Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page. Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is normally allowed to be the sole nominator of one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. An editor may ask the approval of the coordinators to add a second sole nomination after the first has gained significant support. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut WP:FACWP:FAC Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC): Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR): Archived FARs Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing Shortcut Wikipedia:FACSUPPORTOPPOSEWikipedia:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

Nominations

Goomba

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. 172.192.210.164 20:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Veto — It's missing detail on the Goombas from the movie; and the information of their appearance in the things you listed. --Blade Hirato 02:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Aliasing

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. Simon A. 20:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Livestock

COTW, drastically improved, FA worthy IMO. LUDRAMAN | T 23:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• 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. - Taxman 03:09, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Charles I of England

-- Emsworth 23:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Zerbey 08:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

History of Iraqi insurgency

• Support. It's VERY text-heavy, but a fine article. Add some images, etc. --Etaonish 00:38, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Object - No lead section. --mav 05:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• 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)

Game programmer

Self-nom, but pretty complete. At least I think it is interesting. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:32, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

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

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. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:20, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I like it. Looks complete and reasonably organized. 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. —siroχo 07:30, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

I increased the size, but maybe we just need a diagram with bigger words? —siroχo 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. - Taxman 03:44, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Tried to fix that up, I just don't want that section to grow too much. —siroχo 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? 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|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 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. —siroχo 02:10, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

COINTELPRO

nominated by 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 [1], so this might be a copyright violation. Jeronimo 21:37, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Way too short. --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! Filiocht 13:58, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• support. Bit late for it to be on Bloomsday, unfortunately... Kiand 18:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Reads well, comprehensive, ordered, nicely formatted, images, full reference section and external links. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 20:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. • Benc • 20:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Good stuff. Markalexander100 09:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Here's to Aloysius. Support. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:38, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Penis

Well written and researched. - 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. —Rory ☺ 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. :-) — 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. 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). func(talk) 00:17, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• 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? ---Rednblu 03:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object - human-centric. --mav 05:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Darn humans!!! Are there no animal writers on Wikipedia at all ?! func(talk) 20:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kasparov versus The World

Fascinating reading with stories of human conflict and cooperation. --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. Johnleemk | Talk 11:26, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support - a wonderful, engaging read. Some photos would be nice however (a screenshot of the forum?). --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. GWO 14:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article does not follow encyclopedic style and is not written from a 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. 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 File: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 File: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]] 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. -- Emsworth 20:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support IF the NPOV issue is resolved: I agree, the POV seriously limits the article. --Etaonish 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? func(talk) 20:20, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Caterpillar D9

Wow. What can I say? Interesting, well researched and informative. Plus has a cool picture. :-) - 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. Ericd 10:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose as unsubtle propaganda. Filiocht 11:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose while you fix all the spelling mistakes. --Phil | Talk 11:46, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

• Me? I didn't create it or even edit it. I only nominated it. - 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• If an article is so uninteresting, why would it ever become Featured? 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. 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. 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? --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 ;-). 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. --mav 07:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Greco-Buddhism

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

• Object: I find the liberally sprinkled quotations a little undigested into the main body of the article. Bmills 11:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Fascinating, well-written article. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Parliament of the United Kingdom

-- Emsworth 18:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Bmills 13:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 14:17, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. func(talk) 20:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Very informative and well written.
• Support 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. --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. 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. -- 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. - 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. --mav 05:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Expanded intro to two paragraphs.
• Support. 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. - 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 →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 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. Denni☯ 23:06, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
• Object. 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. - 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? - 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. - Taxman 12:15, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • Done :-) - 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. - Taxman 15:58, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

• Again, which bits are non-encyclopedic? Also, may I point you to heavy metal umlaut? - 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|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. - 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. 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. • Benc • 02:38, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Its fun and its well enough written (William M. Connolley 22:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
• Support, well written. The topic is fine. —siroχo 20:28, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A well-written article about an unsual subject, exactly what Wikipedia is best at. --Zerbey 02:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Second nomination for this article, after the 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. -- Modemac 12:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. No lead section. 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). 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? -- 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. --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. Jwrosenzweig 20:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 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). func(talk) 16:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • 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, [2] 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. Mozzerati 19:57, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

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

• 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. Mozzerati 19:57, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
• Belief disturb me... Is it belief or lie ? Are holocaust deniers sincere or is it simply propaganda  ? - 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. Mozzerati 20:02, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
    • Assertions seems more NPOV to me ? 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). func(talk) 20:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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) -- Chris 73 Talk 09:17, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. No lead section and references (Wikipedia:Cite sources). 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.-- 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? Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Very interesting article with a lot of potential, but it is very repetitive and even disorganized in places. 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. - 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 -- 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. - Taxman 12:28, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

(I am on a trip, and will try to address these issues on Friday. Please be patient. -- 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|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 21:08, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

• Object - Two sentences does not make a 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. --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|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 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. There are also POV issues with the map caption. --Jiang 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|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:56, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • My objection over the map caption is over the statement "Refer to [[Kashmir#Map_Issues|Kashmir Map Issues]] for a discussion regarding Indian, [[Pakistan]]i and [[China|Chinese]] claims". 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.--Jiang 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|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 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? --Jiang 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|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 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|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]]
      • Specifically: economy, geography (which fails to mention the major cities in the country) and demographics could use some editing. 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|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]]
  • 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 {India} 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|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]]
      • 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. Jeronimo 22:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Made necessary changes. Please review. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 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|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]]
    • PRC China was a featured article. It too lacks photographs. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 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. 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|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 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|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]]
      • 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. Jeronimo 22:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • China is not a featured article. People's Republic of China is. --Jiang 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|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]]
  • 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. 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. --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. --Mr impossible 14:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. No references (Wikipedia:Cite sources) and no lead section (Wikipedia:Lead section). Johnleemk | Talk 16:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object - same reasons as John. --mav 21:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I've removed my objection since there is now a lead section and inline references. --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. Ambi 00:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Of clear current relevance. Lacrimosus 00:27, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support - though I'd like to see the lead section compacted and a metion of Latham's political cue regarding superannuation. Many regard this is as the event that gave him credibility. --d 03:54, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. For an article this size, the lead section should be only half as long.--Jiang 05:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • 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. Ambi 06:03, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I've reduced the lead section to two paragraphs. Is this better? --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? Where is the information on his colourful language? (oops, that's there) I could go on and on... though I might just start adding to this. - 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. AdmN 10:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support after a references section is added. This is an article where this is necessary. - 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 - David Gerard 13:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lord Chancellor

-- 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|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Also strongly support. Interesting and well researched. A good example of a high-quality Wikipedia article! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 13:21, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Brilliant and thorough article Cyopardi 16:45, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Emsworth edited this? No brainer :) --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.

1. 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'.
2. No image - but this can easily be sorted the photo of Rodin's The Thinker, or the Rembrant shown here.
3. 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.
4. 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.

-- Solipsist 15:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object- I agree that the first person in unencyclopedic (disagree 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. 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. --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. ---Rednblu 01:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the interesting comments. That the article is limited is obvious, but so it goes—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. 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. -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. --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. • Benc • 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.--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. • Benc • 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.--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. -Jal 10:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• What a strange duck. Good article; interesting topic; support. -Litefantastic 11:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Page has had some edit warring problems in the past, though. • Benc • 12:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Has had some trouble in the past but i think its turned out well. O'Dubhghaill 17:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support (William M. Connolley 20:59, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC))
• Support as long as this doesn't go on the main page. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 03:37, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
  • Because...? Markalexander100 05:09, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Because we’ll end up with a savage revert war if it gets on the main page. People like Chomsky always have that affect. GeneralPatton 05:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Oh please. That's not a very good reason at all. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:07, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Not an objection (yet) - can I get a license on that picture? →Raul654 03:45, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Arguably the greatest biography on Wikipedia, regardless of one's personal opinion of Chomsky --Cyopardi 15:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Satori 15:59, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. - 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. AdmN 16:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It’s not our policy to call an article “finished”. The whole concept of wiki is that they’re constantly evolving and hopefully improving. GeneralPatton 18:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was being facetious. :) AdmN 18:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 17:49, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, it’s a good, well written look at the man. 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. ---Rednblu 20:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object - Very weak lead section, overwhelming TOC, and no references section (see wikipedia:Cite your sources). --mav 21:28, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Sadly changing my vote: there are clearly still content issues to be sorted out. Support, subject to references.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" ;-) ). Markalexander100 06:05, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, with references. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:07, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, although I am afraid that it would be a revert war. -- 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. Bmills 14:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support LegCircus 20:41, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Support Denni☯ 00:54, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)
• Support --Zerbey 02:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I Want To Hold Your Hand

Has been on 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 ArticleCollaboration 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 ACotWs have made featured status (siege and academia), but others (such as Iranian Revolution) will be coming here soon. See the history and the talk pages for more information. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Ambi 01:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Literature and poetry" section far too short. [[User:Neutrality|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 todo list on the talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Section expanded. • Benc • 05:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Object for now: pictures are this article's weak spot. A few more images are needed to illustrate the text — 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). • Benc • 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. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Added a few images, and Florence replaced - better? -- 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? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Had a go - something like that? -- 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. 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. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It's not the article's fault that there's so much historiography to churn through — 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. • Benc • 13:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I've added two subsection headers to the "Historiography" section; it should be easier to digest now. • Benc • 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? -- 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. - 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). -- 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. Bmills 07:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Taking your two objections separately:
    1. 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.
    2. Errors: 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 :) ) -- 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 — 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. [3] • Benc • 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 File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 05:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Would like to see less of red links though. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 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. -- ke4roh 01:16, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose, for now. David Remahl 01:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  1. 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 , though the translation is a bit dicey. -- ke4roh 00:11, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

  2. 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? -- ke4roh 00:11, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

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

Kiand 17:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. No picture (maybe an example how JPEG works). No history. -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]] 12:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. An article on JPEG without a picture? 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. --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. Jeronimo 06:54, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• If you need some pictures, I visited the city as well and put some pictures in the German Article about the city. -- 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|Oldak 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. • Benc • 21:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. It needs some fairly significant copy editing and structuring. 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. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 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|Oldak Quill]] 10:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Tell me how to fix that image and I'll do it. Iain McClatchie 18:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support - if lead section were reduced to 3 paragraphs. --d 00:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support - cool article! - 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. -- 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. 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. 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. 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. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

• 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. -- Cabalamat 18:48, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Rhobite has added a section on domains. Not sure if this is useful. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, I hope I've addressed these concerns. 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 -- Cabalamat 22:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object - Needs a ==References== section. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. --mav 03:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I've started on this, but my question is: why? other articles don't, and they often went to the front page. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • 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. - 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|Oldak 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! - 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). Ambi 06:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Gah! - 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. 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? Pcb21| Pete 07:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Truer words were never spoken... - 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. - 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. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:38, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

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

• Support. After some edits, it looks to be a really great article. -- 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. LegCircus 20:53, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • For the record, this objection is not actionable. →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. 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. →Raul654 16:33, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Du Fu

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

• Support. --Shibboleth 19:42, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support, brilliant article. --Alxt 19:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• "Tu Fu" is more common: [4] --Jiang 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. --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. --Jiang 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". 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. -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. Markalexander100 04:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Good, then. Thanks. Eudyptes 15:41 29 Aug 2004 UTC
• Object - Nice article, but it needs a ==References== section. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. --mav
  • I've renamed "Further reading" as "References"- I hope that helps. 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. 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. Wetman 05:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great name! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 16:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Pedro 19:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. 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). -- 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. Markalexander100 00:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support: good article on a really important figure. What more can you ask? 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. --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. Lockeownzj00 23:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Strong support. After thorough nitpicking session, no unresolved objections. • Benc • Very well-written; this article is very close to featured quality. A few rough edges, though (all of them easily actionable, I think):
  • 1. Captions needed underneath each image. 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... --Tothebarricades.tk 00:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • 2. Need a date for the founding of the FAI.
    • Added (1927) --Tothebarricades.tk 00:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • 3. In this section: "A Socialist leader once said...". An exact attribution if possible, please. 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 --Tothebarricades.tk 00:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • 4. Why is the Criticisms of the CNT-FAI by fellow anarchists section not a subsection of the History section?
    • Should it go in the section on the Spanish Civil War, perhaps? --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. • Benc • 01:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Moved it. It makes sense, since the criticisms were only made around the time of the Civil War. --Tothebarricades.tk 03:11, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • 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"?
    • 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. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • 6. Consistency: anarchist isn't capitalized, but Socialist, Communist, and Republican are. Is this intentional, and if so, what is the rationale? 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. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  Minor objections:

  • 7. Two or three historical photos from the pre-Franco era would help illustrate the text of the lengthy History section.
    • Added three images. --Tothebarricades.tk 03:06, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • 8. ISBNs for book references would be nice.
    • Done. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • 9. Expand the Today section ("Cause of the split, comparative size, influence").
    • 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. :( --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. :-) • Benc • 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. --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. :) --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. --Shibboleth 06:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Good point. Fortunately, the solution to this problem is as simple as adding an "Overview" section in front of the "History" section. :-) • Benc • 20:02, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • So you're suggesting the lead be expanded? • Benc • 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. --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 — 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 pic of equation
• Anno Domini - Smerdis of Tlön 19:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Application programming interface - use 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 (fair use picture) 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? James F.

(talk) 15:02, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)) (don't see why not Lupin 00:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC))

• Milgram experiment
• Social history of the piano (Used on of sevearal pictures on piano