Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JBurnham (talk | contribs) at 04:58, 14 March 2005 (→Nominations: adding New Deal and Iran-Iraq War). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge server cache

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.
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

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. 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.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. 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
  • 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.


Featured article (FA) tools

Nominations

Iran-Iraq War

A pleasant surprise on Wikipedia. Possibly the best brief overview of the war that I have ever read. (In case this comes up as an objection, please note that while there is no section on references, there are extensive inline citations and links embedded in the text backing up the various claims made in the article.) JBurnham 05:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. 1) The used references need to be collected and presented in a separate section. 2) How are the photo's public ___domain? At the least we need a source for them. 3) We need one or more maps showing the advancements of both armies and the major battlefields. 4) Several of the sections have incoherent writing, jumping from one topic to another. The section should not just present a list of facts, but make a well-flowing text with, and leave out unimportant details in favor of the main story (Details can go in detail articles). 5) Strangely, more text is spent on US involvement than on the war progress itself. Also, why an entire section about the US and (virtually) nothing about the USSR? Jeronimo 07:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I am thankful for Jeronimos dissent on this Issue, The Article in question is hardly impartial and has more in common with the opinion of a frustrated 17 yr old Iranian In USA, than in the sacred duty of recording history. Also there seems to be some opinion meted out as truth, in that the US is highlighted and the Iranian war with Iraq is of secondary importance. Likewise the use of Persian gulf war vs the use of Gulf war. The_libo

  • Object. 1) The role of the US in this war is of paramount importance because it was America's constant role as instigator and agitator that began the war and pushed it to an US-Iranian naval war at the end.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Deal

Parliament Act

Self-nomination. The German version of this article is a featured article (or the equivalent), I believe, on the German Wikipedia, so I decided to try to bring this up to quality (along with many others). Morwen - Talk 12:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Where are the other main articles relating to this article? Where are the WikiSources regarding to this article? -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Erm, I'm not sure I understand the question. Which "other main articles"? If you mean separate articles on Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949, this article deals with both - it would not make much sense to deal with them separately. Which WikiSources? Even if you mean copies of the Acts (which are subject to Crown copyright), can the absence of WikiSource material be an objection? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • These are not objections, just a comment. I would think that there would be a copy of the text at WikiSource, so that is why I questioned if there was. Also, typically, under sections which have their own article, I normally see something like:
        Main article: Parliament Act 1911
      • -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • But Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949 are just redirects to this article! It would be very odd to therefore have the behaviour you propose. Re WikiSource, the Acts are Crown Copyright and therefore I believe uploading to WikiSource not allowed. Morwen - Talk 07:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • It is a shame that these two articles are just redirects - it'd be nice to have a main article on each which expands on what a mixed article can provide. Keep in mind that in 1911 parliamentarians had no idea that another act would be made 38 years later. --Oldak Quill 13:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Please go ahead if you think there is enough material to write separate articles on both of them, but I think this article deals quite adequately with them in detail and in combination. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but I've also written large chunks of it, so an outside view would be appreciated. The German version, for comparison, is at de:Parliament Act, and has some flow diagrams: if someone can copy and translate them, that would be great. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; I don't particularly like the flow diagrams on the German Wikipedia, TBH. James F. (talk) 12:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I looked at translating it, but ended up agreeing with you. I think the prose explanation is sufficient. Morwen - Talk 20:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair enough - my only reason for mentioning it is that the Parliament Acts are rather hard to illustrate. I suppose a scan of the front page of one of the Acts would be good, although the image of the Palace of Westminster and the people involved do the job for now. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • SupportVery comprehensive and well explained. Giano 13:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm sceptical as to its completeness - particularly as all references are online. Is Erskine-May silent on it? What about what constitutional experts say on the Acts? (Also, though I don't object on this point, isn't the article name wrong - since it's about 2 Acts - the 1911 and 1949 ones?) The article appears to dwell too much on question marks (now resolved) about the 1949 Act. It would also be interesting to have more about the "money bills" provisions, particularly it is only in recent years that the House of Lords has taken upon itself to constitute a Special Subcommittee on each year's Finance Bill, jguk 22:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks: good objections, although I should have thought publications from Parliament and published court judgments (included in the online references) should be authoritative enough. I'm sure that Erskine May will have something to say. I'll see what I can turn up from the books (there are some journal references in the judgments too). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, would be good to expand on the subject of payments to MPs as this is a controversial topic which I hadn't realised the 1911 act introduced. Warofdreams 12:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. In articles like this, where the connections of the illustrations to the article are rather tenuous, the image captions need to do a better job of explaining the connection (see Wikipedia:Captions). For example, the portrait of Lloyd George could be captioned "The Parliament Act 1911 was passed to enable Asquith's Liberal government of 1908–1916 to push through Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George's land tax." (But I think the length of that caption shows that the connection is a little bit too tenuous. A picture of Asquith would be better.) Gdr 12:51, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jello Biafra

Yosemite National Park

Self-nom. A bit on the longish side due to the fact that I'm in the process of building-up the geography section to a point where I can spin it off into its own article and leave an abridged summary at Yosemite National Park. But other than that, I think this article is a go. But if it is not, then please tell me what else is needed. History of the Yosemite area is already an FA. --mav 00:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support I like the current state of the article very much. Someone (or I) should work on the number of red links in the article --- it's a little high for a featured article, methinks. -- hike395 01:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't think it's terribly long. It makes an interesting read as it stands, and I don't think cutting it down is that necessary. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A question: Under "Management issues", what is being done about invasive species, or if nothing is being done, why not? --Carnildo 07:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Are there restrictions on who may enter or how many people may enter? Is there a fee to enter? Are there ecological restrictions besides food lockers? Further, one can infer from Activities that the park is open all year and that people may wander where they like provided it is not overnight, but this is unclear. That section is also a bullet-list. Minor POV or attribution, e.g. "has its own charm", "await excited hikers", "visitors are advised to check". 119 08:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Most of that is the type of info that would be more appropriate in the Wikitravel version of this article. But I'll see if I can somehow incorporate that info in the activities section. --mav 16:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Most of the above has been fixed. --mav 17:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Support. 119 21:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article. -Willmcw 00:25, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I like this a lot; definitely not too long. Filiocht 08:52, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Another great US National Park related article by Mav. Jeronimo 18:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Fantastic article, well presented --PopUpPirate 16:10, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - The Park Features list is nice, although the images on the side pile up horribly on my computer and it is not clear which image goes with which feature. That is a poor representation of a featured article in my mind. Páll 17:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That table is going to be expanded and moved to geography of the Yosemite area once I create that article. --mav
      • Until then, I've commented the table out (never much liked that table anyway). --mav 02:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Hey, I liked that table! Let's show little thumbnails of the park features. I made a gallery of popular features using the <gallery feature: that should look better on Páll's display. -- hike395 06:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, that does look nice. The parts of the table I did not like were the image placement and the missing precip and temp data for some features. I plan to expand the info presented and the number of features once I get around to creating geography of the Yosemite area. --mav 12:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • If you're going to do the gallery like that, it needs to be taken off the article and moved into Commons, if it is possible with licencsing. I will support when they are removed completely, or the Geography of Yosemite article incorporates the table somehow. Páll 17:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Galleries are not restricted to the Commons. I've seen them in other en articles. What exactly is your objection? You originally objected because the pictures were confusing and smashed together: I fixed those problems. -- hike395 18:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • What a petty thing to object to. I consider that objection invalid. --mav 18:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • For what it's worth, I just converted the gallery to a table, to squeeze out more white space, and removed the section header. Thought those might satisfy Páll. If more people like the gallery than the squeezed table, we can revert. -- hike395 18:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I just fixed the article up. I changed the image sizes, as this is a very long article and there's no reason to have such small images. Plus, I think it looks much more professional to have the images right-aligned. I moved the gallery to Commons, as i think that's the best place for it. If people want to see images, they can go there. After this, I now support.

2001: A Space Odyssey

I think that the page for the science fiction movie 2001: A Space Odyssey is deserving of a spot as a featured article on Wikipedia. This movie, by all account, is considered a masterpiece. Movie critics continue to heap praise on this movie, for reasons including its complex plot, underlying themes, and its realism in portraying space, among other reasons.

37 years after its release into theatres, 2001 still holds up well. It accurately portrays space as a vacuum with absoultely no sound whatsoever. Its special effects were groundbreaking for its time period, and there is no doubt that this film changed the science fiction genre of films forever, setting a much higher bar for science fiction than it had prior to its making.

Sure, many consider it boring... but it is an experience, and at 37 years old, it is still winning over converts.

  • Object. Nice work, but: No references. To present one interpretation in its Synopsis when many exist is not neutral or comprehensive. Finally, the article begins with peacock term. Rather than hazily calling it an "immensely popular and influential" film, I think it is better to strictly qualify that in a way seen under Sequels where its specific rankings and awards are given. 119 00:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. It's strange that there is no references regarding to Arthur C. Clarke. I believe the synopsis should be moved to allow the background of the book/movie to be presented first. There should be mentions of noted differences. There is no mention of popular culture references such as in Simpsons, Futurama, etc. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) No references. At least the book itself should be referenced. 2) This is (apparently) an article about both the book and the film, but it seems to focus more on the film than the book. I'm not sure if combining the articles is a good idea. 3) The story itself is discussed in much less detail than the music and scientific accuracy. The level of detail (about moon dust blowing incorrectly) in these sections could be less, while more on the story would be welcome. 4) The article needs editing for POV, for example: "Moreover, the film's profound themes about the past, present and potential future of humanity still resonate powerfully today." 5) The lead section does not give a good overview of the article. 6) The names of the actors are only mentioned in the sidetable. 7) Any information about book sales, movie grossings? 8) The trivia section is not prose and the elements should be rewritten to be included with the main text when interesting. Other bits are simply not interesting enough ("Arthur C. Clarke is believed( to have made a brief non-speaking cameo appearance in one scene of the latter film" (emphasis added)). Jeronimo 18:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: I added a couple of different theories for HAL's motivations to the article. Obviously a lot of work on this remains and these are great comments on areas of improvement. I personally am facinated by 2001 (although a lot of people I know are not), and agree that the article needs improvement. RudolfRadna 15:23, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red River Rebellion

Disgaea

Self-nomination. I've been working on this article off and on since July of last year, and it's come a long way since then. I believe it compares favorably with current video game featured articles like Super Mario 64 and Doom. A peer review request from last month is available. - RedWordSmith 03:54, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • I find it hard to understand. Could perhaps do with greater clarity to overcome the inherent complexities of the fiction. Neutral. Everyking 07:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, could you give me an example of something you found confusing? Is the prose just a touch on the thick side? - RedWordSmith 21:52, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: the gameplay section needs some work, IMO. More information regarding the character creation system and the Dark Senate, in particular, would be useful, and it could probably stand to be broken up into pertinent subheaders, or at the very least have more frequent paragraph breaks: finding info on the item world, as it is, involves reading halfway through a rather sprawling block of text. And the last paragraph in the section doesn't really seem to relate to gameplay at all: the information is valuable, certainly, but it should be in another section, IMO.

    Also, it feels like there should be at least one screenshot from the game somewhere in there. But aside from these points, it's looking pretty good, and is only one or two edits away from featured status quality, IMO. – Seancdaug 03:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Question: What similiarities does it share with other games and what type of Console RPG Cliches does it suffer from? I don't see an article link for Disgaea (manga). -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It doesn't actually invoke too many cliches at all. Looking over the list gave me a few ideas of things to add (only one set of stores, characters don't sleep to restore HP, etc). As for the manga, I haven't been able to find any good information about it at all -- all of the hits Google has about it are stores selling it. - RedWordSmith 07:32, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)=

For the sake of RedWorthSmith's dream, I'm gonna devote my Wiki time to improving the quality of the Disgaea article! --A Link to the Past 02:09, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

History of Test cricket (1884 to 1889)

This is the second in a new series on the history of Test cricket. History of Test cricket (to 1883) recently was promoted to featured article status. I think that this instalment, which completes the story up to the end of the 1880s and South Africa's introduction to Test cricket, is now ready for featured article status too. Self-nomination, jguk 22:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Impressive! To take the subject in such comprehensive detail as a series is quite an endeavor. Support. Everyking 06:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nice comprehensive article. Being a cricket fan myself... Squash 22:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nichalp 20:47, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support pamri 04:35, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Is going to wonderful if this can be featured before/during/after a test series--IMpbt 19:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Carl G. Fisher

previous FAC

Mount Pinatubo

I've spent the last couple of weeks working on this article, about the mountain and its enormous 1991 eruption. I think it is comprehensive now, and looks pretty good, and I think I've covered all the points raised when I put it up for peer review. So, I am now nominating it for featured status. Worldtraveller 15:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, but it would be nice to get unit conversions put in before this reaches featured status (although the consistency of always using metric units helps). I've updated the References formatting according to the guidelines at Cite your sources, the reference titles are the links, the author names come first and they are all alphabetized by author. slambo 15:29, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support! I've put in a lot of unit conversions now. Worldtraveller 19:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Another excellent article by Worldtraveller. — mark ✎ 15:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Emsworth will have to look to his laurels if these excellent articles keep coming along. It is fortunate for us that his interests are apparently somewhat different to those of Worldtraveller.
Some minor unit nit-picks (not worth objecting over) could you:
    • wikilink numerical values to appropriate [[1 E...]] articles,
    • use &nbsp; between values and units, and
    • wikilink the first use of each unit (e.g. ° C in lead, km³, etc)
like this: 10 km³. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • No - that is bad advice. 10 km³ is confusing as hell since 10 looks like a link to year 10 when in fact it is to 1 E9 m³. The MoS says to link like so 10 km³. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Examples --mav 02:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh, apologies if that is bad advice. I've certainly seen lots of links like that, and it gets you straight to both important pages, the order of magnitude page and the units page. I suppose the order of magnitude page will link to the units anyway. Shrug. Who creates the MoS anyway... -- ALoan (Talk) 09:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks very much for the comments, ALoan! I'll get on with correcting the style issues. Worldtraveller 03:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Have now linked to various 1_E... articles, made sure of nbsps between values and units, and linked to units. Worldtraveller 19:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose—the eruption should be covered in detail in a separate article; the treatment here should be more summarized with greater geographical and general historical information. Everyking 21:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I see why this should be the case. Why should the eruption be covered in a separate article to the volcano? Worldtraveller 03:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • My objection should be ignored if it is the opinion of those informed on the subject that there is not enough information available to justify two distinct articles. I could not say, but it would seem to me that there ought to be enough. Everyking 07:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • A few representative quotes about pre-1991 Pinatubo may give an idea: An inconspicuous volcano (paper on eruptive history of the volcano); only 200 meters above nearby mountains that largely obscured Mount Pinatubo from view (USGS page); forested, deeply dissected and unimposing (NASA page). I am sure that but for the eruption, no-one outside the local area would have heard of it, and much of the information available about the mountain pre-1991 is only known because of the studies carried out after it became active, so to me it makes most sense to keep it all as one article. Worldtraveller 19:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - Good, but almost all the article is about the most recent eruption. Where is the long human history associated with this volcano? Aren't there local legends and lore about it? What about the geography of it? See Mount St. Helens and 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens for an FA examples for this type of article. --mav 02:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Like it says in the article, before the eruption it wasn't well known, it was just another pretty unremarkable big hill in a hilly region covered in dense rainforest. Unlike St Helens it wasn't a well known beauty spot or tourist area. If it hadn't erupted in 1991 I doubt it would be worthy of an encyclopaedia article, so inevitably any article about it will be mostly about the eruption. Worldtraveller 03:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Having looked into this, I think you are right. I'd still like to see a geography section added before I support. --mav 19:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I have adjusted things a bit to emphasise that the volcano was not well known before 1991. Can I just ask what you'd want to see in a geography section? General expansion of the sort of stuff that's in the 'history and geology of the Pinatubo region' section, or something else?
          • Stream systems, primary plant cover type, climate, nearby features, nearby villages/cities, general orientation info about where the volcano is, etc. --mav 17:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Have included more information along these lines. Worldtraveller 17:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I was about to agree with Everyking and Mav, but I definitely see Worldtraveler's point here. If it wasn't worthy of a separate article otherwise then it may not need one now. It would be like asking for a separate article on an actor's career, from the main article just about them. If there is nothing else noteworthy about the person, there is no need for that. - Taxman 14:30, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Now that I've looked more closely at it. Though I would like to see more references and inline citations. - Taxman 14:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, another triumph for Worldtraveller. Bishonen | Talk 21:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. O
  • Support Excellent article! Squash 22:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - BanyanTree 23:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Our Gang (The Little Rascals)

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

  • Support, third times the charm. Good work. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. How'd you feel about including the poster for the 1994 film too?--nixie 08:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I'm sorry, but this article absolutely needs footnotes. Passages like Roach's anecdote of how he supposedly got the idea for the series' concept are next to useless if not explicitly attached to a source using a note. You cannot possibly expect readers to search through all the references mentionned at the end of the article to fact-check/source the anecdote. Other strong statements that either require backing by a quote from a source or de-NPOVing/rewording include:
*little Farina,[...] eventually became both the most popular member of the 1920s gang and the first true African-American child star.
  • though some historians do not look favorably upon the characters of the African-American children today. The words "some historians" should be enough to instill dread in anyone who believes in verifiability on Wikipedia.
  • The most important African-American child actors in the series were [...]. Most important in what sense? In terms of screen time? "popularity"? number of appearances in the series? later career achievements? influence?
    • I will reword it to "the four main," since those four were the only major black characters in the series. There were plenty of black guest stars and bit players, but those four were main characters. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*After Sammy, Mickey, and Mary left the series in the mid-1920s, Our Gang declined slightly in popularity, although it remained financially successful. Figures to back this would be great, if available.
  • Spanky [...] popularized the expressions "Okey-dokey!" and "Okey-doke!" I doubt you can find a convincing source for this one, so I suppose this is an assumption the author made. I recommend toning the wording down a bit.
  • As the profit margins declined due to to double features, [...]
    • Also from Maltin/Bann book.
  • The new Our Gangers recruited by MGM were more in the vein of the "cute" kids that Roach had despised than the original gang. Who says this? If the author believes it and has no quote (from an art/film critic with a minimum of respectability) to back it, then its POV.
  • The series dropped in both popularity and financial success after 1939,[...]
  • The Little Rascals was a moderate success for Universal, and for a short time a sequel and a television series were planned, but nothing came to pass. Screams for box-office figures and source about the planned series.
    • Should be able to be found. If not, will delete the mention of it being a "moderate success". There should be articles on the projected sinoffs available online, however. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only remittances they received were their weekly salaries during their time in the gang, which ranged from $40 a week for newcomers to $300 or more a week for stars like Farina, Spanky, and Alfalfa. Precise figures require precise source citations.
I'd like to say that apart from that, this article is clearly above average; I congratulate the authors. I will gladly support when my concern is adressed. Phils 20:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out, the source for nearly everything you mentioned is the Maltin/Bann book; a few of the items about the African-American kids comes from the Bogle book. I can take care of the footnotes within a few hours. Should I be using page-specific footnotes? --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have added citations to all of the above-mentioned items, and other places where they appeared to be needed. I used paretheticals, since nearly all of my sources are print-based, not web-based. --FuriousFreddy 03:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thank you for adressing the objection so quickly, and good work. Now some others might want you to use a footnote system, but the way the article is referenced right now is ok by me. Phils 05:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how exactly to go about doing a footnote system for a Wiki article like this. Would I just be using superscript reference points, and a long list of footnotes at the ewend? If anyone decides a footnote system is neccessary, I will alter it. --FuriousFreddy 10:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no such thing as "absolutely needs footnotes", your parenthetic references are fine. I'm not sure there are enough of them (don't have time for a really good look tonight) and they want just a little formatting (I'll fix that tomorrow), but they're fine. In some special cases footnotes can work better than parentheses, but that's not the case here. Please don't anybody let the very proper requirement for sourcing of particular statements drift into a requirement for footnotes! They're optional. Ample and exact sourcing is valuable, but a "learned" or academic look has no special value in itself (on the contrary, IMO). Bishonen | talk 02:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear! I've never seen another call for footnotes. This is an encyclopedia article, not a term paper! Quill 03:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent. Quill 03:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, lovely. With a subject like this, it's impressive that the author manages to not assume all readers are Americans or even native English speakers, and makes the rest of us welcome, too. Great work.--Bishonen | talk 00:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, whilst putting in footnotes, I noticed the following:
    In later years, a large number of adults falsely claimed to have been members of the popular group. A long list of people, including persons famous in other capacities such as Nanette Fabray [1] [2], Tony Dow's mother Muriel Montrose [3], Gloria Winters [4], and Jimmy Weldon [5] have had biographical write-ups that falsely claimed that they were Our Gang kids. Eddie Bracken's official biography was once altered to state that he appeared in Our Gang instead of The Kiddie Troupers, although he himself had no knowledge of the change. The obituaries of some of these people, such as Lucille Brown [6] and Sara Jane Roberts [7], stated falsely that they were in the series. Ms. Brown's obituary claimed that she had played Farina, who was actually played by Allen Hoskins, a male.
  • There are wikilinks to old revisions of Wikipedia pages, which is most definitely a no-no. We don't refer back to ourselves. Also, the other websites given are, IMO, rather dubious. I think it would be better to remove this section altogether or find more notable examples of false claims. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand. I revised the section so that it refrences the Maltin-Bann book alone, removing the links back to ourselves and the other websites in the section. The only info that remains is drawn from pages 241-242 from the Maltin-Bann book. --FuriousFreddy 14:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Enjoyable, informative and well-illustrated. --Theo (Talk) 18:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Benjamin Mountfort

A self nomination: I wrote this fairly short article because while there is plenty of good articles about European architecture, there is less about that of the southern hemisphere. It has some excellent contemporary photographs, which explain better than text what the man was about. Giano 09:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment at this stage. I think this is a very good article but I have a few comments mostly about layout. Firstly the picture of Mountfort at the top of the article should be on the right hand side. The newspaper quote about Lyttelton church should not be double-spaced and there's no need to have the same line lengths as in the original paper (I assume). Should the link to August Pugin be to Augustus Pugin, the name by which he is mostly known? Also it would be nice to know exactly to which Christian doctrine Mountfort was an adherent - there is all the difference in the world in architecture between being a devout Methodist and a devout Catholic. Also, something I'm doing as a preparatory for a major expansion of Giles Gilbert Scott, would it be possible to list all his significant works (even when not mentioned in the text) at the bottom, with colour photos? Dbiv 11:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think I have addressed all these points. It did say he was an Anglican, however this is now more defined. Link is now to Augustus Pugin (perhaps the Pugin page needs to be moved?) I have listed his major works (this list will grow over time) the colour photos are a problem, as all available are in copyright, and its a bit far to go and take some (for me anyway) I have added links to the list which will provide photographs - hopefully this will suffice. Giano 12:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Support. Dbiv 16:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I can live with the B/W photos. Filiocht 13:59, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - too short: the article seems to be a simple chronological biography. There is comparably very little on his style, legacy and masterworks. No longer object, thought don't explicitly support - I am ambiguous. I recognise it has everything necessary to a Featured Article, though it still lacks a certain nack. Perhaps I will still change my mind by the end of the vote. --Oldak Quill 18:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for withdrawing the objection. I'm unsure how to redress your last comment, and not sure that I can. This article is now the most comprehensive study of Benjamin Mountfort on the internet (that I can find, and believe me I have looked). Books published on him are few and limited, New Zealand architecture is a fascinating subject (to those interested at least) but it is very under-researched. This is my best shot at Ben Mountfort, I can add no more. Giano 22:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have expanded now on the buildings. Regarding style I think the article does make it clear that he worked in the linked Gothic revival style, and that his individualism came from working in wood, and in that particular ___location and the philosophy behind his interpretation of the style, which is explained in depth. It would be POV on my part to say that was he working in Europe his works may not be as notable.Giano 09:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support—flows well (IMO); and it exposes a niche in NZ history, usually you don't see many early NZ histories on architecture. DiamondVertex 06:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments - I think this is a very interesting article, but I just have three small comments. First, the sentence contrary to common belief in England...there was little call for architects - was this really a common belief? It gives me images of shiploads of hopeful architects heading south expecting to find a paradise where their buildings were in constant demand, only to have their hopes cruelly dashed on arrival. Second, the section about his personal life seems oddly placed in the middle of the article. I would suggest that maybe the information from it could be incorporated into the general flow of the text. And finally, in the penultimate paragraph the word 'genius' seems perhaps POV, as the rest of the article gives me the impression that he was certainly talented but perhaps not in the genius ranks? Worldtraveller 17:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I see the wisdom of these points and have addressed them. Giano 18:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Definitely support now - as I say, a very interesting article, kept me reading to the end even though I've never been to New Zealand and know hardly anything about architecture! Worldtraveller 18:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support a brilliant article which I learned a lot from. I visited Christchurch over the summer and was wondering who designed the museum and college buildings. Lisiate 00:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Comment - Completely inadequate lead section and seems too short overall (if this is FA length for a biography on somebody that a lot can be written about, then I'll pretty up John Muir and Billy the Kid and then nominate those articles). --mav 01:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the lead. I don't know of any further information which could be useful on the subject, this architect was not in the same league as Vitruvius, Palladio, Alberti or even Robert Adam, but do the limitations of his work prevent him becoming "featured" ? Is there a prescribed minimum length? Giano 09:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • To quote from Wikipedia:What is a featured article Some people feel that every featured article should have a certain length, and if not enough can be said about the article's subject to reach that length, it should in most cases be merged into another article. However, excellent short articles are also accepted.. There is also a requirement to be comprehensive as in not omitting any significant facts. IMHO, this article meets this requirement and is clearly not a candidate for merging, so the too short objection lacks validity, but what do I know?. Filiocht 09:30, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • By comparison, this article is at least as long as those of Julia Stiles and Alexander Hamilton which are both nominated as well without any length objections. We have here a summary of his life, works and influences. What more could be added? Oh, and Billy the Kid would be great as a featured article... Lisiate 19:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well if you'all think this is comprehensive for this person, then I retract my objection but still leave my length comment. --mav 02:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent article, now very comprehensive, in a sparsely populated area of Wikipedia. Bishonen | Talk 07:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment an interesting article, but I have some doubts about it. It could do with a brief explanation of "tractarian" (not an everyday word, I suggest), and "Ruskinesque". I'm also concerned about the flow of the article. Some sentences seem to be trying to make too many points (one or two is normally enough). Take the sentence "George Gilbert Scott, the architect of Christchurch Cathedral, and an empathiser of Mountfort's teacher and mentor Carpenter, wished Mountfort to be the clerk of works and supervising architect of the new cathedral project, a proposal which was however vetoed by the Cathedral Commission." That tells me that (1) Scott was the architect of Christchurch Cathedral; (2) Scott was an empathiser of Carpenter; (3) Carpenter was Mountfort's teacher; (4) Carpenter was Mountfort's mentor; (5) Scott wanted Mountfort to be the clerk of works and supervising architect of the new cathedral project; (6) The new cathedral project proposal was vetoed by the Cathedral Commission. There are other sentences that also seem overworked. I think the article would be a better read if these sentences could be broken up; this may take up a bit more room, but the article's only 19.5kb long at the moment anyway, so that wouldn't be a problem, 21:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC). (Signing for Jguk, Bish.)
    • Good points, and I've tried to address them somewhat in a copy-edit. Conservatively so, as I rather like the commodious sentences, but I agree they can be overdone. Please see what you think now. Bishonen | Talk 09:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Julia Stiles

previous FAC

She Loves You

previous FAC

Franklin B. Gowen

This article is the result of looking up the significance of Mr. Gowen based on a one-line reference in the John White article (listed in this article's references); the story of how Gowen worked to break up the Molly Maguires captured my attention, and led to the expansion of this article. slambo 22:59, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - the introduction definitely needs work. →Raul654 23:05, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • The introduction is much, much better now. →Raul654 18:35, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Raul. The first sentence should state the most important thing(s) about him, not where he was born. Everyking 00:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've reworked the lead accordingly. slambo 02:29, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object. This article seems decent, although a bit short, especially given the large number of references used. My only problem is that the lead section needs to briefly explain who or what the Molly Maguires were. Jeronimo 18:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Defined the Maguires in the lead section and noted that the Maguires were Catholics, while the Gowens were Protestants. As I understand it, the Catholic vs. Protestant conflicts are still a factor in modern Ireland. Yeah, there are a lot of references; many of them had only a small number of data points to add, but since they were facts that needed to be verified, the references are all listed. I don't have copies of the two books listed in the Further Reading section, otherwise they would likely be in the References too. slambo 22:54, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Good fix, support. Jeronimo 07:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support well referenced compared to some other (much longer) nominations.--ZayZayEM 05:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice. Left some nits on the Talk page. Niteowlneils 04:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-done and NPOV on a subject which can be difficult (ie organized labor vs management). Vaoverland 13:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems very short (about 11kb - and many of these are references) (which is indicative of either not very much being able to be written about the guy, or of a not quite comprehensive article). I'd be interested to know whether this really all that is interesting that could be said, jguk 22:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Several of the references included a great deal of information about the Molly Maguires (the 1894 article, especially) but only a few details about Gowen's involvement or about the rest of his life. I've got one of the two books in the Further reading section requested through interlibrary loan, and will likely add more once I have a chance to read it. I tried to keep the article limited to Gowen and his connections to the Maguires rather than going into detail about the unions or McParland's investigations. slambo 23:51, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, short but IMHO probably comprehensive enough. JYolkowski 23:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seattle, Washington

Good example of a city article. I've worked on two or three sections, but other people did most of the writing. Previous nomination got some feedback that's been incorporated, but not much of either support or opposition. --Michael Snow 17:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've since remembered I wrote almost all of the Utilities section, since shunted off to a sub-page. Niteowlneils 18:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The skyline photograph does not have a source, nor is the copyright verified. -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Summary added. Niteowlneils 04:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object — History section is vey badly written. Instead of a brief history of Seattle, all I can see are events and something on the economy. The headings with their abrupt subheadings are awful and can certainally do with a makeover. Take a look at other cities in the FA list to get an idea on how the headings should be displayed. Also wikipedia convention is not followed. It should read: { Main article: whatever } rather than { see main...} . It should also read { See also: whatever }. I would also like to see more on sports; what do people watch, where locals play. The current section is filled with team names. Nichalp 20:37, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
I believe I've standardized the formatting. Not sure what to do with the Sports section--the article's already 40k, so it doesn't really seem expandable. In addition to listing teams, the section already covers the Pilots, the Kingdome, and the popularity of college sports, which seem like the big three sport-related things to say about Seattle. If 'what do people watch' refers to game attendance, I don't think there's anything unique to say about Seattle other than the collegiate angle already covered. If 'where locals play' means where are the stadiums/arenas, they're all within the Seattle city limits, which mentioning would seem redundant--if it means something else, please clarify. Niteowlneils 04:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I do not support geographic articles if they are over 32kb. It makes them too long to read. Try and précis the text to convey maximum information with well chosen words. Extra text from "Seattle Institutions" should be added into a separate article. The headings are still awkward. Here's what I suggest:
  • History
  • Geography and climate (extra geo. details go on a separate page)
  • Economy
  • Government and politics
  • Demographics
  • People and culture
  • Utilities and transportation
  • Education
  • Sports
References, external links, See also

Nichalp 19:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

That scale of overhaul didn't seem doable in the three days remaining, but I did find enuf to move off to other pages that it's now down to 34K, despite the fact that, as indicated by this table, Seattle covers almost twice as many topics as Sarajevo, and up to three times as many as the four other city FAs.

Niteowlneils 01:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I won't crib too much if its 34kb, but I would still prefer to see a better rewrite on the history, economy and an improvement in the headings which is really messy at the moment. 3 days is a lot of time, all it takes is a max of 3-4 hrs of dediated rewrites by a single person to take care of all the objections. Nichalp 19:01, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
It took me over a half-hour just to add 4 sentences to respond to the objection regarding the lack of crime/court/jail info--if someone could overhaul the sections in '3-4 hours', they're ten times the editor I am. Niteowlneils 18:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think you have about a week left. No probs if it is rejected, you will get the time to iron out the objections before submitting it again. A featured article should be a quality one, thats why the article demands a dedicated rewrite. Why don't u share the load with others? And not all objections (requests such as jails to be added etc.) can be fulfiled. Nichalp 20:29, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Objection. Writing is awkward. The “history” and “politics” sections should be rewritten entirely, with details and in chronological order. “Arts and Museums” section should not simply refer to Museums and galleries of Seattle, but should give a brief but suffient summary. All in all, this article isn’t bad; however, it isn’t nearly as good as Sarajevo, which is the de facto standard for featured articles on cities. Neutralitytalk 17:11, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Summary added, politics re-written, and history improved (a bit, anyway). Niteowlneils 04:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Needs more history. :) Neutralitytalk 17:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Shaky support. I like the article a great deal, and I feel it is hampered by the 32k limit (portions of the article, as Neutrality points out, cry out for a little more "detail", but I don't know that there's room for it). Neutrality, I'd point out that the Arts and Museums section isn't merely a redirect, to my eyes -- it looks to me like there's a somewhat substantial section on the performing arts. That section may need restructuring to clarify that fact, though. And while it's not as good as Sarajevo, I don't know if all article on cities need to be as good as Sarajevo to be featured. The chronological reordering, I agree with. Make my shaky support a strong one if the history and politics sections can be made more chronological (they feel fragmented, as is). Jwrosenzweig 23:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I may have added something to this article, but can't remember. If I have, this is a kind of self-support.)
  • Comment/update. I wrote an arts/museums summary, but it's almost 1K, so it may need to be trimmed, although the article is still only 40k, which is smaller than many. I also swapped two of the history sections--does that help enuf? Oh, and I left a specific source/status request on the Talk page of the contrib of the skyline pic, but he doesn't seem to visit very regularly--I'd say remove it if that gets down to the sole objection. I have some ideas on how to improve the Politics section, but it will require more research than I have time for tonite. Niteowlneils 05:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've found the source of the skyline image, and emailed the site owner (who is very likely the uploader) to confirm the copyright status. However it is probably GFDL. — Zeimusu | Talk 05:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • comment The image is GFDL, confirmed in email — Zeimusu | Talk 03:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've now broken off the old politics/government article and left a summary that has a more meta-level discussion of the government. Niteowlneils 03:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. (I've worked on this article a fair bit, but not so much recently. Most of my total work has been on related articles.) --Lukobe 05:09, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. No information about crime, police, city jails, court system, etc. Neutralitytalk 23:14, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Added a sentence explaining why the city's court/jail is largely a non-event. Niteowlneils 18:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Added a couple sentances giving over-view of main crime trends. Niteowlneils 18:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Added sentence giving relative crime rate rank. Niteowlneils 18:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Clarified that Seattle has no 'city jail', but sub-contracts from other jails. Niteowlneils 18:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • OBject. "Utilities" and "street layout" sections are too short to stand as sections. Either expand them or merge them with another section--Jiang 07:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I give up. I truncated a bunch of stuff to try and address the objection that, at 40K, it was 'too big' (which I disagree with, but whatever), and now it's 'too truncated' and 'incomplete'. If anything I would argue that most of the remaining objections are unactionable as they are mutually incompatible--adding anything more will make it once again 'too big'. It covers twice as many topics as the alleged city FA standard Sarajevo--of course it's going to be big (also three times as many topics as city FA Newark, New Jersey). The History main article is so detailed it has sub-pages--anyone really interested in Seattle's history can read their hearts out. 'No info about police' is misleading, as one of the 'see also's is Seattle Police Department. Niteowlneils 17:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And I have no idea how to present a 'main article' on a subject that doesn't have some level of section header to set the context--if anyone can point me to examples of how to do so, please feel free... . Niteowlneils 18:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT -- too short. I see no mention of Yesler Way the original "skid road", named because the logs were slid down to the water there. I believe the female band "Heart" and the first insulin dependent major league ball player, Ron Santo were from Seattle. The Seattle Underground is one of the tourist attractions. The ground floor of buildings dating from the Seattle fire can be toured there if it is still open, my info may be out of date. I've spiced up the climate some. I see that skid road is mentioned in the history section, although it is such an interesting fact it probably should make the main article. I first posted as a comment, now I support. --Silverback 10:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Heart and Skid Row now mentioned. Niteowlneils 17:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Haven't contributed to the article but think it's worthy of being an FA, and that Niteowlneils and others have been doing a good job of adding anything missing, reformatting, etc. -- Matiasp 02:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I especially like the format in each section which gives the see also opportunity to into go to articles with a lot more detail if you want to go there without forcing a reader through lots of stuff you don't want to know more about. This is much better writing than many Wikipedia article on cities. Graphics are also nicer than average. Just enough red links to give new readers an opportunity to also become writers, an attribute in WP articles which is one of my personal favorites, even if it isn't FA criteria. (Maybe it should be?). Vaoverland 17:52, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. If someone else watching this needs more writing help for cleanup ping my userpage.
(from User:SchmuckyTheCat--Niteowlneils 04:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC))
  • Well, I have reorganized it considerably, including removing all the barely distinguishable 4th-level sub-heads. Unless the size objection is withdrawn, I consider any requests for further expansion to be unactionable, especially since the article has crept back up to 36k. Niteowlneils 04:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done for a city artical. Provides more details than many other articals out there. Pictures are high quality and information seems accurate. NRS11 21:27, 19 August 2005.


The following featured articles lack copyleft pictures and would greatly benefit from having one added:

  • Isaac Asimov - I replaced a crappy-unsourced-low quality-possibly non free image with a crappy-low quality-sourced-fair use picture. Copyleft would be much prefered. I suggest looking for a convention pic.
  • Action potential - Current diagram is totally unrelated. I'd prefer a diagram of the depolarization regions as the potential passes down the length of an axon.
    • Totally unrelated? The graph shown is what an action potential typically looks like when measured at a single point with a recording electrode. Similar diagrams appear in almost every textbook and reveiw article on action potentials (see Kandel et al. Principles of Neural Science; Bear et al. Neuroscience: Exploring the Brain; Purves, et al. Neuroscience 2nd ed.). A diagram of the movement of APs down the axon might be nice, but this illustration is not totally unrelated. Sayeth 23:18, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • No, the graph is related (and yes, it's in my textbooks), but graphs do not make good main page pictures. I was referring to the cell membrane picture, which is totally unrelated except to illustrate what a membrane is. →Raul654 17:58, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Menstrual cycle - has a graph, but could use a picture (please keep it tasteful).
    • I'd have to disagree here, since I think the graph is the most representative of the topic possible. The article is about the cycle, not about menstruation in general. - Taxman 16:09, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with Taxman. jengod 07:49, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • I also agree, but the current table is cluttered to hell and back, and should be 4 seperate images not 1 cluttered mess. User:Alkivar/sig 08:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Garry Kasparov - two pics (one of good quality, one of low quality). Neither has any information on the source at all. →Raul654 19:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=11131796"