Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Raul654 (talk | contribs) at 18:53, 25 June 2005 (mv comment). 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

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jean Schmidt

Stuyvesant High School

Because it is a good article collab, and all the issues brought up in the last 2 noms have been cleared up, I would like to re-resubmit this article.--Zxcvbnm 01:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to previous nominations

here
and here.
  • Oppose Support I feel bad doing this, as I know how hard getting a school through an FAC is, but this needs work. First off, slow down a bit. This nomination should not have been listed before the Good Article Collab tag was taken out, and by manually archiving the previous nom your name was very mis-timestamped (I'm restamping it with this edit). Bullet pointing my points:
  • Second, I think the History and Enrollment sections should be switched in position, with "School facilities" and "9/11" taken out of the general History section.
Fixed--Zxcvbnm 23:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third, large sections of "History" are still unsourced, such as the first two paragraphs of the section (that make some large and specific assertions) and some later paragraphs. Ditto for the first paragraph of the facilities section.
Fixed RossPatterson 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you objected last time that the naming of the school was unsourced. I have added a reference for that as well, although it wasn't easy to find. I guess those of us who studied there just took it for granted, based on the life-sized portrait of Peter Stuyvesant in the lobby. RossPatterson 00:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, why not source things at least with the material they cover, such as some of the academic details with the course catalog, info on the sections of student publications with a copy of a student publication, etc.
Fixed - there's a link to a copy of the Math Survey in the Publications section, and a reference to the Parents Handbook section on graduation requirements and to the course catalog in the Academics section. And there have been student publication cover shots in the article for a long time, although it was in an odd ___location (since moved). RossPatterson 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus, "Political Fire" and "The Broken Escalator" get full subsections for one sentence of text?
Fixed--Zxcvbnm 23:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Records for sports teams in this year do not warrant a spot on wiki unless they were notable as champions of one kind or another.
Fixed, by Zxcvbnm at 14:09 on 28 May 2006 RossPatterson 01:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - You're right, it wasn't up to the standards of the rest of the article. I've done as you suggested. RossPatterson 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - I agree with the above. Additionally, the lead section needs to be expanded as per the manual of style... three to four paragraphs, not two please. Also, there are {{fact}} tags in the article which need to be taken care of. Furthermore, Bishonen's objections from the previous FAC have not been fully addressed, in that there are unexplained, potentially US-centric terms used with the assumption that the reader is already familiar with them. Fieari 01:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede will be improved soon - several of us are working on it. It had been up to par, but Occam's (or somebody's) razor intervened and it got smaller. RossPatterson 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed - There were only a couple of {{fact}}s, and they were easily dealt with. RossPatterson 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bishonen's comments during the last nomination were very useful in improving the article. Her objections were heard and were acted on, many of them during the nomination, although that didn't save it at the time. Her comments then (summarized by me (RossPatterson)) were as follows:
  • You need to try harder to avoid speaking to a US audience exclusively. ... assuming US practices ... American cultural specifics ("varsity") ... acronyms for government bodies (EPA).
  • Fixed, maybe - Several of us have worked on this, but it's hard for American eyes and ears to spot these things. If there's anything left, I'd appreciate specific identification of them. RossPatterson 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For instance, there's a section about "feeder patterns" (a non-obvious phrase to most non-Americans, surely, but that's a side issue), which turns out to be about the fact there there are no such patterns. At least remove the first "paragraph" in this section. But preferably the whole, because it's weak: it's too short to be a top-level section, and consists of too short paragraphs, and the claim that students "often" use deceptive pracices to get into the school is simply impressionistic—how on earth can I verify it? Source it, please (not from somebody's blog).
  • What is "the international FIRST competition"? What's PSAL? Feel free to link or explain words like varsity etc, preferably at first appearance (I just found FIRST linked further down, but that's sort of unhelpful).
  • [H]ere's the big one, over which I am opposing: the many dead or irrelevant links in the references section. The authors seem to be aware of them, dubbing them "Unknown, offline", but, uh, you can't source things in the article to a dead link just because there was one there in January 2005. Links are going to always keep deteriorating, and the idea is that you keep updating them, if you want the article to be one of Wikipedia's best. Please find the new URL, if it exists, or another source, or remove the info in the text. Or at the very least remove the null "reference", but if you take the last option, I think the Reference Police will get you.
  • Oh, incidentally, the account of the centennial celebration is incredibly uninteresting to the general reader. Please keep Stuy Struts and gala dinners and their guest speakers to the inner circle, don't put them in an international encyclopedia.
  • [T]he movie Hackers should only be mentioned in one place.
  • Hm. When I said Bishonen's complaints weren't covered, I had some specific locations in mind, but now I can't find them. Ah well. I guess the have been convered for the most part then. Still waiting on the lead of course. Additionally, I'm also concerned about the 9/11 section, in particular, the memorial part, since WP:NOT specifically states that wikipedia isn't a memorial. Are those names really encylcopedic for this article in particular? The proximity to the towers and the asbestos fear might be considered notable (though it could be debated), but the names? Fieari 08:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I de-listified the 9/11 memorial list so that it's less intrusive and in paragraph form, and expanded the lead to include 9/11 (someone cut off the lead before and I don't know why). The asbestos fear was a HUGE debate (everyone against this one guy who kept vandalizing the article with asbestos conspiracy stuff).--Zxcvbnm 19:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As if there was any doubt from the foregoing. RossPatterson 04:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm reserving my judgement at present, as the oppositions are being cleaned up quickly and thoroughly, but as Fieari points out, the lead and the memorial list in the 9/11 paragraph are holding this article back. I'd love to support, and when these matters are dealt with I will not hesitate. On another note, I wait to see how Hopkins School appearing on the main page tomorrow wil affect the nom. Harro5 09:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and well done to Zxcvbnm and Ross Patterson for this high-qaulity article with lots of great pics. I don't really see the need for the "self-segregation" section, as going on the info of the school paper isn't the best reference, but unless others have an issue with this I'm OK with it. Harro5 07:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This shouldn't evenm be an article. This school isn't notable. And don't give me the "But there have been four Nobel Prize winners that went there," I don't care! The school itself isn't notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter111344 (talk • contribs)
    That's not an actionable objection, as subject matter is not part of the FA criteria. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a little bit Oppose. This article is really getting there! But since my ears are burning anyway, I'll keep up the tradition and keep complaining, if minorly. What's a double session? And the paragraph beginning "In 1972" is pretty incoherent. I know we're always getting told to avoid short paragraphs, but it's no solution to crowd natural one-sentence items together to make non sequitors like this: "Admission to LaGuardia High School is by audition rather than examination, in keeping with its artistic mission. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, at least four Stuyvesant teachers died from AIDS. In 1992, a new, waterfront building was constructed to house the high school." That's not prose, it's a list laid out as prose. Also, am I alone, and sick, in getting inappropriate associations from the claim that "approximately 43% of the total student body is female"? (Would it be possible to not use the word "body"?) Bishonen | talk 08:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Fixed How does using the word "body" prevent this article from becoming featured? I will fix the "list paragraph" thing.--Zxcvbnm 03:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As was suggested by Staxringold above, please let the people who have made objections decide whether to strike them out. The word "body" won't prevent the article from becoming featured. I just thought you might want to avoid the associations to partial gender reassignment surgery (not that there's anything wrong with that). Bishonen | talk 04:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Since I fixed all your objections (except the "body" thing, that's just ridiculous) is there anything else?--Zxcvbnm 20:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The objections to the article are withdrawn. I repeat that I'm the one that's supposed to strike them out. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Support a great article, very informative and its also very well referenced--Childzy 12:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nix v. Hedden[reply]

Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 1968

Self-nom. A somewhat obscure topic, but an important one to Canadian history. It has been through peer review and all concerns mentioned there have been addressed. - SimonP 23:53, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, I like this article, it's comprehensive. Phoenix2 01:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This article just goes to show that even an obscure topic can have a thoroughly developed article if one takes enough time to write it. An excellent example of what Wikipedia can be. Ben Babcock 05:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work. Phils 12:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good, just make the external links a bit more visible. Amazing work. DrippingInk 15:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article. An important event in Canadian history (no matter how obscure), well explained. --Anderal 02:51, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support:Seems to cover the event well, in an interesting way. Giano | talk 28 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Support --  Cyberjunkie TALK 28 June 2005 12:36 (UTC)
  • Support. I liked on peer review and I like it now. --Scimitar 28 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)

History of Poland (1945-1989)

previous FAC

Hubble Space Telescope

The thought of trying to analyse under-exposed STIS spectra still gives me the horrors, but apart from that, I like the Hubble Space Telescope. This article was previously featured, then demoted. I've worked on getting it back to featurable, with help from peer review, and I think it's now time to give it a run past FAC. I realise it's very long (50kb); thoughts on whether it needs to be split most welcome. Worldtraveller 11:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, Yes, it's lengthy but it is comprehensive and has lots of relevant images. As far as I can tell it's impossible to split this up without mangling the brilliant prose (summaries would - intentional or not - leave out important details). - Mgm|(talk) 17:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The References seem to be partly broken for me; some of the links don't work, and the numbers in the text do not match those in the Reference section, which makes them useless if the document is printed. Once this is fixed, I will support (yes, I have thoroughly read the article; Worldtraveller pointed me to it some time ago, and I was about to suggest he nominate it here anyway). Phils 18:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Support. Phils 29 June 2005 19:30 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment - I checked all the links and they all seem to work for me. As for the numbers in the text matching the refs, this is a bit of a tricky one to fix because I've quoted several times from a couple of my references. I can make all the numbers match but then it won't update automatically if things are switched around; or I can remove the numbers from the refs section - then there's no disparity between the superscripts and the reference numbers, but it's still no good for a printed article. Any ideas on how to improve this?
  • Support, long but comprehensive article. One of the best complete summaries of the telescope. Phoenix2 20:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. As I wrote in PR, I'd support it a week ago. One note: you still have room to add several nice images without cluttering the text. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is an amazingly complete and well-organized article, however, I think the lead paragraph needs a bit of work in that there's no defninition -- we assert that the telescope is important without actually stating what it is (eg. something like "[The HST is] the only permanent orbiting telescope ever put into service and . . . "). Assuming this is fixed, I would support FA status. Jgm 04:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Adjusted the lead section, hope I've addressed this now. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Support as per Jgm. However, section 8.3's header should probably be changed from a question to a statement and I agree with Jgm that the introduction needs to be clearer on what the telescope is. Ben Babcock 05:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed the section title as suggested. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but only because of references. The references section should be split off the notes section, and the inline links, for instance [1] should be converted into Template:Ref and Template:Note. Until this is done, I can't support (though the content is great!) - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)#
  • Have to say I'm not sure I agree with making inline external links into refs and notes, as there would be one more click between the reader and the external link. What would the advantages be? Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Whilst I think the article previously had too large a section on future space telescopes, as noted on peer review, now that the whole section has been removed some important information is now missing. For example:
Space telescopes are still essential for observing wavelengths which are absorbed in the atmosphere. In particular, Hubble has been increasingly used for observations of the near-ultraviolet wavelength range, for which no new telescopes are currently planned.
If information about Hubble's current usage due to it's strengths over current and proposed land-based and space telescopes were included I'd be happy to support. Other than that it's a great article, though I think the Conception, design and aims section could easily spawn a daughter article and be trimmed. CheekyMonkey 10:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've added a bit explaining more about Hubble's unique advantages in the section about the final serving mission, hope that covers everything you think it should. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
You say "its successor telescope will not be launched until possibly several years after Hubble's demise". I presume you mean successor as in the next telescope to perform observations of near-ultraviolet wavelengths and not as in the successor to the Hubble (i.e. the James Webb Telescope which the original statement in the future space telescopes section seemed to suggest wouldn't perfom observations at this wavelength). Can you please clarify? CheekyMonkey 29 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)
  • Comment: As noted this article was once featured, and was demoted. Of note is the Wikipedia:Former featured articles page, a concise listing of formerly featured articles, and a page worth noting in regards to the trejectory a FA can take. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 00:53, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but please remove the external link references and replace them with footnote references. - Cedars 29 June 2005 02:21 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! I'm not sure, though, about converting inline external links to footnotes - it would mean readers have to click twice to reach the external link rather than just once, and I can't see what advantage it brings. Will be glad to convert it if it's generally seen as desirable though. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • SupportI can't think there is a lot more to say on this subject about which I formerly knew nothing. I'm not too sure about the current epidemic for footnote everywhere! Giano | talk 29 June 2005 12:24 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Giver

Buckingham Palace

A third nomination. This still looks good to me. I have re-read, and I hope the objections to the two previous nominations (here and here) are addressed. Still mostly User:Giano's work. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Changed one of the archive links above so they point to the two separate nominations. - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is very good. The writing's excellent, it's comprehensive and interesting, and it's nicely illustrated. A couple of points: I'd like to see inline citations or more footnotes, as I see there's only one, and it's always good to see some sources as you're reading the text. I'd also like to see some mention of Diana's death and the crowds that gathered outside the Palace, with the tabloids stirring up rumors saying people were about to storm the walls. The mood was certainly ugly at one point, and I think that may have been a unique event in the Palace's history. I'd also like to see the red links deleted, as they make the page look untidy. But these are not objections, just suggestions. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very happy to see that a plan has been added since last nomination (I remember being told that it couldn't be provided due to "national security" or somesuch before). Could possibly do with information about the permanent staff. Morwen - Talk 13:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The plan I have drawn is basic in the extreme a few rooms on one floor, most of which are open to the public. No up-to-date more detailed plan, i.e., one showing guest bedrooms, offices and private rooms etc is available. Giano | talk 16:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written, informative article. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article. Ben Babcock 03:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well written. I'll add a spoken file to it soon. Craigy   (talk) 04:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, a comprehensive and interesting read even though I have no clue what a spendthrift is. Could you add the external links that source the single father incidents in the footnotes or reference sections and maybe split website and books (in the reference) in the process? (Don't forget to add the time they were retrieved.) - Mgm|(talk) 09:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Lots of good information. Rentastrawberry 16:09, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Although clarification for the sentence However, it is not universally admired, and was voted the fourth ugliest building in London in March 2005. is needed. Who voted, what kind of poll was it, and perhaps provide a source for the Palace's ranking. Phils 18:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The article was elegant before, like all Giano's work, and it still is. Actually I liked it better before, when it had normal (=lower-case) spelling of words like king and queen used as common nouns (i. e. not as titles). I don't want to spend the best years of my life embroiled in wiki spelling wars, but a sentence like "the new King was rather less taken with the ornate palace than his late brother" looks simply odd to me. (The Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta are on my side.) Bishonen | talk 14:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Contains an image with an unacceptable copyright, Image:Buckthroneroom.jpg. Ideally we'd like to see images created by wikipedians, but we are not showing the best we have to offer by featuring something with an image that is about to be deleted. Otherwise this article does a great job of featuring photographs taken by editors... Gmaxwell 02:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Image has been removed. Giano | talk 28 June 2005 10:43 (UTC)
  • Support: Well-written and informative. However, I second SlimVirgin's suggestions about citations; I'd like to see more footnotes.   Cyberjunkie TALK 28 June 2005 12:32 (UTC)
  • Regarding the footnotes: I and "an other" are looking at this, the problem is quite what is the best way to achieve it, most facts on the palace are easily checked, where I have thrown in an oft repeated story for interest's sake i.e. Eleanor Roosevelt in the Blitz and the Sheik barbecuing in his bedroom, I think it best to state instantly in the text that this is just part of the palace's folklore so there is no excuse for it being taken as undisputed fact. Giano | talk 28 June 2005 18:36 (UTC)

Krag-Petersson

Selfnomination. The article has been throught a peer review, a (failed) FAC, and another peer review. I feel the article as it now is ready for FA-status - much more so than last time it went on FAC - and that all the issues raised have been adressed.

I truely do feel that this is a very comprehensive article avilable on the Krag-Petersson rifle; one of the first (if not the first) repeating rifles adopted by any armed force. I also believe it follows all the guidelines for a FA. However, if you do spot somethign that needs improving, I'm more than happy to fix it.

WegianWarrior 08:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – would prefer {{inote}} to {{ref}} in this case. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:18, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. --Carnildo 05:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very good. Seems to meet all criteria. Rossrs 13:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Looks good to me. — RJH 14:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, interesting read. Phoenix2 16:10, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just remove those 18 footnotes to Norske Militærgeværer etter 1867 and settle for the entry in the reference section. Those very, very few who can get a hold of the book (and also happen to speak Norwegian) will know what to look for and those who don't aren't going to demand specific page references. / Peter Isotalo 22:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no value to removing them. They serve to help verifiability. Convert them to inotes if you like, but the criteria specifically call for inline citations. - Taxman Talk 11:58, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • There's no value in keeping them. They're overly pedantic and letting them be encourages people to keep on misusing footnotes. The criteria says "...enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations". "Inline citation" doesn't mean "footnote" to begin with and intepreting "appropriate" as "mandatory" requires a good deal of imagination. Referencing things like uncontroversial historical dates and effective range of rifles with footnotes really serves no purpose. I do appreciate that you want articles to be well-referenced, but it's very obviously going too far in a lot of articles. Try not to defend references for their own sake or we'll get even more footnote-disasasters like names of the Greeks. Notes 10-12 and the one refering to the New Testament are among the prime examples of how to never, ever use a footnote. / Peter Isotalo 21:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Taxman, are you sure you're not going on automatic in opposing Peter Isotalo here, just because the two of you are already at loggerheads about referencing? I don't always agree with Peter in that debate, but here he's just, well, right. Wegan Warrior, I'm sorry if I seem to be jumping on you, and I'm sorry I wasn't around to catch this detail on Peer review. It's not the case that verifiability becomes fuller, or more exact, the more notes you have. Sometimes it does, here it doesn't. First, having so many notes that say "ibid" is an obsolete way of doing things—a relic of a leisurely era—modern style sheets recommend much leaner and meaner systems. Also, I can't tell what information they're references for, from the way they're placed in the text. It sort of looks like statements like "The function of the extractor was particularly praised in the official reports" are referenced by a mere entry in column--I don't have the source, but it seems surprising. WW, is that it, or are the notes meant merely to indicate where in a column some particular model (or, uh, part of a model...? a measurement..?) appears? If so, don't do it; the reader can locate it easily, just tell him/her, once, what book to look in. Replace all these notes with a single reference that says something like "Unless otherwise indicated, the models (ranges...?) discussed are tabulated in this work". These footnotes are purely decorative. There is value to removing something that distracts/intimidates the reader without adding actual information. I'd do it myself if I could tell a gun from a hole in the ground, i. e., if I could tell how to phrase the single reference. And, no, please don't just make them invisible, where's the sense in that? If they were useful, they should be visible. If, as is the case, they're not useful, they should go. And in case the notes stay nevertheless, some technicalities: 21 and 24 don't work, 3 and 4 are reversed (I don't know how that's possible, since the numbering is supposed to be automatic--a bug?), and there's some sort of mixup with 15 to 17 that I can't rightly sort out. Bishonen | talk 01:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, but you're both wrong. I'm not knee jerk reacting to Peter, he is simply going against what the criteria call for. Appropriate clearly means they have to be there, but doesn't specify how many or what form. Appropriate cannot mean none. And there was long and involved discussions in a number of places to solidify the consensus around the way the criteria read now. If you have preferences that are counter to the criteria, I'm fine with that, but discuss it in the proper place, don't give incorrect comments to a nomination. We apply the criteria, not our whims, and the criteria call for inline citations. Peter, you're right, they don't specify footnotes as the way to go, any format is fine. And Bishonen, if the primary objection is they look bad, then making them invisible is perfectly valid way to avoid that, but still aid verifiability. I can still edit the source and see the citation information. Again, have the conversation in the right place, and don't give wrong advice here. - Taxman Talk 15:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
            • That's what you got out of that—my primary objection is they look bad? Don't worry, I'm done, I won't offer any more whims and preferences. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh come now, I wasn't meaning to be offensive, and I'm sorry if I was. I just had a very limited time to make that edit. I was using "look bad" to stand for all the arguments of them being distracting, etc. As I mentioned inotes solves that part of the problem anyway, without much loss of verifiability. - Taxman Talk 18:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
          • Taxman, what I'm saying is no different from complaining that there are too many images or sub-sections in an FAC. Countering by (somewhat erroneously) claiming that they're mandatory is not the least bit relevant. You're also insisting on a very narrow interpretation of the criteria despite the fact that they're ambiguously worded. What bish and I are saying is that citations and footnotes should be used with moderation and common sense (and perhaps advice from people who have proper experience of using them). If a note clearly serves little or no purpose in referencing an article "...enhanced by appropriate usage..." might just as well be interpreted as "none" (though not in this particular case). To claim that they have to be mandatory is informal instruction creep and seems a bit like an attempt to supress differing opinions. You're right that this is not really the right forum for this discussion, but since you're clearly misrepresenting our objections and trying to make this into some sort of policy violation, it's hardly prudent to demand that we take it elsewhere. / Peter Isotalo 16:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's quite different. See below. - Taxman Talk 18:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay, I'm confundled - not about the broken notes, which I fixed (fingertrouble on my part, and forgetting to shuffle the notes after shuffling sections of the article around), but about what is really required of citations. When I placed Jarmann M1884 on FAC (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jarmann M1884), I was told that all historical information should be referenced with footnotes. Now I'm being told that items at least I consider significant, like the details of the official reports, shouldn't be cited. And to top it off, it seeems like there has broken out a small fight over various systems for doing it - I'm not keen on the {{inote}} myself, because it hides things from the casuall reader, but I have made a test of it in my user-space. Now, On one hand we have the need for inline citations of historical information, on the other the need to 'reduse clutter'. Could the version with the {{inote}}'s be a solution people can agree on? WegianWarrior 07:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • PS: Same goes for when I had the Krag-Jørgensen on FAC, inline citations and footnotes of historical information was apparantly important in the article. I'm still confundled as to whats the proper way to do that apperantly. WegianWarrior 08:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand your frustration, Wegian. The problem is simply that people haven't really given much thought to how and why citations and notes should be used, only that they have to be used. I hate to say it, but anyone who claims that you have to precisely reference every historical fact clearly has little or no pre-wiki experience of footnotes. / Peter Isotalo 16:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually people have given a lot of thought to it and there have been extensive discussions about it. Clearly, you're just not aware of those discussions, but don't claim they didn't occur when you don't know. Numerous nominations have also helped evolve the consensus and that came to the fact that the criteria call for them to be used, and that appropriate specifically does not mean none. It does represent a strengthening of the criteria, and we were all well aware of that when the discussion was going on. So, I'm not misrepresenting, you are clearly calling for something different from what the criteria do. Again, if you would like to influence or change policy, please do it at the talk pages Wikipedia:Cite sources and or Wikipedia:What is a featured article where most of the consensus for this part of the criteria was built. And please go read the discussions there before you claim I'm misrepresenting. After that, and in the proper place I would welcome any input you may bring with your additional experience. To WW, yes, inotes would meet my criteria since they still help verifiability, and still avoid the clutter that other people find distracting, etc. It's not ideal, but we don't have an ideal system yet. - Taxman Talk 18:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
              • So let's sum this up, then. I'm going against an undeniable and undisputeable previous consensus decision that apparantly was so unanimous that it didn't even require the polcy documents to clearly show its intents. I think you're the one who needs to go lobby for a policy change. / Peter Isotalo 08:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • WW, I'm sorry my input was unhelpful. Please note that I haven't objected, and I don't have anything more to say, so don't be concerned about my comment. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow. Such heat, so little light! The fact is that all disciplines, all professors, all editors (the kind who work at academic presses, not the kind who contribute to Wikipedia) have preferences in how much is cited. However, Bishonen is quite correct in saying that the style sheets used by most in the humanities (including therefore History and its children, military history and cultural history) shy away from noting every fact. We're not quite at the "cite only if it's controversial" stage, but we're not trying to "show your work" by establishing every place that an author learned a thing, either. The critical axes, it seems to me, are readability and reproducibility. (Footnotes are, in act, our version of scientific method.) If the punctuation of the text by note breaks up readability, then the thing should be rewritten to make the notes less necessary. If the author is switching between sources for unavailable facts, citation is necessary. Otherwise, it's easy to put a note up saying, "Material on the easing of the spring taken from Bob and Robert 4-15": that note lodges the discussion without puncturing the prose. Unreadable because overly cited is bad. Geogre 19:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now, I hope no one has bad feelings over making me a bit confused - after all, I'm not angry or upset. My goal is to write the best articles I can, and to that end I do try to make sure I follow the rules; allthought it's obvious that the rules in this cause is more of a guideline. However, would it be an idea to make some sort of list somewhere that gives samples of what sort of things ought to be cited in different sorts of articles? WegianWarrior 08:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although a quick definition of the word breechblock within the article would be nice to have. - Mgm|(talk) 08:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, now that I've waded into it. It looks very well done and researched, which I obviously think is important. Sorry for any fireworks, just intending to be accurate. I would prefer though the couple orphan one or two sentence paragraphs be merged into other paragraphs or expanded if possible. They just break up the flow too much, and I've never seen encyclopedic prose that didn't read better without them. - Taxman Talk 23:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - but I agree that the pile of ibid. notes is not necessary. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pathological science

Order of Canada

I, along with two other users, have fixed up the article. We have added links, references, images (some drawn by me, again, like at Hero of Belarus). And with the possible removal of a person from the Order and a recent investure, people will be looking at the article to see what the Order is about. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I may also sound in, Canada Day is just around the Corner on July 1st. This is the day that new members are announced Dowew 00:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well written. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nicely done, images are well documented, and the article reads very well. --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I like the way this article is organized. Phoenix2 03:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, sadly. I agree with the above, but I think the article is not quite sufficiently referenced. There are no references except for the (rather poorly formatted footnotes) which means a lot of the information in the article does not have information on its source; I also suspect some of the "External links" were used as sources. Examples of information for which I could not readily find the source in the links provided are the numbers of living Officers and Companions, and the description of the backside of the medals. I admit I haven't searched through the sourches exhaustively, but other readers in need of this information might show even less patience. I apologize if I come across as being overly picky about references, but recent conversations with people I know have given me the certainty that lack of verifiability and through referencing is Wikipedia's greatest flaw, next to vandalism. Phils 09:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Support. Congratulations to Zscout370, and thanks for adressing my concerns. Excellent work. Phils 17:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey, there is no need to apologize. I will take care of the references. As for the reverse of the medal, there were pictures I have seen online, but no law to back it up. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As for the number of living C.C. and O.C., this is what me and others did. We went to http://www.gg.ca/Search/honours_e.asp?Search=2 and filled out sections needed. We checked off the grade, then living, then search. We cannot save each search, since there is no special website that displays each search, unless you wish for us to link to the above site and call it a reference. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I will support of the references are dealt with. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Support - I couldn't help copyediting. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, noting Phils' comments. I have little doubt that Zscout370 will address them to the best of his abilities, so I'll vote support now. 172 18:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above comments by Phils have been responded to, and if there is anything that I missed, just let me know. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My mistake-- I read the article earlier, missing the recent changes. Excellent work. 172 18:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A well written article and one of Wikipedia's best. --Omni gamer 19:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I pointed out during PR, it is very very short. Without pics, lists and section headings, all content would fit on a single screen. Since everybody seems to agree it's comprehensive as it is, I won't object, but I have this feeling it can and should be expanded somehow. I won't object based on my 'feeling', though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What sections, do you feel, should be expanded the most? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the only thing that can be added now is basic trivia regarding the Order. I just added info about Diefenbaker being the only Prime Minister not entered into the Order, however there is only so much of that you can add in before it just gets ridiculous. Dowew 02:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • If he is talking about citations for the various appointees, that is more appropriate on each article of the various appointees. If there are historical designs of the medal, we should show them. But I have yet to find older designs of the medals. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--Scimitar 23:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Extremely well-written and comprehensive. It is certainly informative and serves its purpose well. Ben Babcock 03:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems short for a FA, but I don't see anything that could be added.say1988 16:09, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

As of 18:09, 26 June 2006, the article was promoted. Thanks to everyone that has come here and voted. <Cheesy>I dedicate this one to my Ontario girlfriend.</Cheesy> Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:33, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Funeral of Pope John Paul II

Second Crusade

This has been on Peer Review for awhile, and no one seems to have any more suggestions, so I think I can nominate it here. This is mostly a self-nomination - the article existed before, but it has been greatly expanded, with a number of other new articles leading off from it. It's not quite as long as the featured First Crusade article, but not as much happened, and I think this is as good as it can be. Adam Bishop 05:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Stbalbach 05:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. You may want to ilink some more names and terms. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral - for the moment. Is it possible to go back and cite which material came from which source? Otherwise the article is in VERY good shape. --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, probably not...it's mostly a summary from Runciman and Setton, with relevant bits from the various sources. Adam Bishop 05:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I know, it's a pain to go back and add them, been there and done that :) Since that's the only "objection" I had (and the references used ARE quite clear), I change my vote to Support. --JohnDBuell | Talk 14:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Ancient history is not a strong point on Wikipedia, and this is quite the encouraging exception. 172 18:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 18:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support with the sources cited the article is FAC material. Falphin 14:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Megatokyo

This article was close to featured standard at the end of its third nomination (first, second), and I think it's been improved to the point where it can be featured. If not, this should kick-start edits on the article again. --L33tminion (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support! --Masamage 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is a real nitpick, but the last sentence of piro and largo is kind of repetitive and trivia-ish where it is. Best merged in the beginning of the section(s) if possible. RN 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well...hmm. I guess I disagree! It seems to me like it would disrupt the flow a lot worse at the top than at the bottom, and I think more generally that it's interesting enough to stay. Maybe someone else is more creative than I. --Masamage 06:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Edit: Okay, so Jimmy did it and it looks excellent. Fine, be like that! ^_^;; --Masamage 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I supported this article during its last nomination and — near the end of it — agreed to User:JimmyBlackwing's request that I give it a copyedit, so as to improve quality further and dispel concerns over the prose. This has been a very informative article on the subject since at least the third nomination (I wasn't here for the first two), and I've felt like it was either at FA or really close to it during that last process. Though I haven't participated in any further improvement since the last FAC, I know its regular editors have and I do believe this article is now ready. Ryu Kaze 14:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Structure. I'd really like to see the "History" section go at the top of the article. I've also given thought that some of the other sections could possibly be reordered a little, such as moving the themes section up, having plot before characters, but I'm less dead set on those. Additionally, for comprehensiveness' sake, I believe that it would be notable to talk (at least briefly) about the comic's fanbase, which has on a number of occasions overwhelmed conventions Fred has appeared at. Some mention of the author's reputation as being too self-disparaging might also be in line (particularly the penny-arcade thing). Fieari 17:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've moved the sections around. Is that better? Also, Characters is above Plot on purpose - see articles like Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy X or Shadow of the Colossus. While these are all articles about video games, the principle is the same. As for the comic's fanbase... while it may be notable, I'm having a hard time believing it's verifiable. The only semi-usable comments about the fanbase I've heard are from Gallagher himself, but even they are questionable. And discussing the author's reputation seems to veer off into non-notable trivia, to me - he has an article of his own for mentioning stuff like that. JimmyBlackwing 19:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Characters should be before Story in my opinion. It's easier to talk about a story when the characters have already been introduced. That's why those three articles JimmyBlackwing mentioned (which I wrote in large part) are organized as they are. If you don't put the Characters section first, it's not going to serve very much purpose since the Story section would then have to go about introducing the characters anyway. That just ends up making the Story section unnecessarily bloated, unfocused and incoherent. Ryu Kaze 20:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've read through it and have some more notes (I'm sure after 2/3 FACs the editors of this article are getting sick of me - sorry about that :)) :
  1. (feel free to ignore this one, as I'm not sure how much MoS-style factors in here) "now" is used in the first sentence - perhaps "as of" or similar should be used
  2. " it has received negative criticism as a result of Gallagher's changes" - this seems like a POV statement to me, and perhaps is best left to the reception section
    That's not POV. It's a fact that the comic has received criticism for this reason, and sources for that fact are cited in the article. (On the other hand, isn't "negative criticism" redundant?) --L33tminion (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Negative criticism" isn't redundant, no. "Criticism" isn't inherently negative. It's just rigid analysis. Criticism can be positive. Ryu Kaze 01:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks. --L33tminion (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The intro paragraphs are missing the comic's IMPACT. For example, there should be some kind of BANG that says "this is unquestionably popular." Maybe website hits i.e. "is a webcomic which at the height of its popularity brought in X visitors a day." Right now it just says it is a webcomic that has a positive reception...
    I don't follow your reasoning behind this, actually. Why is that required for the article to meet featured standard? If someone can think of a way to add that sort of information that's NPOV, I don't oppose that, but still. --L33tminion (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. What is "Dead Piro" filler art? This really interrupts the flow of that part of the article for me, as it doesn't seem obvious to me what it is
    Fixed that bit. Piro (Gallagher) refers to the days where he publishes filler art instead of a full comic as "Dead Piro Days". I found the easy solution was to remove the reference to that piece of trivia. If someone wants to readd it, then that will need to be explained. --L33tminion (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "pitting Ping against Largo in video game battle" this whole sentence doesn't make much sense to me - is it one video game battle, multiple ones?
    Multiple (if you ignore the fact that Ping is a video game in some sense). Personally, I think "in video game battle" sounds better and is more accurate than either "in a video game battle" or "in video game battles". Largo's conflict with Ping (and Miho) is ongoing. Nonetheless, if it's really confusing, it should be changed. --L33tminion (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The reception section is really good, but is a bit disjointed and goes back and forth between comments on the art, Caston's influence, and the story. For example, in the last paragraph in the first two sentences we see it talk about the art of it, but then it goes back to the story and Caston's influence in the same paragraph when parts of that were already discussed at the beginning...

I would be very happy to finally support this after these are addressed. It is obvious the editors have worked hard on it. RN 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indian Railways

Antarctic krill

After much discussion I want to sponsor this article again. All objections and suggestions and language have been worked on, references added, some images moved off. An academic group from Australia, USA, Germany, Japan and Norway found no errors. Thanks go especially to user:lupo, User:Yakuzai and in Scandinavia to User:Salleman. The article covers the basic biology, ecology, geography, fisheries and some unique bio-features of this key species of Antarctica, which is probably (in terms of biomass) the most successfull animal of the planet (yet known to only a few), and gives an outlook for future ventures of Ocean Engineering (I contributed to the article).

  • nominate and support Uwe Kils   18:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, it is clearly evident that a lot of work went into this article since the last time you submitted it, but the problem can be fixed. The article needs some variation in the positioning of the pictures, and there still may be too many. Phoenix2 18:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thanks for your comment, Phoenix2, I moved images out but others moved them back in Uwe Kils   18:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Support, ready to be featured after lots of hard work. Phoenix2 00:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's a potential FA, just wait to see what others think. Phoenix2 18:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support this time around. It's still a little text-light, or maybe it just seems that way because of the wealth of quality images, but it has greatly improved. --Scimitar 19:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)*
  • Support The only thing i would add more to is the section on eyes, oh yeah and maybe renaming subheading from "Systematic" to "Morphology" as that would in my view be more comprehensible to the average reader. I think as it stands it is a very comprehensible article that is informative and interesting with some great supplementary images.Yakuzai 23:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support- it is amazing how much this article has improved since the beginning of its first FAC. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - much improved! — Catherine\talk 02:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I (?re)reoriented the pictures in an alternating fashion, and did some edits toward the end, where the redo had tailed off a bit. This was largely gilding the lily, as I think the meat of the article, in its newly rewritten state, had already made it feature quality. Sfahey 04:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object, I find the way the citations have been done to be quite hard to follow, a simple numbering system would be better. I raised this in the last FAC, the graphs need better captions. --nixie 05:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thank you for the comment - I added to the captions where senseful - I agree with Lupo on the numbering of refs - we will kep on putting more in (maybe change it in the end) - best greetings to Australia Uwe Kils   12:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Big improvement on the captions, and adding the bullet poitns to the references list has made it much easer to read, Support--nixie 00:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, of course, even though I don't like the alternating left-right image placement at all; it makes the article looke piecemeal. To nixie: we once had a numbered reference scheme, and it's a maintenance nightmare. Two references are in image captions, they both got shown as "[1]", and somehow it made the numbering in the main texts start at 2, and it was very difficult and maintenance-intensive to make the ref numbers agree with the list at the end. (A ref reading "[7]" should indeed go the an entry numbered "7", otherwise it's worse than useless.) The current scheme uses symbolic references as they are common in many scientific papers (it's a scheme I have used successfully in all my peer-reviewed publications) and doesn't have that problem. Lupo 06:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I also like the images better on the right - change them back Uwe Kils   11:37, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, on balance: I suspect that there is probably more to be said, but the nominator ought to know what should be in the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Much better now. Can we get the lists at the bottom formatted as * lists? Morwen - Talk 12:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
hallo Morven - we still collect more (see comment of Lupo, who did most of the ref work) later we might change it Uwe Kils   12:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting and informative. One suggestion: It would be nice to include a little more on what eats the Antarctic krill other than the very brief "Position in the Antarctic ecosystem" section. BlankVerse ∅ 13:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thank you for the comment - I added some more, will later add some on the whales Uwe Kils   14:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
added whale birds squid seal fish consumption data from Hampton Uwe Kils   17:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support because what is there is great, but I'd still like to see more effort on providing explanation of jargon, and more context for many of the overly technical bits. Older Comment: great stuff, especially the thorough citation. If there's anything factually incorrect in there, a knowledgeable person could find it easily. But it seems the most imporant points have avoided citation. Specifically claims of the largest biomass, the specific amount of the biomass, and speculation of the largest biofeedback mechanism. This is enough to object on, but I'm assuming you can get those citations easily enough, so I'll support once you have. Also the citation system is confusing. What is the difference between Kils79 and H+83? Also, what is meant by directly utilizing the phytoplankton cells? What would be not direct? There are other examples of writing that appears like it would be clear to someone knowledgeable in the subject, but is a bit hard to parse for someone like me. I'll try and help if you like, or just go through and add some inline context for places where people might get confused. - Taxman Talk 14:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • thank you for the extensive comment, I will work on it - direct: means not over the traditional food chain phytoplankton small copepods, large copepods, mysids, little fish - biomass: this is much disputed, in lack of methods and because of the huge area we do really not know much - I was on a venture with 11 research vessels fron 10 nations, and we still have only a vague idea of the stock in Scotia Sea alone - and much krill lives under the ice - Uwe Kils   14:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I understand that even less than I understand what is in the article. You mean that instead of going to progressively larger organisms a 6cm organism eats the phytoplankton? Well then just say that! Actually part of the rest of the article does I think, so just explain it a little more. The whole of the text is rather terse, so explaining some biology bits with very short (a few words sometimes) bits of context goes a long way and wouldn't be too wordy. - Taxman Talk 00:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
is this better?: "The size-step between krill and its prey is unusually large: generally it takes three or four steps from the 20 micrometer-tiny phytoplankton cells to a krill-sized organism (via small copepods, large copepods, mysids to 5 cm fish)KK79. The next size-step in the food chain to the whales is also enormous, a phenomenon only found in the Antarctic ecosystem." Uwe Kils   02:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • it says not largest biomass but animal biomass Uwe Kils   14:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, I saw that, but didn't specify. - Taxman Talk 00:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
The "Kils79" ref should have been "KK79". Fixed it. The system for deriving the symbols is pretty simple: if there's only one author, use the first few (3 or 4) letters of his last name. If there are multiple authors, use only the first (upper case) character of each last name. If there are many authors, use the first and add a "+". In all cases, append a two- (or for short symbols, four-) digit year. Break ties by appending lower case letters, beginning with "a". Lupo 14:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've never heard of that system but it sounds standard. Could you either explain it at the bottom or link to an article explaining it? As for the rest, it sounds like you guys will work that out well. - Taxman Talk 00:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
It's the "alpha.bst" style from BibTeX, used widely in Computer Science publications (and maybe in other fields, too). For an example where it's used, see Design Patterns by the "Gang of Four" (Gamma et al.). I do not know if that style corresponds to a recommendation by some style guide (it's neither APA, MLA, nor Chicago), but I somehow doubt that Patashnik just made it up. Lupo 07:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On the biomass: the FAO05 reference gives estimates from 1985 as ranging from 125 to 725 million tonnes. Surely there must be a more recent estimate? The CCAMLR upped its catch quotas significantly (from 1.5 million tonnes to 5 million) after a change in the methodology of arriving at such estimates in the 1990s. I would also like to see a reference for the recently added statement thatCrabeater Seals supposedly eat 120 million tonnes of Antarctic krill each year. Even with the highest estimates, that would be one sixth of the total biomass! I find that hard to believe. Lupo 14:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BONNER B 1995 Birds and Mammals - Antarctic Seals. in Antarctica Pergamon Press 202 - 222 I gave that on the crabeater page - the Antarctic is hard to believe - the high biomass estimations are based on what the whales once took (details are in Nicol, S.; Endo, Y.: Krill Fisheries of the World, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 367; 1997) Uwe Kils   15:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I looked it up, Bonner writes at least 63 million tonnes, so lets change it to this figure, I have in my notes 120, will try to find the source or call colleagues about it, but even 63 off one species is astounding, taken that the whole yield from all oceans and all species, fish, mulluscs, cephalopods, srimps ... is only about 100 million tonnes a year - some say the ants are the biggest, but that would be a collection of many species, others say the copepods, but that too are hundredth of species - E. s. is one species all over the Southern Ocean - Uwe Kils   15:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Made all of my comments on previous FA nomination page; thus support. Batmanand 19:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the article seems to be complete and is written in an understandable way. From looking around in other encyclopedias and in the internet I got the impression that this is the best article about this topic. Kudos to all authors and in particular to Uwe Kils -- mkrohn 01:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful article, and the Images are just so good. Though I can't get that last ref-note link in the intro to work (mn|nicol|NE97), it's missing, or something. Shanes 04:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fixed. Lupo 06:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I mirrored two comments from the first nomination down below to have a compact reference for our Wikiversity projects - thank you all for your help - it was a lot of fun to work with you - I think it is amazing what humans can create in no time if they work accross all boarders and ages with our new communication tools - good luck to you Uwe Kils   10:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • (mirror)SUPPORT This is very different from the usual featured article format, but it is good. It explains in depth most of what (I would imagine) students of the subject need to know. I thought I was totally disinterested (still not riveted) by the subject, yet it held my attention to the end, and I have learned something. So in spite of being a little unconventional in its style and format, I have changed to support, now that it is reliably referenced. I would ask other objectors to give it a second read and see it accordingly for what it is, something well written and informative, on a subject little referred to elsewhere. Giano | talk 18:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • (mirror)Support I've rewritten the difficult systematic section to be more intelligible to the non-specialist, and I would now support this interesting article - perhaps pleopod could be explained also. jimfbleak 05:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Great article. Lisiate 23:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Worthy article. Alex.tan 04:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Burkhanism

Eleanor Rigby (song)

I know, another Beatles article. At this rate, we'll have their whole repetoire. But I think it's FAC quality. Self-nom. Failed its first FAC. It's also been in peer review. It's come a long way in its FACness, and the issues the first time around have been resolved. Thanks! --The PNM 01:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although I like the song, it's OBJECT for me sorry, Too short, not enough pics for FA, not very informative, not the best overall. Aren't I a meany? Spawn Man 08:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object:
    • There are a couple of one-sentence paragraphs. Those need to either be expanded or merged into an adjacent paragraph.
    • External links should go in the references section at the bottom, not within the article itself. Footnote them using {{ref|name of reference}} in the article, and {{note|name of reference}} in the references.
    • The parenthetical asides throughout the article interrupt the flow of the prose. See if you can work those into the actual prose without setting them off in parentheses.
    • I wouldn't worry much about finding additional pictures; there's not much else that you could add. If you stumbled across a licensed or uncopyrighted picture of the Beatles performing the song, then include that, but otherwise I think the pictures are fine as they are.

Good luck! Let me know if you need any help. PacknCanes | say something! 13:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking care of my concerns. I don't think it's fair to pile on more stuff to do after you've already met most of my objections, but this article badly needs a copyedit and the prose needs to flow better. I'll withdraw my objection on the grounds that the objection specifically has been addressed, but I'll have to abstain until it comes up to a better level of writing. Also, as Johnleemk notes below, be on the lookout for POV writing. PacknCanes | say something! 19:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I would love to support a Beatles song article that I didn't work on much, right now, I have to object. The length and pictures are fine, but there are far too many instances of unencyclopedic writing; to just cite one from the lead itself: "The songwriting credit is Lennon-McCartney, though it was originally written by just Paul McCartney and all the Beatles contributed bits of lyrics." The second paragraph of Significance, in particular, is full of such writing. I also dislike the incredibly short sections near the end, and would merge them if I could find an arrangement that would work. Johnleemk | Talk 14:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rewrote the offending lines; is there anything else that is awkward? --The PNM 04:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still had to make some minor changes, but after delving into the Signifance section more, I'm quite convinced I can't support until it is rewritten. I find the section rather overt in its POV (when it shouldn't even have one in the first place). If we could cite the opinion as that of a Beatles biographer or some of a music reviewer (or someone like that), then it would be great. Johnleemk | Talk 16:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Johnleemk, the opinion actually IS from Ian MacDonald, the Beatles' biographer and author of "Revolution in the Head" (just had a new edition this year). Specifically, his entry on Eleanor Rigby -- practically the whole entry is about its signficance. Is it okay now? I put a reference, but should I make some inline reference? (like: According to Beatles' biographer Ian MacDonald...).--The PNM 19:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • A textual reference would probably be best, but it seems a bit odd to me if we devote two paragraphs to the opinion of one Beatles biographer alone — that itself can appear biased. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I'd like to see a lot more referencing. There are two inline links, and four "references", but I have no idea what fact is referenced by what. I'd also agree with Johnleemk that the writing is a little uneven. Some of it is quite good, while in other places it is awkward. I don't agree that any more images are necessary. Jkelly 23:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone through the article and my sources and done all in-line references. I added one more that I had forgotten (when I added the significance section) and removed one, since the section that that referenced is now deleted. Is that good now? Thanks. --The PNM 20:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I notice that something from the first peer review hasn't been addressed: Why is it at Eleanor Rigby (song) when Eleanor Rigby is a redirect there? — Laura Scudder | Talk 00:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It just seems like you are going in to too much detail on such a narrow area. I can't deinatively say yay or nay, but the premise is awfully small here. HereToHelp 19:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. The long quoted passages should probably be re-written into prose. The sources should be in APA or MLA format, with a short description/excerpt of what is available at each site in case those sites ever go down.

Also:

  • "a score by George Martin". A score for a song? Was Martin the song's arranger as well as the producer; did he write any of the instrumental?
  • "the Shangri-Las...a Motown rendition". That should probably be "Motown-style", since the Shangri-Las weren't Motown artists.
  • In general, the article is a bit on the short side to be about such an important song. There has to be a bit more that can be said about its impact on pop culture.
  • A few POV problems, like "striking lyrics" (in the lead).

It has potential; it just needs some work to ge it there. --FuriousFreddy 20:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USS Missouri (BB-63)

I'm nominating this article because I believe it's come a long way in terms of quality and completeness of content. This really is one of the better histories of the ship I've seen and with the considerable wiki links provides a unique entry point for somebody wanting to learn about battleships and/or WWII history. ---B- 02:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: For some reason, this page wasn't placed here on 17 June. I just placed it here now. Also note that User:Bschorr, who nominated the article, has worked on it, which makes this a self-nom (I think). TomStar81 02:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --This page contains historical information, and reports on the history of what may be the most famous battleship of the entire 20th century. Of all the pages I have worked on, this is the one that I believe most desereves Featured Article status.TomStar81 02:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object I agree that the article looks very good, but where are the inline citations? --JohnDBuell | Talk 03:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
O.K., I'll see if I can do something about the inline cites. ---B- 04:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • comment all of that information from just one reference? slambo 13:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
That section does need to be expanded. ---B- 17:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note that -B- is a volenteer crewmember with the USS Missouri, so he was accsess to all of the ships information. My references were are listed under "External Links", along with links added by wwoods. TomStar81 22:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Quite a bit of my information, especially weapons and engineering are from personal experience aboard the ship and from shipmates and former crewmembers. However I do have a couple of other outside references that I will try to add in the next day or so. ---B- 01:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Congratuations on an article that has only free-content images! I've just finished objecting to just about every other article on FAC on the grounds that they're using unfree images. --Carnildo 1 July 2005 05:58 (UTC)
  • Comment: Objecting just because they use non-free images is counter productive. There are simply subjects where you can't get free images, many photographers like me who spend lots of time and money taking photos, scanning photos, and editing photos don't like our photos being used without some restrictions. If Wikipedia allowed non-commercial to be uploaded still, I start uploading my many slides of aircraft including some unique photos. On top of that are photos that can only be captured by the press organizations because of time and access issues. Also don't say that it can't be abused because GNU and all those licenses, because people do abuse photos everyday. PPGMD 5 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
  • Support: Fine article. Re: lack of citations; Most of the article simply doesn't need them. This is mostly an historical outlay, much of which comes from DANFS which is mentioned as a source. I've added a couple of cites for quotations; these are appropriate. Adding additional cites for this type of article would be difficult and awkward. Also, I've just added Radar/FC/EW/Other to the specifications table; this is often overlooked on ships and is quite important for any WWII and forward ships that had this sort of equipment. --Durin 1 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)
    • Added armour information. TomStar81 7 July 2005 02:31 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose until reference section is expanded. It's a great article, but FAs need references, IMHO, since they are the backbone of wikipedia's credibility. Should they be added, I would be eager to change my vote.--Scimitar 6 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)
    • Would you mind translating IMHO into english for the abreviatedly- challenged? 216.63.175.29 TomStar81 6 July 2005 22:23 (UTC)
    • I added two books that reference Missouri in her WWII and Persian Gulf War years. Its not much, but it is a start. TomStar81 7 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
      • Tentative support. A little more should be added, but I really didn't want to oppose this article anyway. Oh, and IMHO= in my humble opinion (sorry, it sounds less pompous abreviated).--Scimitar 7 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. I enjoyed reading every part of it. --Alabamaboy 8 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)
  • Object. Not comprehensive. I would support if it was entitled 'History of USS Missouri (BB-63)', as this is what it is about. There is no section at all about the ship's construction, features and such (only what one can read from the infobox). Another one on tactics and use of 'fast battleships' would be useful as well - it is covered 'between the lines' of the history section. Also, remove external links from text, move to references and link via footnotes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 8 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)
    • Most of this objection seems to be unfounded. All of America's battleships have been decomissioned and removed from service, only Iowa and Wisconsin are maintained with the fleet, then only in reserve. The notion that the article should be titled 'history of the USS Missouri' entails that all ships from every navy that have been decomissioned should be moved to an article titled ' history of (insert ship's name here)'. As for construction, you build a ship the same way you build a building: one piece at a time. "Fast battleships" are still battleships, so the standard tactics that apply to battleships would apply to Missouri as well. TomStar81 9 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)
      • I agree with Tom on this one. This is a specific ship belonging to a class with several other ships. Aspects of design and such should be covered under the article about the ship class. Describing tactics is just as irrelevant and should be described in battleship or the likes. /Peter Isotalo 9 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
    • The article Iowa class battleship, linked from the first sentence in the second paragraph of the article, seems to cover the construction, features and such quite well (if in a slightly unencyclopedic tone). --Carnildo 9 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)
      • Good. Then all you have to do is to summarise most of that info into a section of this article. Or, as I suggested, rename it to 'History...'. Remember - FA is supposed to be comprehensive, and simply linking to relevant articles does not make an article comprehensive. Compare existing FAs: RMS Titanic - has design as well as history. Same with Pioneer Zephyr. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 9 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)
      • Its summurized in the first three paragraphs. Additionally, the instructions say to make the article comprehensive, tight and well-written, so the construction of the class is outsourced to the Iowa-class battleship page. On top of that, most people aren't going to be terribly concerned with where the ship was built and how long it took them took do it and all that sort of thing. Add to that the fact that most people who think about Missouri jump strated to her role in hosting the September 2nd surrender of Japan in WWII. Thats why most of the relevent information is in the table to the right. TomStar81 21:04, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pitorus, this is not an article on battleship tactics or construction, but of a specific battleship and its history. Anyone checking this article out would (and should) not be looking for general information on battleships. Not even Iowa-class ones. Make sure there is proper linkage to these article instead. This article should only need top mention what is unique about this particular ship. /Peter Isotalo 16:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope Benedict XVI

Monty Hall problem

Ran across this a while ago, and it looks like a featured-class article to me. I have made only incidental edits, but understand by nominating I am volunteering to try to address any concerns that are raised. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Update as of July 7, 2005 01:44 (UTC): I believe I've addressed the majority of the feedback. I've solicited further comments from Wile E. Heresiarch and Arbor. There's a suggestion on the talk page to include a new "aid to understanding" section for which I'm not sure there's consensus. Bottom line is although the article has been here for a while, I believe there is still progress being made. By my count, current vote tally is 6 (7 counting my vote) support, 1 conditional support, 1 oppose. -- Rick Block (talk) July 7, 2005 01:44 (UTC)
  • Support. It seems comprehensive, although you may want to rewrite the lead to state clearly what is the right solution - I had to read the rest of the article to make sure I understood it. 'The problem' and and 'Problem summary' sections look like they could be merged. A screenshot from the orginal show would be nice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've clarified the solution in the lead and combined the 'problem' and 'problem summary' sections. I'll try to find a screenshot from the show. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • SupportComment Since the average reader will have no use for the Java code, I recommend moving it out of the article in the same way that the simulation written in Perl was moved out (either to WikiSource or to a Wikipedia article on the subject). Also, the formatting with gray boxes is kind of ugly and can be improved. If these issues are addressed, I'll Support. Dave (talk)
I've moved the Java code and eliminated the gray boxes. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Monty Hall problem is quite a cruft magnet; everybody and his dog has their own idea about the clearest explanation, and as a result the article is needlessly cluttered. There is a lot of useful material, but someone needs to do a very heavy-handed editing job. I'm willing to reconsider if that happens. Hmm, maybe I should do it myself. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't dispute the article seems cluttered, however different people seem to grok the solution differently which is the point to the various aids to understanding sections. Can you please propose which of these sections you'd eliminate, perhaps on the talk page? The article has been quite stable in its current form for several months. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
"Quite stable" only in outline; various blocks of stuff have come and gone. I've cut a couple of explanatory paragraphs out of the introduction, as they were redundant with explanations later in the article. Some of the "Aids to understanding" can also be cut -- I don't see any point to trying to state lots of explanations here, any more than, say, quantum physics should try to supply a separate explanation for every man, woman, and child on the planet. Two, or maybe three, is plenty. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A couple of the "aids to undestanding" sections have been cut. Have you looked at it lately? I'm curious if you think it's closer yet. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:25, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
It's looking better, although more can be done. In general the problem I see is that the Monty Hall problem is subtle, but simple; explanations are not improved by making them longer, but more precise. -- Here are some specific comments. The "Problem" and "Solution" sections can be strengthened: the origin of the assumptions listed in "Problem" needs to be identified -- are these the assumptions commonly made in discussions of the problem, assumptions stated by vos Savant, or is this a Wikipedian's take on the problem? Under "Solution", the explanatory text isn't very helpful; putting emphasis on certain words doesn't make it any clearer. Maybe we can cut the explanatory text under "Solution" since "Aids to understanding" is all explanations. Speaking of "Aids to Understanding", I'm in favor of cutting "Combining doors" (Clearly, the chance of the prize being in the other two doors is twice as high -- um, this really isn't the place for an evidence-free assertion), "Bayes' theorem" (if there can be any doubt, enumeration of cases will confirm this -- well, this is supposed to be an explanation, how come we're making this a homework problem?), and "Effect of opening a door" (this is just incomprehensible to me, sorry). Fwiw, Wile E. Heresiarch 01:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the specific comments. I'll make a stab at addressing all of them (here, as well as in the article):
  • origin of assumptions - I believe these were assumed as "common knowledge" (hence, unstated by vos Savant) but have actually led to considerable controversy. They're necessary to arrive at the commonly understood solution.
  • Moving the explanation currently in "solution" to one of the aids to understanding seems like a reasonable idea (these words effectively repeat the diagram, which I'm reworking anyway).
  • I believe the "combining doors" analysis is one of the key mechanisms by which some folks understand the problem. Rather than pitch it, I'd like to reword it as necessary (it also repeats the diagram view, perhaps what is currently the explanation in the solution section and the diagram and the "combining doors" section can all be combined into one section).
  • The "Bayes' theorem" section looks like it can be improved.
  • I don't grok the "effect of opening a door" section either, but I assume someone does. I'm a little reluctant to simply delete it. I'll chase down the original author and try to find out what s/he thought s/he was getting at.
-- Rick Block (talk) 03:41, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
I'm still hesitant about the assumptions part. Yes, I understand that explicit assumptions are needed. However, because the solution hinges on the assumptions, at present what we have is original research on the topic (we made the assumptions and we show what follows). We need to document the assumptions that other people have made. It seems likely that some of the academic papers cited in the references have explicit assumptions we can borrow. Wile E. Heresiarch 5 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)
I'll try to chase down a reference with the assumptions. I'm confident these are the same assumptions generally used, so it shouldn't be hard to find them (I'd actually be surprised if they aren't in vos Savant's book, The Power of Logical Thinking, which perhaps should be a reference here anyway). -- Rick Block (talk) July 5, 2005 06:01 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. This is a good topic, and potentially a good article. But it does indeed need a heavy-handed editing job. It also needs an expanded history section, because the Savant "anecdote" is interesting enough in its own right. Is Curious incident the only appearance other appearance of this question in popular culture? (It does appear in many introductory maths textbooks, of course.) Arbor 12:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I disagree that it needs a major rewrite. Presenting the problem, the correct answer, and a collection of alternative explanations seems like a fine way to cover this topic. I also see no need to limit the number of alternatives. --Doradus 05:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It'd be best if you could settle the copyright status of Image:Monty2.gif. This link is Broken 23:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Per our talk, we're going with {{GFDL-presumed}}, although the following comment suggests new images are needed. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:27, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
I've created new images, primarily to resolve the "fuzziness" issue raised below, but since I created the new images I know their copyright status (GFDL). -- Rick Block (talk) July 1, 2005 15:41 (UTC)
  • Mild Oppose The visuals look very poorly done. If somebody could make them look alot more proffesional I could consider it FA Material. Support The image issue is being taken care of. --EatAlbertaBeef 03:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, yes, this is not an easy-to-explain subject, but this is a difficult to understand, somewhat bloated, yet incomplete article. Interestingly, the Curious Incident book (the article on which links to this page) does a markedly better job of summarizing the problem, the solution, and the controversy (and in the context of a fictional story narrated by a 10-year old child). In addition to cleaning up the technical content, there needs to be more focus on the social impact of the problem, particularly in the Vos Savant case (that is, how the counter-intuitive nature of the solution has lured many academics into making fools of themselves). Jgm 04:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'm withdrawing my comments; Rick has made a reasonable request for more specifics, however I will not have an opportunity to take a close look at the current version and update or expand my concerns for several days. In fairness, I'll leave it to others to work this out. Jgm 4 July 2005 02:13 (UTC)
Can you make these objections more specific? difficult to understand, somewhat bloated, yet incomplete and clean up the technical content are too vague to address. Whether a better description exists elsewhere is not especially relevant without specifically saying why you think it's better (I can't copy this description since it is in a copyrighted book). I've expanded the Anecdotes section, but I suspect you're looking for more. Please restate your objections in a form that will allow me to address them. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:32, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support.The article is complete, easy to understand and it attracts and holds the readers attention. Optional suggestions for improvements that do not interfere with featured standards are an additional image, to illustrate the 'find the lady' game (three playing cards with a lady - if the image is already on Wikipedia it is not easy to find, I just looked for it.)--Fenice 1 July 2005 11:35 (UTC)
  • Support. JYolkowski // talk 3 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

Captain Marvel (DC Comics)

Self-nomination. I did a good bit of editing work on this article, although the foundation of it was rather solid before I began. It would make a good comapion piece to Superman, as Captain Marvel was the most popular superhero of the 1940s. --FuriousFreddy 06:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Condional support. Quite good. Remove external links from the lead (!) and main body, move to notes/external links, link via Wikipedia:Footnotes. Spoiler warning template needed as there are a lot of spoilers in mainbody. The bullets in 'Supporting cast' section seem acceptable, but rewrite the 'Appearances in other media' and 'Cultural influences' sections so they are normal paras, not bullets. Also, I think that it might be good to actually merge the nominated Captain Marvel (DC Comics) with Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics) and other CMs mentioned on Captain Marvel into one article, but this is not an object - in the end, Captain Marvel (DC Comics) stands alone well enough as a good subarticle to the main (poor) article on 'Captain Marvel.' --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I can take care of all but the last one. The other Captains Marvel are compeltely different characters from seperate companies. The only thing they share in common is the name; it'd be like megring all the various uses of Tom and Jerry. The Captain Marvel mentioned here, however, is the original and most notable. Also, file size would definitely become an issue if the two articles were merged. The article at Captain Marvel is nothing more than a disamiguation page; it isn't meant to be a full article. None of the pages referenced from it are meant to be subarticles of the Captain Marvel page, but just articles about entities that all have the same name.--FuriousFreddy 21:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Done with converting the in-line references to footnotes style and the rewording into prose. Again, the various Captains Marvel have no correlation except for their name, and really should not be merged into one article. All of Marvel's Captains Marvel do actually share an article, but the only other character related to this one to share the name "Captian Marvel" is better known by her original name: Mary Marvel, who is also mentioned a number of times in this article). --FuriousFreddy 00:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • OK. I support now. The merger was just a comment to be considered by editors more familiar with the subject, not an objection, so I am satisfied now that it has been adressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, well written and comprensive, meets FA criteria.--nixie 03:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good research, well organized. ike9898 18:41, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • This article starts out great but falters a bit near the end; I think the article would be stronger if the various spinoff plot summaries -- which don't really add anything to the reader's understanding of the character and its importance or influence -- were themselves spun off into sub-articles; the final section could use some copyediting and style work (ie. the use of the word "kid") and the Family Guy reference seems useless and is a terrible way to end the article. I won't formally object to FA status, but I hope this critique is helpful. Jgm 03:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I didn't want to delete the American Dad! reference (I didn't add it, and it seems notable enough), so I just switched the "Cultural influences" and "Apperances in other media" sections; I actually think the flow works better that way. As far as making sub-articles for the various spin-off plots, I only did it for one The Power of Shazam! because that one was the most notable--and longest--revamp. The other two revamps were easily summarized into a few sentences which explained just the most notable aspects, which is what I went ahead and did. --FuriousFreddy 11:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support great article! Have done a few minor alterations, but most definitely support this. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support very well written, certainly meets WP:FA criteria.-Poli 21:17, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Washington gubernatorial election, 2004


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


Michel Foucault

One image, unverified. →Raul654 20:29, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • The best thing I could find was this book cover [2] is has a decent pic and is a good size, usable as fair use.--nixie 11:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's a book cover, are you sure you've got the right to reproduce it here? Buffyg 14:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Only as fair use. --nixie 00:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)
      • Wasn't a graph used for the Economics article on the Main page? BrokenSegue 06:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=15832407"