarris saw Graner and four other guards pull an inmate who purposefully flooded the toilet in his cell, dragging him." Did Graner pull while dragging? Where did he pull him from/to? Another example is, "At the time his employment was terminated, Graner had been as disciplined six times along with three suspensions and three reprimands." He had been as disciplined as whom? Were the three suspensions and three reprimands the "six times" or were there a total of twelve disciplinary actions? The first thing I look for in a FAC is good text, and I

don't see it here. I will reconsider my vote if these problems are addressed. Acegikmo1 23:55, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

    • Fixed. Thanks for the feedback. Neutrality 00:11, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Only one of the three specific examples I brought up was addressed. Also, please don't strike through my comments. I will do that if they no longer apply. I hope I haven't come across as rude, because you've been polite and have clearly worked hard on the article, but the problems I see are still present in the article. Thanks, Acegikmo1 17:29, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
        • Can you give any examples? If you do not, the objection is not actionable. Neutrality 20:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • "Actionable" shouldn't mean the person objecting has to provide a continuous stream of specific examples for a general problem -- that's not a peer reviewer's job. "Actionable" is defined (above) to mean that they must give a "specific rationale for the objection". A rationale of "poor writing" backed up by three examples seems specific and actionable to me. -- Matt 12:57, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I have withdrawn my objection, as the problems I brough up were addressed since my initial objection (and the article has improved in other ways as well). Acegikmo1 21:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) I think there's too much quoting: there's rarely a need to quote more than a sentence-worth from a source, and, while "Wikipedia is not paper", we still have to be careful to present information concisely and encyclopedically. I think we should instead summarise the information ourselves in a sentence or two and provide the external link. 2) One part seems slightly "overwikified"; I don't think we need to bother linking every military rank. 3) One caption reads "Graner punches handcuffed Iraqi prisoner"; how can we be sure he's mid-punch, and not just posing for the camera? While I'm pretty sure this man has punched Iraqi prisoners, a featured article should be impeccibly accurate; perhaps an "appears to punch"? 4) The article has eight images, all aligned flush right. It might be a nicer layout to stick half on the left. -- Matt 13:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


(Contested -- June 28) Ferdinand Magellan

I think it's very neat. Muriel G 10:31, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral. But getting better and with a little more work... Marlowe 20:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't like the section headers - they read too much like a children's schoolbook, not an encyclopedia article. The whole thing could do with more detail. In particular, more detail is needed on Magellan the person - David Gerard 13:01, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Headers have been streamlined. Text on Magellan's life has been greatly and, i think, well expanded - Marlowe 22:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, for the reasons below. Jeronimo 13:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • The article's quite short: I would expect more information to be available on Magallan.
    • The image has no source/copyright info stated.
    • The tables look ugly, and and I'm not entirely sure they're necessary.
    • Two sentence sections should be avoided.
    • The article continues calling him the first man to sail around the globe, a feat he did not accomplish (he died in the Pacific).
    • A map of his journey would be nice (this is not part of my objection, although I wouldn't support the article without it).
      • Some of your objections have been addressed (will try to do some more editing later. some passages could use clarityMarlowe 22:52, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)):
      • The article's quite short: I would expect more information to be available on Magallan. Article has been greatly expanded.
      • The image has no source/copyright info stated. Source cited.
        • There are copyrighted images used, claiming fair use -- but I'm skeptical whether this legitimately falls under fair use. IANAL, and I don't know if this is the right forum to discuss, but some of the sites these were taken from could be considered as competition, or at the least, they are providing similar information as Wikipedia about Magellan. I just doesn't "smell quite right" to me to take their work and repackage it for essentially the same purpose. older≠wiser 20:42, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • The tables look ugly, and and I'm not entirely sure they're necessary. Possibly ugly, but i think the table add insight, especially the names of those returned-- fascinating considering how many actually came back.
      • Two sentence sections should be avoided. Remedied.
      • The article continues calling him the first man to sail around the globe, a feat he did not accomplish (he died in the Pacific) This has been addresses in the lead, as well as later in the article.
      • A map of his journey would be nice (this is not part of my objection, although I wouldn't support the article without it). I agree, will try to find one.
    • Great improvement, but I'm not withdrawing my objection. New notes listed below. Keep up the good work, though! Jeronimo 06:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • The two map images of Spain are copyrighted, and I see no reason why these should be fair use. Regardless, these images illustrate the - I think - least interesting part of his journey; the article could easily do without.
      • This article is really more about Magellan's journey than about Magellan. There should really be more about him personally, if that information is available.
        • Considering that Magellan would be a footnote in history without the circumnavigation i think it is appropriate to focus much of the article on it. Even so, the bio has been expanded so hopefully this addresses your objection. Thanks. Marlowe 20:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • As for the tables: I may agree they are interesting, but they still look ugly. Removing the borders would greatly improve them. Also, they should not be presented as entire sections, but rather as "side information". I'm not at all interested in the list of names of those who returned - none of them actually accomplished anything else (or did they?), but that's no reason to remove it.
      • A minor point: the "early life" section has three paragraphs starting with "in 15xx". This looks a bit ugly.
        • Fixed. Marlowe 21:39, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, this looks much better. My only remaining objection is the Sanlucar image. It's copyrighted, and I don't see why it is fair use. Jeronimo 21:31, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • If this is your only remaining objection, then i suggest removal of the picture. Its not essential anyway. Muriel G 16:08, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Created a new Sanlucar/Guadalquivir delta image from a NASA satellite shot. Ancheta Wis 01:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A fine article about an important historical figure, and please, while I can agree that a two-sentence section could stand some revision, does that bar a work from feature article status? Denni☯ 06:02, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
  • Good article. My objection is that I don't understand how we can use Image:Magellan Map.gif as fair use, I think this is not something we should do in FAs. [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 13:25, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) (I addressed this myself 16:56, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC))
  • Object. Contains non-free images. anthony (see warning)
  • Object. I don't think the copyrighted images qualify for "Fair Use" in the way they are used here. See my note above. older≠wiser 17:57, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Unless I'm missing the blindingly obvious, both those images are out of copyright. One is a portrait (which uncropped comes complete with Latin inscription) painted hundreds of years ago; the map is clearly pre-20th century, at least (they don't do them like that anymore). I've amended the copyright information. Markalexander100 06:44, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jun 28) Wind turbine

I used this as a reference for some school work I did a few months back, and it answered all questions I had about the subject. The article has even grown a bit since then. Fredrik | talk 00:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Object, four of the five images have no source stated. Jeronimo 06:43, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Images need source and licensing information. anthony (see warning)
  • I have contacted the users who uploaded the images and asked for clarification on the source and copyright status. If they don't respond, or it turns out the images are copyvios, it shouldn't be too hard to find adequate public ___domain alternatives (for one or two of them, at least). I'll wait a few days before I replace anything. In the meantime, will someone consider also reading the article? :) Fredrik | talk 16:43, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Objection - I find the prose to be very chopped up and hard to follow. An example: " With small wind generators the tower height is usually at least twenty meters. In the case of large generators, the tower height is about twice as great as the propeller radius." There are lots of sentences, that could, IMHO, be added to make compound and complex ones. Also, the article needs to be more clearly labelled, with anatomy in one section, and the stuff that is not anatomy moved into another section, maybe labelled history. Burgundavia 08:24, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • As an aside, I will in a few days, once life returns to normal, work on these objections. Burgundavia 08:24, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jun 28) Laika

Self-nomination. I've done a lot of updates to this article recently and it is an interesting story. Laika was the first living creature in space Zerbey 17:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Object. There is too much missing from the story, e.g. the training, the feelings of her handlers, the news stories, the equipment. It also needs another photo, perhaps of a postage stamp or the plaque. It's a rather short article. --Yath 19:20, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    Even though it's kind of short, I don't know whether more material is available. And it is pretty well-rounded. --Yath 21:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I doubt if there was any significant training for the stray from the streets of Moscow. The Soviet Union didn't provide so much detail in their news. I'm impressed to see so much on the top dog. Captions could use some work. -- ke4roh 16:18, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Following suggestions by other users, I've added the requested updates and tidied up the article. Feedback would be appreciated. --Zerbey 20:48, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Small objection: Image credits: What makes the stamp PD in the US - Are we sure it wasn't protected under Berne once the US signed that? Is the Sputnik 2 image actually produced by NASA (hence PD) or someone else's that was on their site? Same for the image of Laika - David Gerard 21:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The Sputnik 2 image appears on NASA's website with no attribution, it appears on several other websites captioned as a mockup of Sputnik 2 on display in a museum in Russia. It appears to be public ___domain. I have corrected the attribution on Laika, this was also taken from NASA's website. The stamp picture also appears to be public ___domain and appears on many web sites about Laika, but I will try and find out if it is definitely OK to use. I'm investigating all pictures to make sure they are PD. --Zerbey 21:53, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Found [11]. How annoying. But I'm sure Philip Clark doesn't own them either. The article definitely needs pics, probably these pics ... do we have any readers based in Russia? - David Gerard 22:05, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Copyright solved: as per Wikipedia:Copyright issues, "Soviet Union (pre-1973): Soviet copyright laws are non-retroactive, and all Russian works published prior to May 27, 1973 remain unprotected outside the former Soviet Union." The clearly Soviet pics are clearly PD. - David Gerard 23:48, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Neutrality 03:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • SupportAvala 19:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) One of the scientists said, "We did not learn enough from the mission to justify the death of a dog" — what exactly did the scientists learn from the mission? The article could do with some discussion of this. 2) The lead needs to summarise the entire article, including the controversy about how the dog died. 3) "In Russia and elsewhere, it sparked a debate on animal cruelty." — I think we should attempt to provide a brief summary of this debate. 4) "References to Laika" should be merged with "External links" 5) " Laika's final voyage was as a shooting star in the night sky." — this is a tad sentimental / slushy for an encyclopedia article; could we reword it? 6) Russian Space Dogs discuss Laika and say that "She was also known as Zhuchka ("Little Bug") and Limonchik ("Lemon")." and "She died between five and seven hours into the flight"; this information isn't included in the main Laika article. Matt Crypto 08:33, 5 Jul 2004

(UTC)

    • Updates have been added to the article which should address your concerns --Zerbey 16:23, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but a couple of small comments: 1) The stamp doesn't look Russian to me, as it's not using a cyrillic alphabet; 2) I don't think there is a need to summarise the debate on animal cruelty directly, but I'd like to see a link to a Wikipedia article on vivisection, and would suggest that such an article include a ( brief ) note on Laika's contribution to the vivisection debate. IM.
    • The stamp turns out to be Albanian. How annoying. And Albanian law is closer to European law. More research is indeed needed. - David Gerard 13:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • It turns out, after research, that Russia never had an image of Laika the space dog on a stamp. Apparently, there's also a breed of dogs called Laika that have feature, but they look different (Laika was a mongrel). They did have an image of Sputnik 2, however. She has appeared on numerous other items, such as posters, toys, clothing, cigarette packets, etc so I'll put one of those up. --Zerbey 15:49, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • A new section has been added that covers the vivisection debate, the stamp has been replaced with a different memorial and is definitely Russian this time. --Zerbey 14:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=4474072"