Misplaced Pages

:Today's featured article/requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:41, 28 January 2009 editWehwalt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators152,526 edits →Summary chart: update for new nomination← Previous edit Revision as of 02:22, 28 January 2009 edit undoMattisse (talk | contribs)78,542 edits →February 1: supportNext edit →
Line 54: Line 54:


I've withdrawn the William nomination to make this nomination, which I was pushing through GA and FA as fast as I could to make it here in time for the tercentenary of Rogers' rescue of Alexander Selkirk, which is a significant date because that is what he is best known for (his biography is called "Crusoe's Captain"). Six points for centennial. I'm not claiming main page rep points because of the Sturt article on November 11, about a mariner.--] (]) 00:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC) I've withdrawn the William nomination to make this nomination, which I was pushing through GA and FA as fast as I could to make it here in time for the tercentenary of Rogers' rescue of Alexander Selkirk, which is a significant date because that is what he is best known for (his biography is called "Crusoe's Captain"). Six points for centennial. I'm not claiming main page rep points because of the Sturt article on November 11, about a mariner.--] (]) 00:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - A great connection to a famous fictional person and book. I had no idea that there was a true story behind '']''. &mdash;] (]) 02:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


===February 12=== ===February 12===

Revision as of 02:22, 28 January 2009

Here the community can nominate articles to be selected as "Today's featured article" (TFA) on the main page. The TFA section aims to highlight the range of articles that have "featured article" status, from Art and architecture through to Warfare, and wherever possible it tries to avoid similar topics appearing too close together without good reason. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling the TFA (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with the TFA coordinators: Wehwalt, Dank, Gog the Mild and SchroCat, who also select TFAs for dates where no suggestions are put forward. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not necessarily mean the article will appear on the requested date.

  • The article must be a featured article. Editors who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it for TFAR.
  • The article must not have appeared as TFA before (see the list of possibilities here), except that:
    • The TFA coordinators may choose to fill up to two slots each week with FAs that have previously been on the main page, so long as the prior appearance was at least five years ago. The coordinators will invite discussion on general selection criteria for re-runnable TFAs, and aim to make individual selections within those criteria.
    • The request must be either for a specific date within the next 30 days that has not yet been scheduled, or a non-specific date. The template {{@TFA}} can be used in a message to "ping" the coordinators through the notification system.

If you have an exceptional request that deviates from these instructions (for example, an article making a second appearance as TFA, or a "double-header"), please discuss the matter with the TFA coordinators beforehand.

It can be helpful to add the article to the pending requests template, if the desired date for the article is beyond the 30-day period. This does not guarantee selection, but does help others see what nominations may be forthcoming. Requesters should still nominate the article here during the 30-day time-frame.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Shortcuts

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to post a new nomination:

I. Create the nomination subpage.

In the box below, enter the full name of the article you are nominating (without using any brackets around the article's name) and click the button to create your nomination page.


II. Write the nomination.

On that nomination page, fill out as many of the relevant parts of the pre-loaded {{TFAR nom}} template as you can, then save the page.

Your nomination should mention:

  • when the last similar article was, since this helps towards diversity on the main page (browsing Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/recent TFAs will help you find out);
  • when the article was promoted to FA status (since older articles may need extra checks);
  • and (for date-specific nominations) the article's relevance for the requested date.
III. Write the blurb. Some Featured Articles promoted between 2016 and 2020 have pre-prepared blurbs, found on the talk page of the FAC nomination (that's the page linked from "it has been identified" at the top of the article's talk page). If there is one, copy and paste that to the nomination, save it, and then edit as needed. For other FAs, you're welcome to create your own TFA text as a summary of the lead section, or you can ask for assistance at WT:TFAR. We use one paragraph only, with no reference tags or alternative names; the only thing bolded is the first link to the article title. The length when previewed is between 925 and 1025 characters including spaces, " (Full article...)" and the featured topic link if applicable. More characters may be used when no free-use image can be found. Fair use images are not allowed.
IV. Post at TFAR.

After you have created the nomination page, add it here under a level-3 heading for the preferred date (or under a free non-specific date header). To do this, add (replacing "ARTICLE TITLE" with the name of your nominated article):
===February 29===
{{Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/ARTICLE TITLE}}

Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. More than one article can be nominated for the same date.

It would also then be helpful to add the nomination to the summary chart, following the examples there. Please include the name of the article that you are nominating in your edit summary.

If you are not one of the article's primary editors, please then notify the primary editors of the TFA nomination; if primary editors are no longer active, please add a message to the article talk page.

Scheduling:

In the absence of exceptional circumstances, TFAs are scheduled in date order, not according to how long nominations have been open or how many supportive comments they have. So, for example, January 31 will not be scheduled until January 30 has been scheduled (by TFAR nomination or otherwise).

Summary chart

Currently accepting requests from February 1 to March 3.

Date Article Points Notes
Feb 1 Woodes Rogers 6 Tercentenary of best known event in his life
Feb 12 History of evolutionary thought 2 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth
Feb 14 300 (film) 1-2 2-year anniversary of being shown at Berlin festival
Feb 15 No Way Out (2004) 2-4 5th anniversary. May be replaced by any FA regardless of points (Rule 1)
Feb 19 Third Battle of Kharkov 1 Anniversary start of battle.

Requests

February 1

Woodes Rogers (ca. 1679 – 15 July 1732, Nassau, Bahamas) was an English sea captain, privateer and later the first Royal Governor of the Bahamas. He is also known as the captain of the vessel that rescued Alexander Selkirk who was fictionalized by Daniel Defoe as Robinson Crusoe.

Rogers came from an affluent seafaring family, grew up in Poole and Bristol, and served a marine apprenticeship to a Bristol sea captain. His father, who held shares in many ships, died when Rogers was in his mid-twenties, leaving Rogers in control of the family shipping business. In 1707, Rogers was approached by Captain William Dampier, who sought support for a privateering voyage against the Spanish, with whom the British were at war. Rogers led the expedition, which consisted of two well-armed ships, the Duke and the Duchess, and was the captain of the Duke. In three years, Rogers and his men went around the world, capturing several ships in the Pacific Ocean. En route, the expedition rescued Selkirk, finding him on Juan Fernandez Island on 1 February 1709.(more….)

I've withdrawn the William nomination to make this nomination, which I was pushing through GA and FA as fast as I could to make it here in time for the tercentenary of Rogers' rescue of Alexander Selkirk, which is a significant date because that is what he is best known for (his biography is called "Crusoe's Captain"). Six points for centennial. I'm not claiming main page rep points because of the Sturt article on November 11, about a mariner.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

February 12

History of evolutionary thought traces the history of the idea that species change over time, which has roots in antiquity, in the ideas of the Greeks, Romans, Chinese and Muslims. However, until the 18th century, Western biological thinking was dominated by essentialism, the idea that living forms are unchanging. This started to change when, during the Enlightenment, evolutionary cosmology and the mechanical philosophy spread from the physical sciences to natural history. Naturalists began to focus on the variability of species; the emergence of paleontology with the concept of extinction further undermined the static view of nature. In the early 19th century, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, which was the first fully formed scientific theory of evolution. In 1858, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published a new evolutionary theory, which was explained in detail in Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859). Unlike Lamarck, Darwin proposed common descent and a branching tree of life. The theory was based on the idea of natural selection, and it synthesized a broad range of evidence from animal husbandry, biogeography, geology, morphology, and embryology. Darwin's work led to the rapid acceptance of evolution, but the mechanism he proposed, natural selection, was not widely accepted until the 1940s.(more….)

Nominated as part of an effort ( see HoS newsletter) by the History of science wikiproject to get suitable content on the main page for Darwin day 2009. Because Feb 12 is the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, and because the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species is coming later this year there will be a lot of press attention to related topics around this time. For an early example see the January issue of Scientific American. I think it is important that we have an appropriate article for Darwin day this year, and both Charles Darwin and Evolution have already appeared on the main page, and natural selection and Origin of Species are not yet FA. Hopefully Origin will be FA by the 150th anniversary of its publication in November.

Points = 2 - 1 for basic subject matter and 1 for relevent date. (Note this issue was resolved on talk page)

  • Support for this excellent article; and support for its highly appropriate date. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. The main happenings of Darwin Day, it should be noted, are more oriented around Darwin's legacy (i.e. evolutionary biology) than just the life of Darwin himself.--ragesoss (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment it was nominated as 2 points. The date of Darwin's birth would only get centennial points for an article on Darwin. If it is claimed as a 7 point article it needs to get off the page, as a five plus article, it is still ineligible to be run.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I have returned it to 2 points as that was the consensus from the talk page after an extensive pre-nomination debate. I still believe it probably should be 3 points because I don't consider Alfred Russel Wallace to be a truly similar article. However, given the importance of the date I would rather just have this up here to get peoples reactions to the idea of using this article for that date rather than having yet another pointless argument about points. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Pointless point arguments? What else would we have to discuss on this page if we couldn't argue about points? Seriously though, I think Wehwalt's use of "ineligible" is grossly over-interpreting the new wording which begins "Please consider waiting". To me "please" denotes a request, which if it is not appropriate can be ignored, rather than an order or a rule, which cannot be ignored. Smallbones (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Some suggestions are stronger than others. If there were a consensus that this was a 5+ (or even a 4 point) article I wouldn't have nominated it this early because I would have been certain there would be no problem. However, since it seemed like the only number we were going to all agree on was 2 points, I wanted to nominate it as early as possible, because I do believe it is essential for Misplaced Pages to pick an article with a tie in to Darwin day this year. Points do matter, but I think reaching a consensus on the right article to honor an important 200th anniversary matters more. Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Guideline or rule, it is new, and this is the first article to fall under it, and I don't think it would be a good idea to start out by ignoring it. There's no need to. Right now, there's a lull on this page, I rather doubt it will be replaced, and why not respect the rule until it becomes a problem? I'd hate to see it fall to a dead letter on day 1.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you on the importance of the suggestion, and if a 5 point article is ever nominated this early I will join you in recommending that the nomination be withdrawn until the appropriate time. However, unless you are going to change your mind about the points :) I don't see that argument applying to this nomination. Also I hope you don't mind that I indented your previous comment one level more for clarity. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't mind in the least. As someone had changed the points to 7, I felt it appropriate to start the discussion. I tend to read the points strictly, as we know, but I feel taking that position is useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

February 14

300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel of the same name by Frank Miller, and is a fictionalized retelling of the Battle of Thermopylae. The film is directed by Zack Snyder while Miller served as executive producer and consultant. The film was shot mostly with a super-imposition chroma key technique, to help replicate the imagery of the original comic book.

Spartan King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and 300 Spartans fight to the last man against Persian 'God-King' Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) and his army of more than one million soldiers. As the battle rages, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to rally support in Sparta for her husband. The story is framed by a voice-over narrative by the Spartan soldier Dilios (David Wenham). Through this narrative technique, various fantastical creatures are introduced, placing 300 within the genre of historical fantasy.

300 was released in both conventional and IMAX theaters in the United States on March 9, 2007, and on DVD, Blu-ray and HD DVD on July 31, 2007. The film broke box office records, although critics were divided over its look and style. Some acclaimed it as an original achievement, while others criticized it for favoring visuals over characterization and its controversial depiction of the ancient Persians.(more….)

1 pt for age, 1 pt for relevance - worldwide release was 2/14. Not sure what else to say, other than this is a notable comic book/graphic novel film adaptation which was directed by the comic's writer. Was successful at the box office, and spawned some funny (and not-so funny) parodies. This is Sparta! :) BOZ (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Query points It looks like the release date was 3/7 or 3/9 of 2007. I would think this article should be renominated for then. Feb 14 was the anniversary of it being shown at Cannes. I think it only gets one point for 2/14 but would get 2 points for 3/7 or 3/9.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't appear to mention Cannes, but I might have read more into a screening at the Berlin International Film Festival than I should have. :) Ah, well, if it fails to gain support here, I will re-nom for the 9 Mar release date, with my North American bias and all. ;) BOZ (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Shows what I know about films. I assumed that meant Cannes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Nah, the Cannes Film Festival is in France, but that's not a major difference (except to the French and the Germans, I suppose!) BOZ (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support for appropriate premiere anniversary of a kickass movie. Besides, I like the idea of having something particularly anti-cute on such a horribly manufactured "holiday". Who needs chocolate roses when you have screaming, blood-drenched Spartans? María (habla conmigo) 14:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I was watching a Mythbusters re-run the other day, and I heard Adam use the line "This is Sparky!". The fact that he could do that without even explaining the joke suggests to me that the movie has had enough cultural impact to make it a reasonable candidate for the main page. This makes a convenient excuse for me to support this nomination besides the fact I liked the movie. The article is quite good also and it did a great job of coverting the controversies around the film. It is a pitty that Valentine's day is not FA. It is a pretty good article itself. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

February 15

 No Way Out (2004) was a professional wrestling pay-per-view event produced by World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), which took place on February 15, 2004 at the Cow Palace in Daly City, California. It was the sixth event produced under the No Way Out name and starred wrestlers from the SmackDown! brand. During the main event, Eddie Guerrero defeated WWE Champion Brock Lesnar to win the title. Two bouts were featured on the undercard; the first was a Triple Threat match, where the winner would earn the right to challenge for the WWE Championship at WrestleMania XX; in the match, Kurt Angle defeated The Big Show and John Cena. The second bout was a singles match, in which Chavo Guerrero defeated Rey Mysterio. At No Way Out 2004, Chavo's uncle, Eddie Guerrero, won his sole World Championship before his substance abuse-related death in 2005. (more….)

1 pt for date; requester (Truco (talk · contribs)) 1 pt; similar article not on in 6 months 2 pts. Not sure about a possible caption though - this may be appropriate even though it isn't in the article. D.M.N. (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I don't understand that. This vote, such as it is, is about preferences of the members of the community, so we can make community recommendations to Raul. You, or me, or any member, is entitled to state the reason for the vote. It is relevant in that it is my reason. This is not life and death, it is voting on whether to make a recommendation to Raul. Anyone else want to weigh in? I seem to be repeating myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose Wehwalt is right. With a backlog of FA articles to feature on the front page we can afford to be picky, and I have a hard time seeing this article to be the best option we have. It reads like a bit of a fluff piece to me and there is no discussion of any real controversy or cultural impact. Now that may not be the fault of the editors since they may have not be any sources avaialable that cover this, but in my humble opinion the lack of these things makes a less than compelling case for featuring this topic on the main page. I suspect that, given its popularity and cultural impact, there probably are topics related to pro wrestling that would be compelling. I just don't this as being one of them. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Personal preference on the types of topics at TFAR is certainly allowable as far as these recommendations or "votes." In general, however it's probably best not to oppose on this basis, but rather just refrain from giving support. That said some topics, e.g. porn stars, just seem terrible for the front page and I will oppose them. On that same basis, I oppose wrestling articles. Smallbones (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Eh? The last wrestling article on the main page was in March. –Juliancolton 15:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • May I ask what Rule 1 is? D.M.N. (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • If a requested article has at least five declarations and over 50% oppose votes (counting the nominator's declaration as a support) at least 48 hours after the request is initiated, it may be removed regardless of its point value. (from the Adding a request instructions) Karanacs (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
      • And if the Opposes are not valid? To be honest, "I don't like it" isn't a valid oppose... a "I don't like you" for instance in an RfA or an FAC would get shot down straight away - same logic applies here. D.M.N. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, this is kinda a quirky page, because what we are doing is just making recommendations. Raul has the final call. On this page, we have actual voting, which is rare in Misplaced Pages, and a lot of things don't apply because what we are doing is not real, because Raul has all the authority and doesn't hesitate to exercise it. We've voted off articles, like Tyrone Wheatley only to have Raul use it anyway. We've given fairly broad support to articles, but for reasons of his own, Raul has chosen not to use them. He's trying to be a lot broader in scope than we are trying to be. What we are angling for here is a loose, controlled process by which the community (or at least those members who care to participate) can have its voice heard in this process. So any vote submitted by a member of the community is valid. It may be more or less persuasive, but it is valid.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, people are saying that wrestling isn't the best representative topic, but what else can be on the main page for that day if nothing else is being requested? I see nothing on this page or on the pending list. Also, if this doesn't pass, I'll just nominate Over the Edge (1999) in May, since its more "unique and something cultural happened".TRUCO 23:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Articles sometimes are nominated two and three times before they become TFA. It isn't unusual. And we don't decide, "if not this, what". We simply decide if we want this to be one of our limited number of recommendations to Raul. As a practical matter, we at most recommend about 8 articles per month, since the five article limit and the tendency of people to nominate early limits us.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah its unfortunate that this one is opposed, but maybe OTE'99 is better off in May.--TRUCO 19:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't give up the ship just yet. No one has taken it off, and it might get used. I'd worry about that once the TFA for 2/15 is selected.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment IMHO Over the Edge (1999) is a much better candidate for the main page than this one is, and if it were nominated on an appropriate date I would support it. It is my opinion that articles on fairly narrow topics, especially those on popular culture topics, should have some chance of being of interest to people who are not into that particular topic in order to be good candidates for the main page. Over the Edge (1999) has this sort of broader appeal. The current nominee does not. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

February 19

File:Ger Inf Russia 1941 HDSN9902655.JPEG

The Third Battle of Kharkov was a series of offensive operations undertaken by the German Army Group South against the Red Army, around the city of Kharkov (Kharkiv), between 19 February and 15 March 1943. Known to the Germans as the Donets Campaign, and to the Soviets as the Donbas and Kharkov operations, the German counterstroke led to the destruction of approximately 52 Soviet divisions and the recapture of the cities of Kharkov and Belgorod. As the German Sixth Army was encircled in Stalingrad, the Red Army undertook a series of wider offensives against the rest of Army Group South. These culminated on 2 January 1943, when the Soviets launched Operation Star, which between January and early February broke German defenses and led to the Soviet recapture of Kharkov, Belgorod and Kursk. Despite the success of the Soviet offensive, it also resulted in participating Soviet units over-extending themselves. Freed on 2 February by the surrender of the German Sixth Army, the Red Army's Central Front turned its attention west and on 25 February expanded its offensive against both Army Group South and Army Group Center. However, months of continuous operations had taken a heavy toll on the Soviets and some divisions were reduced to 1,000–1,500 combat effectives. On 19 February, Field Marshal Erich von Manstein took the opportunity to launch his Kharkov counterstroke, using the fresh SS Panzer Corps and two panzer armies. Although the Germans were also understrength, the Wehrmacht successfully flanked, encircled and defeated the Red Army's armored spearheads south of Kharkov.(more….)

1 pt. due to date relevance. My contributor history point was shot since Verdeja was featured, even if I didn't nominate it. JonCatalán 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And yes, that blurb is prob. too long. But Raul tends to re-write them, regardless, right? JonCatalán 18:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - this should go a long way toward countering the commonly held idea (in the US) that the US won WWII in Europe simply by invading Normandy. On the other hand, I see some issues in the article (which I've put on its talk page) the main one involves the seeming reversal of 25 February and 19 February in the blurb above. This really isn't the best place for these criticisms, but if something jumps out at me, I feel I should mention it. Smallbones (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • support date relevance is good with the 19th being the start of the battle, I do have a concern of the imagery the choice in the blurb is a generic image not directly attributed to the battle where as ther are other images in the article that were taken in Kharkov. It'd be nice to see some Russian photos in the article as well. Gnangarra 02:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Those images are not in public domain; they are fair use images for the article. JonCatalán 03:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Category: