Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:31, 8 July 2004

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

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Misplaced Pages'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 allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut WP:FAC v t e Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC): Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR): Archived FARs Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

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

Nominations

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

(Uncontested -- July 7) Hereditary peer

Self-nomination. -- Emsworth

(Contested -- July 7) Russian humour

funny and informative Avala 20:10, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. Seems to mostly be a list of Russian jokes. Should be about Russian humor, with examples as needed - not just a list of jokes. For a broad and potentially subjective topic like this, also, some citation and verifiability would be nice - surely there are some scholarly or popular surveys of Russian humor that could be cited. Also, for the current title, should deal with more than simple jokes. Snowspinner 20:41, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- July 7) Royal Assent

This is a self-nomination. -- Emsworth 02:34, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

• Question: the article on reserved powers mentions Germany, and seems to apply to many nations, while this article only mentions Britain and the commonwealth countries. Where does this apply, and how does it relate to U.S. veto power or the powers of other heads of state? For example, does the Netherlands have royal assent, and how does it differ from the English model? ] 02:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• As far as I know, the phrase "Royal Assent" is a British one. -- Emsworth 03:24, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, the article's talk page seems to indicate that more countries than Britain and commonwealth are included. And I'd still be interested in seeing how and if it affected the powers granted other heads of state. ] 03:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've added a section on other nations. -- Emsworth 16:30, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
• A good article. However, I object on the grounds that it does not cover royal assent in current crown colonies at all. Does, say, the Governor of Gibraltar have that power? Does he ever use it? Morwen - Talk 20:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've added information on Crown colonies/ dependencies, and also a passage about ceremony in the Isle of Man. -- Emsworth 00:30, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lots of good detail. 81.168.80.170 21:04, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- July 6) Siege

This was last week's Article of the Week. (I worked on it, so that makes it a self nom, I suppose). It's extremely informative and well written. Includes multiple pictures, and has been read by many pairs of eyes. →Raul654 20:58, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC) (info: Misplaced Pages:Article_of_the_week/History)

• Object. That picture of the Siege of Leningrad still lacks copyright info. I've dropped a note on the talk page of the user who uploaded it, but I'd like to get it resolved. ] 21:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I had a feeling this was going to come up. For the sake of expediency, I have removed the image in question. →Raul654 21:07, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Great article! 1) I found the start of one paragraph in the lead section quite confusing: "the great Swedish white-elephant fortification of Karlsborg was completed in 1869. One single fortified stronghold, whatever the scale (Karlsborg was conceived as a reserve capital for Sweden), was no longer decisive." — could we reword and add a little more detail to make this a little clearer? 2) In the "Mongol" section, there's a huge quote, and it's not primarily about sieges per se (although it's discussed) ; could this quote be either trimmed down drastically, or summarised ourselves, or both? 3) The article could do with a little more illustration, and I'm sure we can easily find material: for example, in the "New styles of fortresses employed" subsection, we might be able to find an image or diagram of a fortress that's has one of these designs against cannon fire; also one or two pictures of things like glacis, siege towers and so on would really spice up the article. 4) Are there any recent examples of sieges that could be mentioned? The most recent one in the article (unless I missed something) is the battle of Khe Sanh (1968). — Matt 22:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I shortened the Mongol section and removed off-topic info. I also refactored the modern seieges paragraph to make it more on-topic. →Raul654 22:38, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Re: More modern sieges - I don't think it'd be bragging to say a know a fair amount about the history of modern warfare, and I honestly can't think of a single clearcut example of a more modern siege than Khe Sahn. You could put forth arguements for the fighting in Tora Bora, Afghanistan and Fallujah, Iraq, but those are stretching the definition a great deal. →Raul654 23:40, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • Sure, I've struck that objection. — Matt 23:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • As per the objection below, I have added a picture of Cahir Castle. →Raul654 00:19, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
        • PS - I have also added a diagram of a Vauban fortress. →Raul654 07:21, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This article looks great, but I have some objections. You'll have my support once these are fixed (or when I'm convinced my objections are invalid) Jeronimo 22:43, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Only a few sieges are named specifically. I know there's a list of sieges, but some of the really famous sieges could be addressed in this article. Which sieges brought "breaktroughs" or "records" in the field of sieging? Any major sieges that failed?
  • Is there any way to give an indication about how successful sieges have been through the ages? I'm not asking for percentages, just a general indication? Did nearly all of them fail or succeed, or was it more fifty-fifty? How did this evolve? Parts of these are already present in the text, but may it could be more explicit?
  • It would be clearer to state the links in full, rather than just linking the city that was besieged. Battle of Dien Bien Phu is much clearer than battle of Dien Bien Phu, which suggests it links to an article about the city, not the battle.
    • "The battles of Dien Bien Phu (1954) and Khe Sanh (1968)" - how is this confusing in the least? It specifically says "The battles of". If there were only one listed there, it would make sense to link the whole phrase, but since there is more than one, this is the best way to do it. →Raul654 22:48, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't agree, but I'll not make this a problem, and will strike my objection on this point.Jeronimo 07:12, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • In the lead section, there's talk of nations under siege, but this topic isn't really addressed in the remainder of the article. Some more words might be spent on this.
    • I have refactored that section as per Matt's objection above. →Raul654 22:49, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • OK. Jeronimo 07:12, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • There's an image of a trebuchet as a siege-breaking instrument; it would be interesting to have an photo of a fortification (perhaps de Krak des Chevaliers, or some other famous castle?). This is not part of my objection, merely a suggestion.
    • Picture of Cahir Castle added. →Raul654 00:19, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • Great. Jeronimo 07:12, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• First of all, I'd like to thank everyone who worked on this. I nominated it because I thought it would be an interesting article, and you didn't disappoint. That said, it needs a certain something. 1) There's very little specific about medieval or especially pre-medieval sieges. 2) The extended section about specific types of fortifications in "Marshall Vauban" cries out for a diagram. ] 23:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • My addition of two pictures (one of Cahir Castle and a diagram of a Vauban fortress) should eliminated your 2nd objection. →Raul654 07:23, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well done! I think I can support now, though I still wouldn't mind seeing more specific info/description on pre-medieval sieges. Support. ] 13:28, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- July 6) Mount St. Helens

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

• Support. Complete and deep. 195.167.169.36 11:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. And the separate 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption article seems feature-worthy on its own. Fredrik | talk 11:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, I know! I was half-tempted to nominate them both! But I figured one is good enough for now. blankfaze | •• | •• 11:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) Could do with a locator map, such as Image:LocMap CarlsbadCaverns.png. 2) The 1980 explosion is in the "Geologic" history section, when it would fit quite well be in the "Human" history section too; would it be best to have this as a separate section entirely? — Matt 18:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Disagree. I personally think this is a pretty lousy/petty reason to object. This is a pretty high-quality article. Better even than some articles that I've seen passed through here. blankfaze | •• | •• 19:24, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm the person who wrote the pre-1980 geology history and I put the 1980 eruption text in that section since it is about geology. But even though I'm a main author of this article I must admit that some of the human history and later geology should be disentangled - the events as described in the geology section should concentrate on geology while the same events as described in the history section should concentrate on the human aspects. The human history section could also use some basic expansion as well. So I guess I must also object, but I will try to fix the problems sometime soon. Thanks for all the kind words everybody! :) --mav 03:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • OK - I've moved the human history text from the geology section. Changing my vote to accept but the article could use some more images (esp in history section). --mav 06:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Well written and complete. Second the feature-worthyness of 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption as well. Anárion 08:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

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

• Object. My only real concern is that 5 out of the 6 images in the article don't have source information. Other than that, seems like a nice article. blankfaze | •• | •• 12:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This is a potentially controversial topic and needs a considerable degree of NPOVing. Everyking 16:08, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Everyking. 172 16:55, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • can you be more specific so this can be fixed? --Jiang 18:36, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't know. The problem is that the whole article is written from a strong, obvious POV. Not to mention that it doesn't even cover the period 1980-90 yet. Anyone trying to fix it should avoid lines like: "It must be said also that the Polish government-in-exile in London could not help the Polish cause" (which presumes to know what exactly the Polish cause was, when this was a quite controversial matter at the time). Everyking 22:19, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I find the naming of the article awkward. The article is one in a series of the history of Poland, not one about the People's Republic of Poland. That article should be more like the Soviet Union article. This one could do well as "History of the PR of Poland", or something fitting better in the "History of Poland" series. Also, a "section awaiting development" doesn't belong in a FA. Jeronimo 16:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Disagree. The Soviet Union article is horrible. As a defunct entity, we should not be looking at momentary data such as population. The focus should be on history. Discussion of the economy would go under economic history.--Jiang 18:36, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • No article should be entirely about history, unless the article is specifically named "history of x". Like I said, this article would do great as "History of the PR of Poland", but not as "PR of Poland". That article should of course also discuss its history, and it should get a prominent place there. But it should not be all history. There are more interesting aspects about the PR of Poland that could be discussed, and they should be in a PR of Poland article. Jeronimo 22:20, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • What else is there to include? Can you elaborate on your vision for this article? --Jiang 22:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Like I said before, it should be more like the current Soviet Union article, or other former country articles like East Germany or Czechoslovakia, even if these articles are far from perfect themselves. Again: this article should be at History of the People's Republic of Poland. Also, my second objection still stands: a "section awaiting development" doesn't belong in a FA. 16:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • But the People's Republic of Poland wasn't territorially any different from today's Poland. It just had a different government and name. It's not a defunct nation in the sense that the USSR, Czechoslovakia and the GDR are, so your comparisons don't really apply. Everyking 17:03, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • If there's not much to say about it the PR of Poland, maybe there shouldn't be an article about (I think there could be one, though). The suggests of the current article suggests the article is about a country, and it is only about that country's history. So either the contents should be fixed, or the title should change. Jeronimo 17:39, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • You will see that the East Germany and USSR articles have overinflated history sections and nearly empty sections elsewhere. When I have time, I will undo the current countries template and replace it with something more suitable to reflect their defunct status. For a defunct entity, the article on the country, all aspects of it, are part of its history. Discussion of the economy is part of the economic history. Politics is part of policial history. It's all history... Geography is only relevant in how it affected history, as it would be redundant with geography of the present-day Poland. For a defunct entity, we look at it holistically instead of momentarily (in the present) as we are doing for existing countries. Stuff like its population in 1987 would be inapproprately hilighted if we converted this to a country templated article. Again, what is there to talk about other than history? If there is nothing, then perhaps the People's Republic of Poland is history and it would be approprate to talk about history under this heading? --Jiang 22:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested - July 6) Russian constitutional crisis of 1993

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

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

Oppose. NPOV. Please be careful with using phrases such as "this brutal episode" over and over again. Let the readers form their own impression. While I do not necessarily disagree with any of the views expressed, I believe that the text as it stands is far too tendentious to be featured. Please put in greater analysis of Yeltsin's motivation, instead of setting him up as the straw man for your own theses. It is not for Misplaced Pages to state that Russia is or is not a democracy, whatever that overflogged word may mean. The trick of hiding potentially difficult points in the footnotes is old and, excuse me, cheap. 68.148.211.161 17:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC), i.e. A. Shetsen 17:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So the references and notations make the article less credible? Come on. There are no "difficult points" hidden in the footnote that belong in the main body of the text. Yes, it's called a brutal episode in a passing remark, but the sparing use of emotive references in this article is evident when compared to, say, the article on the Tiananmen Square crisis. 172 16:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested - July 5) Tank

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

• Could do with images. Will look around at other Tank articles and see if I can find any. Morwen - Talk 19:17, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • http://www.army.mil has some great ones. They're all modern U.S. tanks, unfortuately, but better than nothing. Added two photos. Any PD/GFDL sources for foreign/older tank photos? ] 21:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I added one, still US but it's older at least --Taak 00:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment about images, US tanks are lovely, but do not represent a good cross-section of tank history. Images of the first tanks, Da Vinci's "tank" and others will have passed into PD by now. Oppose until we can get some other pictures here. Burgundavia 00:36, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have added 1 WW1 one. Burgundavia 07:54, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • 1 WW2 image as well
  • Current status: there are three images on the tank page: an M1A1 Abrams posing, a British WWI tank with its German captors posing, and a Sherman tank in the act of firing. To me this seems like an adequate selection, though pictures of reasonably modern (WWII or later) tanks from other nations would make good additions. There are also five pictures in "tank history", of which only one is post-WWI, a Sherman. I think those five should stay there. Any more images of pre-WWII tanks also should go in the history article. 81.168.80.170 20:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: The captions could use some editing (see Misplaced Pages:Captions). -- ke4roh 21:24, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Made them more descriptive. OK now? 81.168.80.170 20:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• The article seems well written and complete, but where are the references? Exploding Boy 07:23, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

• The history of the tank is far more varied than just what is presented. Oppose until this is expanded. Burgundavia 07:54, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes I have found the History of Tanks article, which I kind of missed, oops. However, the history section on Tank still needs a rewrite to include all of tank history, not stop at 1916. Burgundavia 08:04, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've added a summary history from 1918-present. (Does that make this a self-nomination? I'm the same user as 81.168.80.170.) I think the material I've added needs some more editing, and some of the WWI material should move to tank history. 195.167.169.36 12:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Looks better now, thanks. Burgundavia 08:25, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • I've done the editing I wanted to and now I'm happy with the history section. 81.168.80.170 19:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• If you want to place the tank article as a featured article real soon, then the section on the types of tanks should be moved out to the tank History article because it mostly deals with tank types of the 1930s and 1940s There should be a section on tank types in the tank article but it should be more generic, and a bit more modern as is the case with the other sections. AlainV 08:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've moved the section into tank history wholesale. Tanks now being much more homogeneous than they used to be, is there still a need for discussion of tank classes in the context of modern tanks? 81.168.80.170 19:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Objection: Modern Tanks should be merged into the history of tanks section. Burgundavia 08:25, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Done. 81.168.80.170 19:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Object. It has nothing on targeting and other internal equipments or engine and the armor section should have something about armors that are added on to a tank. Revth 03:10, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jul 5) Politics of Taiwan

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

Object. Towards the end it is just a copy and paste from the CIA World Factbook. This needs rewriting and putting in prose. Morwen - Talk 16:22, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

(Uncontested -- Jul 5) Calvin and Hobbes

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

• Pretty good article, but something needs to be done with the organization of the cover images. Everyking 06:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I think I managed to do something nicer with them; it's actually really cool to have all of them in the article. (Nominator/uploader should tag them with fair use and rationale though) ] 15:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Oppose, for several reasons. Image overkill. Possibly too short, if you take out the images. Thirdly, if it stopped being syndicated in 1995, why? Ambivalenthysteria 06:27, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Good points. I'll try to add some more background on the strip's history, Watterson's issues with syndication, etc. I have concerns about copyvio for some of the images added recently, so unless we can get those resolved I might have to withdraw the nomination. Alanyst 23:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I have resolved the copyvio concerns and the article is longer with more information on syndication. Ambivalenthysteria, can you revisit your objection to see if it still holds? Thanks. Alanyst 02:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It's looking much better. It's a much more interesting read now. I've changed my vote, but still two small suggestions. Firstly, the "Needed to have complete collection" header overlaps with the picture column in my browser (Firefox), and it looks icky. Secondly, how about spreading the images throughout the article, rather than having them in a heap at the bottom? Anyway, these are just small gripes, and I'm supporting this nomination now. Ambivalenthysteria 15:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• All intro, no article. There's several paragraphs of text and a pile of images and lists. Where's the article? - David Gerard 13:52, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • In all fairness, there's not terribly much that can be said about the topic, so I think that's a bit harsh. Still, it's not quite up to feature standard. Ambivalenthysteria 13:54, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Surely there is. A vastly popular cartoon strip that ran for many years? I want to read the article I'd like to see ;-) - David Gerard 14:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • It could do with a bit more analysis as to whether Hobbes is real. ISTR he was sometimes seen doing stuff that Calvin couldn't possibly have witnessed. Morwen - Talk 14:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I've reorganised things, which I think helps a lot, but I I didn't add much contetn. Morwen - Talk 20:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • David Gerard, do you see any improvement in the content now? I've added quite a bit more on the background of the strip. Is this the article you'd like to see? Alanyst 08:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I do think it is. Thank you :-) - David Gerard 00:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Oppose. While I think that this article has grown considerably, I have copyright concerns about all of the new images. I don't think that fair use can just be thrown around to justify use of any images, particularly considering that Bill Watterson has been very diligent in prosecuting copyright violations of Calvin's image in the past. If the images' copyright status are cleared up or if alternate images can be found I will change to support. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:07, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • "Any" images is a bit strong; after all, the book covers certainly seem to fall under fair use. I have removed the individual character images because I think they were indeed copyright violations. As of right now, I believe the article is in compliance. Alanyst 15:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I misspoke, I just meant any of the new images. I'm changing to a support, but I wouldn't mind some more content. C&H was kick-ass. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:14, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. Oppose, a number of subsections are short and list-like. -Sean Curtin 21:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Could you be a bit more specific: which subsections? how should they be improved? Just because they're short and list-like doesn't necessarily mean they're bad; a list of concisely written items can often be much more readable than lengthy prose. I'm not sure your objection is actionable at this point; please enlighten me. Alanyst 02:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The lists of characters are recurring themes really don't need to be sections - microsections like that for Coach Lockjaw ("Runs the school baseball team. Rarely seen.") don't need to be flagged up from the table of contents. Rearranging some of the subsections like that of the "Calvin's Alter-Egos" section would help in that regard. Also, the history and style sections would make the article flow better if they were moved to the beginning. -Sean Curtin 17:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've combined the less frequently seen supporting characters under one section per your suggestion, and it does seem better. I've also re-ordered the sections to put history and style at the front of the article. I think it makes the continuity better. Any more objections? Alanyst 19:48, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The use of "we" should probably instead say "the reader" or something similar. -Sean Curtin 01:10, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Done. Alanyst 01:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Suppose. With all the work that's been done since this was nominated, it deserves featured status. ] 23:41, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, it can still be unworthy of featured status no matter how much work has been done, but I appreciate the sentiment. Am I to understand that you meant to say "support" rather than "suppose," or were you being purposely ambivalent? :-) Alanyst 02:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support after the recent changes. Anárion 08:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jul 5) Kylie Minogue

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

Previous nominations: Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations#Kylie_Minogue and Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations#Kylie_Minogue_.28Contested_.26mdash.3B_24_Jun.29

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

(Contested -- Jul 4) Middle-earth

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

It's a good article, but too much of it is lists, really. Oh, and there is too much text before the TOC. Morwen - Talk 21:16, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Way, way, way, way too much list - that's 80% of the article. →Raul654 21:18, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, much of it reads as though it's trying to perform the role of a Category. Oppose, for now, at least. — OwenBlacker 11:11, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the whole list to List of Middle-earth articles by category. Ausir 11:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, thats sort of an improvement I suppose. However now its rather shorter. It needs a detailed summary of the whole creation myth; the Ages; who the principal races are - that sort of thing. Summaries of the plots of the Hobbit and LOTR perhaps. Morwen - Talk 14:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The map image is copyrighted, per the website from which it was taken. Jeronimo 17:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  The website's conditions of use indicate that items can be used for non-commercial purposes, under certain conditions, which are, in this case, met. See Snowspinner 18:10, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

• I'll support. Could use another image. ] 18:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Specifically, it could use an image of Middle-earth as a whole- at the moment there are only parts. Markalexander100 07:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • There's an image of the whole world of Arda in "The world" section. The action of the books never takes place in other areas of Middle-earth than the north-western part, so there is not much info about the east of Middle-earth. Ausir 07:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I've added a wodge of summary of history. Support. Morwen - Talk 22:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Support (partial self-nomination). I have helped put in a bit of work coping with concerns raised above and believe they have now been addressed. Anárion 08:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jul 4) James Clerk Maxwell

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

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

(Contested -- Jul 4) Plate tectonics

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

• Tentatively support. Well-written, but perhaps it could be longer - citing specific papers, people, &c. in the history section, perhaps? I'm not sure... Also, did plate tectonics actually contribute anything other than theoretical understanding, because, if it did, I didn't get such an impression from the article -- perhaps something on resultant predictions/findings, or theories based on this? James F. (talk) 20:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• This needs a list of the major plates in the article. Morwen - Talk 21:17, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • there is separated article- List of tectonic plates and List of tectonic plate interactions and List of plate tectonics topics
    • Yes. But that doesn't mean that info shouldn't be summarised in this article! Morwen - Talk 21:49, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Added this now. Morwen - Talk 20:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • why don`t you give a support now?Avala 21:06, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • It doesn't really matter whether she does or not, since the real question is whether anyone opposes. So long as she's withdrawn her objections, you're in the same position whether she supports or not. Snowspinner 14:45, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
• (not a vote) Does the plate image really need to occur twice? Jeronimo 17:57, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • they are differenr
  • Umm, what? There are two images, one a map of the major plates, and one a diagrammatic over-view of subduction &c. James F. (talk) 19:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Please edit the captions. See Misplaced Pages:Captions. -- ke4roh 21:46, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support after recent changes. Anárion 08:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Contested -- July 3) Mount Everest

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

• Object. Not bad, but it needs more:
  • There's virtually no geological information. What kind of material is the mountain made of? When did it form exactly? Also strange: the range, the Himalayas, isn't mentioned in the article (only the table).
    • I guess it is impossible to be comprehensive with anything in this universe. You can find deficiencies in every single one of these wikipedia pages. Human endeavour is so imperfect in every domain - Dear Mr.know all --Drbalaji md 22:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Featured articles should at the least be comprehensive, even if they are unlikely to be perfect. — Matt 23:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I do not understand the distinction between the two! Well. If by just adding the geology of the rock the article becomes comprehensive, I would spend some effort adding that information. --Drbalaji md 00:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • A comprehensive article covers all of the relevant information on a topic, whereas a perfect article is one which cannot be improved. A featured article should be comprehensive, but is not going to be perfect. Thanks for agreeing to add the geology information. 01:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • What about the pre 19-century history? The Tibetans/Nepalese give pretty interesting names to the mountain, does it play a role in their history or mythology? Why do the Indians think the mountain has the wrong name?
    • it would be nice if you stop being so superflous while doing a critical review of an article. What you have ignorantly questioned is the core of a long history of 'war of words' on that site! Please try to delve a little deeper before throwing perfunctory comments. --Drbalaji md 22:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but I don't what you mean by this, and I don't see why a "history of 'war of words'" has anything to do with me reviewing this article. What I was trying to say is that the history section seems to start at the time where it was first measured by Sikdar. I would like to know something about the history before the 19th century. If that information is not available, or there is no pre-19 century history (likely not), let me know. Jeronimo 07:29, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The "ascents" section is not that different from the "timeline", each section is a point, not part of a story. Perhaps the less important parts of the ascents could be moved to the timeline, or otherwise the the ascents section should be rewritten.
    • is this your POV? --Drbalaji md 22:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • It's not a problem to have a point of view about how an article should be structured, surely? I agree with Jeronimo; the one-sentence paragraphs don't flow well in a narrative section. — Matt 23:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I did not object either. I just wanted to know :) If you think it would be nice, anyone of us can change it to make it look better! --Drbalaji md 00:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • There must be many books written about Mount Everest, but there are none listed as a reference.
    • is referring to a book mandatory for every single article here? --Drbalaji md 22:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • It's a good idea to Misplaced Pages:Cite your sources. — Matt 23:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • good ideas, agreed. But my question was "are they mandatory?" --Drbalaji md 00:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure what you mean; mandatory for what / according to who, exactly? A decent references section will make for a better article. — Matt 01:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • No, it's not mandatory. But it makes the article more verifiable and gives readers points to find more information on the topic Jeronimo 07:29, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Jeronimo 07:54, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- July 3) Air India

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

• Support:

I think this article deserves to be featured. I appreciate the prompt modifications of the content by the author Drbalaji_md, based on the suggestions made. I do not find any other airline's page that is as readable and well presented as this one. I must also appreciate the author for high-lighting the role of women pilots, so scarcely represented in the world media. The airline's unique cuisine deserves recognition too.--ganesh 02:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Object:
  • The Tragedies-section is literally copied from a website, which is even mentioned in the article with copyright. This is very obvious copyright violation. I'm consid

Thanks. I will take necessary action

• • One of the three logo/mascot images has no source, and the others come from the company's website, where there are no indications these pictures may be used. Perhaps they fall under fair use, but then the images should note this.

I thought this is quite obvious.

Even if it is obvious, it should be noted. Jeronimo 07:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • The article looks a bit messy. F.e., both Bombay and Mumbai are used in the article; this is the same city.

messy? I do not think so. Bombay and Mumbai are two names for the same city and they are widely in use throughout India. Anyway, the official name for Bombay now is Mumbai. I will change it.

• • Is this nomation so important that it has to be mentioned in the lead section?

Yes it is. I hate to say but this POV of yours is scornable! An honest effort to contribute to a world encyclopedia should never be under estimated. By this same measure, I can call every one of your contribution as 'unimportant'!

• • • I was unclear here: I was referring to the OAS nomination, which is in the first sentence. This indicates this nomination is - for some reason - very important, but I don't see the importance. There wasn't even a prize. This should be moved to the "Awards and recognition" section, or it should be made more clear why this fact is mentioned in the very first sentence. Jeronimo 07:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Much of this article reads like a company advertisement to invest. It's nice to read passenger figures and revenues for last year, but an encyclopedia article should either not include those, or give a historical overview of such figures.

Again. Your POVs are pointless. Encyclopedia represents facts. And that is what is represented there. Which fact should be included and which should not - kindly enlighten me, the intelligent one. --Drbalaji md 21:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • • If you're not willing to listen to reasonable objections, please say so, otherwise please stop patronizing me. Encyclopedia's represent facts yes. But they should be in context, and complete. So we should not only give last year's figures, but also from other years. Maybe just a few years, but a graph would be fantastic (but not required). This will give a picture of how the company has developed over the years. Also some numbers that place this into context would be nice. How does this airline do in comparison with other major airlines? And compared to other Indian airliners. Jeronimo 07:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • Jeronimo 08:02, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Not very well written or laid out. Seems incomplete (the tragedies section at least is missing information -- the so-called Air India Trial is ongoing). Exploding Boy 07:20, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

A vague and useless commentary. --Drbalaji md 21:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • Object : A number of facts in the article are INCORRECT and appear to be lifted directly from Air India's own website (which is also inaccurate on some issues and outdated on others such as the current fleet). Citing questionable subjective sources such as Skytrax immediately erodes the article's credibility. The article also has very poor structure and composition and is weak on actual data. It would be far more appropriate to cover actual services and history of the airline rather than inconsequential propoganda about Inflight Duty Free Sales and obscure awards from 1994. While you have undoubtedly put a lot of effort into this piece, the end result is very poor and needs a lot of work before it should be considered for a featured article.

It would be nice if the writer of the above prose who has taken so much effort to produce a poor end result :), kindly shows up his signature. INCORRECT in bold does not make correct things incorrect - neither it is considered etiquette. Obscure awards? Is the Guiness book obscure? I suggest you research as much as I did and substantiate your INCORRECT statement's credibility :) Skytrax is a renowned internet review magazine. Kindly review their site (link is in Air India article). We are not organising a flight schedule service for the airline - I thought keeping dumb links for all the places the airline goes is equally dumb :) There is a substantial amount of information regarding the history of the airline. But, history alone is not encyclopedia. By the way, all the above reviews helped me to edit Air India so that it represents facts. I do not need to invite anyone to change the content Air India - it is an open article in a open domain. You are free to do whatever you want. I like the quote "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness!" --Drbalaji md 22:50, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not think there is a better source of information for Air India than its own official website. Are all articles written only by the people who possess the original sources? Are the featured articles not written by assembling facts taken from the websites? --ganesh 02:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • It should of course be one of the sources, but you should keep in mind that it is a company's website. Issues that are "bad" for the company may not be discussed NPOV, such as for example the accidents an airliner has had. Jeronimo 07:48, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- July 3) Science fiction on television

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

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

(Contested -- July 3) Coca-Cola

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

• Support: I support only if the controversies surrounding coke are highlighted (atleast, as it is now) in the article. In the name of NPOV, they should not be censored. --ganesh 15:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • ..."(verse) One man come in the name of NPOV / One man come and go / One man come, he to justify / One man to overthrow / (chorus) In the name of NPOV / What more in the name of NPOV?"...woah, sorry. — Matt 16:19, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Overview needs more citations, and the list of brands needs more wikilinks. anthony (see warning) 13:14, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've edited the page to fix this criticism, but hopefully someone with a more experienced hand can correctly wikify the Brands section - I only linked to those brands whom I recognise. Johnleemk | Talk 14:21, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • There are still a few statements there that could probably do with a citation, but I withdraw my objection. I'd also like to see an image better than Image:Cokebottles.jpg. anthony (see warning)
• Support. A glance at the amazing list of international brands oif Coca-Cola reveals that opposition on that score is subversive comedy. My criticisms: the classic shape that made "cokebottle" an adjective is missing among illustrations; "Spin-the-bottle," the Santa Claus iconography and "Coke collectibles" need to be touched on and linked Wetman 19:33, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC).
  • Subversive comedy? We should add wikilinks to at least the articles which we already have created. anthony (see warning)
• Object. Most of my earlier objections were solved (I removed them from this list), but this one remains: The Heatlh/Environment/Labor Controversies surrounding Coca-Cola section seems totally out of place. It just lists some facts from three events. Are these the only controversies? How did they affect the company? This needs removal or expansion.Jeronimo 08:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've fleshed them out, moved the Mecca-Cola thingy to the urban legends section, and made that a subsection of the Controversies. Johnleemk | Talk 10:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm still not really happy with that section, so I'll hold my objection for now, even if this is only a minor issue. The "Controversies surrounding Coca-Cola"-section still only deals with separate issues. The India-controversy is worked out pretty well, but it stands a bit alone; perhaps a separate sub-section? Furthermore, "Coke has also been the subject of controversy in its relationship with unions." suggests there have been more than only the issue in Colombia, but none are listed. "The Coca-Cola company, of course, denies these accusations" is rather POV, I think. Also, little context could be provided here. Are union-troubles common for multi-nationals, or rare? But like I said, this is not a major objection Jeronimo 16:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I've fixed about half of Jeronimo's concerns by refactoring the article. I'll get to work on the rest of it tomorrow. Johnleemk | Talk 13:51, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I have spun out the two bottom-most lists into Coca-Cola brands and Coca-Cola slogans (they might be more suited in the singular, though). I have deleted the "Notable Employees" list as they are all mentioned in the History section. Johnleemk | Talk 09:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. There's absolutely no mention of any of the company's current (and past) controversies regarding trades unions or the exhibition over here (in London) about the Coca-Cola company trading with Nazi Germany (see , and , for example). For completeness, I think that at least a cursory mention would be in order. — OwenBlacker 10:47, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think I've addressed that now. Johnleemk | Talk 11:27, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm happy with those aspects now. I'd like to see a little more on each point, but that would prolly make it less NPOV, if I'm honest with myself. It's a good article; I support. — OwenBlacker 20:07, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The lead says, "Coca-Cola also registered a trademark on the distinctive bottle shape" — we need an image showing this shape. 2) The "History" section is pretty long; could it be broken up into two or three sections, or subsectioned? 3) Style: some of the section titles are in capital letters. 4) The related articles: Coca-Cola brands, Coca-Cola slogans should be summarised in this article (for the former, we currently mention Fanta and Sprite). 5) The lead section needs expanding to summarise the entire article >and to give some indication of its importance as a global brand. 6) Could we have some dates for the introduction of Coke variants, like Diet Coke, Coke with Lemon, etc? 7) Could we have some explicit mention of the rivalry with Pepsi? It's mentioned implicitly in various places in the article, but it would be good to have it spelled out. — Matt 11:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • All have been addressed (with the exception of perhaps number 4; I don't know how summarised you want them, so right now they're rather sparse since the articles themselves are quite small). Johnleemk | Talk 12:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your refactoring, I think it's much improved. — Matt 13:22, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Noticed you're still objecting though — any reason why? ;-) Johnleemk | Talk 13:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Oops, sorry, misplaced tag (I'll probably try and nitpick some more tomorrow, though...!) — Matt 13:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- July 3) Punctuation

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

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

(Contested -- Jul 3) Mad scientist

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

• Support. Neutrality 03:57, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• (No vote). Can we have some specific licence info for the cartoon? Markalexander100 08:06, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• This picture was made by the same user, User:J.J. at about the same time (July 2003) as the one for villain, which was GFDLed in May 2004, I think when he was asked about it in the context of the featured picture candidacy. He didn't bother to do the same for mad scientist, but presumably he's willing to release it under the same license. He'd have to be asked directly for something explicit, though. --Shibboleth 13:08, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1) I'm not sure that we need the lists of "Fields of research" and "Untouched fields"; maybe this could be removed, or condensed down into a short narrative paragraph? 2) I have some concerns about the section "Real life prototypes": how can we be sure that all these people actually contributed to the stereotype, rather than coincided with it? Is this section verifiable? — Matt 16:23, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Exactly what I was thinking. Markalexander100 03:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The mad scientist is really an extreme caricature of scientists in general, and this continuum should be explored more. Also the article seems poorly organised. 81.168.80.170 22:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jul 2) Fractal

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

• Support. Having spent hours upon hour exploring microscopic regions of the Mandelbrot set, I can only say, "It's about time..." Denni☯ 05:49, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
• (Not a vote). It looks like all of the images are in the public domain (created by Wikipedians), but some fail to note so explicitly. Jeronimo 11:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now the only picture that does not explicitly specify public domain or GFDL is the Koch snowflake picture. Unfortunately the user who added it is not around anymore, so we cannot ask him to add the label. But I am inclined to think an elementary mathematical illustration like this cannot be copyrighted anyway. If it really bothers someone, it should be easy to re-create. --Shibboleth 21:38, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1) The lead section needs to be longer, including a mention that "fractal"s is derived have "fractional dimension", amongst other things. 2) We should discuss Fractal art in this article to some extent, given that most laymen encounter fractals in that form. 3) Similarly there needs to be a much more in-depth discussion of applications: Fractal landscape, Fractal compression...; we currently have "Fractal techniques have also been employed in fractal image compression, as well as a variety of scientific disciplines." 4) The article emphasises self-similarity; an image sequence would be one obvious way to illustrate this concept, e.g. a sequence of zooms on a fractal, showing self-similarity on different scales. — Matt 16:39, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah, great. Maybe it's worth mentioning the mis-etymology of "fractal" as well, since it's quite common? — Matt 15:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've added a sequence of images demonstrating self-similarity. ] 13:54, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, spot on. — Matt 15:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is good but I don't find the sequence of images quite clear enough as it is. The problem is that since they all look so similar, it's hard to understand at first sight that the fourth image is a 100x (or whatever) magnification of the first: it looked to me at first like just a big rotated chunk of the first, until I understood that your red squares meant "zoom". I would like a label added to the top of each image saying "Magnification: 1x", "Magnification: 5x", "Magnification: 25x" (or whatever the exact numbers are). Or even better, nice arrows linking the red square of one image with the next image. Though come to think of it I don't really know which would work better. --Shibboleth 21:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Support Avala 19:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

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

• Good article, but a list is an almanac article while the prose in that article is encyclopedic (only one part of the article is a list!). I suggest renaming the article to City status in the United Kingdom so that readers know to expect to find an article on the topic instead of just a list (if and when the list on that page gets too long, then it can be spun off onto its own page). The lead section needs some expansion as well as the 'City councils' section. Also, the article on the whole also seems a bit short. So until then, I regretfully oppose. --mav 01:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I *strongly* agree with Mav's suggestion. →Raul654 06:03, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Moved it, started to expand bits. Not really suitable yet. Morwen - Talk 17:58, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • How does it look now? Morwen - Talk 22:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It's a really good article; my only comment would be that there's a very cursory mention to the title "Rt Hon", yet it doesn't say anything about whether or not these titleholders are members of the Privy Council and, if so, whether or not it is ex officio, by virtue of being the Lord Mayor of the relevant city (which I guess in some cases it is). I don't think fixing that is necessarily a prerequisite for FA status, though. — OwenBlacker 11:04, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Done. I think I will add a bit about the former cities of the UK too - ie the ones now in the Republic of Ireland. Morwen - Talk 13:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose In re "The Right Honourable"; I would like to ask that the sentence Six of these Lord Mayors and two of the Lord Provosts are styled "The Right Honourable" instead of "The Right Worshipful" - though they are not members of the Privy Council which this style usually indicates be rephrased, as it is now rather confusing. The new passage could indicate:

  That Lord Mayors generally use "The Right Worshipful,"

  That some Lord Mayors use "The Right Honourable" though not Privy Counsellors,

  That either style is applied to the office, not to the personal name (as in "The Right Honourable The Lord Mayor of X" rather than "The Right Honourable John Smith," etc.),

  That only Privy Counsellors use the form "The Right Honourable John Smith."

• Furthermore, the table needs to be, in my opinion, reformatted. The blank cells could be filled by non-breaking spaces; furthermore, "Right Hon. the Lord Mayor" should, IMHO, be replaced by "The Right Hon. The Lord Mayor," or, better still, "The Rt Hon. The Lord Mayor." In addition, perhaps the key could indicate that a hyphen indicates city status since time immemorial. Finally, it would be nice to have the now-Republic of Ireland's cities listed in the table, rather than at the end. -- Emsworth 15:26, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok - shall do those. With respect to the last suggestion, I think would be a bit political, not to mention confusing, to have the Irish cities treated in the same way as the cities in the remaining parts of the UK. Morwen - Talk 15:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, for the Irish cities, I was hoping for a table of the same format as the British cities: one column for "City," one for "Mayor," one for "Since," and one for "Cathedral" (we need not have a "Gov." column. -- Emsworth 16:26, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • Ah, ok. Done. Morwen - Talk 17:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Objections withdrawn. -- Emsworth 20:16, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Too many red links. The lists should be spun off, as they have very little to do with "city status of the UK". Article should be clarified to better discuss what "city status" means in an NPOV way. anthony (see warning)
  • I don't agree with splitting out the list. I think a list of entities with city status in the United Kingdom has a lot do with city status in the United Kingdom. Would any third parties like to comment? Morwen - Talk 12:12, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe it's just the title. How about cities in the United Kingdom? This would probably address the problem of explaining what "city status" means, also, by not using that term at all. anthony (see warning)
      • Have renamed and fixed redirs. Morwen - Talk 13:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • The red links alone aren't enough for me to object. Looks acceptable as of now. anthony (see warning) 13:36, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The Rochester thing: "lost this status as a result of an administrative error" — what the hey? This got me really intrigued; how can you de"city" a city through an administative error? It'd be great to flesh this paragraph out a little more, as it seems to be an interesting (and embarrassing) episode in the context. 2) Lead section needs to mention the historic relation to cathedrals, and the "informal" usage explaining, e.g., why London is / isn't a city. 3) Given the title of the article, should we consider adding a list of "unofficial" cities — settlements that might be classed as a "city" if they weren't in the UK? This would also help NPOV because "some have doubted the right of the Crown to define the word 'city' in the English language.". — Matt 17:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • All done. Morwen - Talk 17:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I've been musing on the name, a bit; I do think that the name was better as "City status in the United Kingdom, (or City designation, or Appointed cities or some such), because otherwise the article assumes too much that the "official" version of city is correct — it's quite odd to have an article called "Cities in the United Kingdom" where London isn't part of the main list.) — Matt 18:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, I can't possibly satisfy all the name objections at once ;) Nobody gets upset about the government claiming the right to define cities, really. it just gets ignored. Perhaps a difference could be made between 'city' and 'City' - but that isn't in general use either. Does this count as uncontested again? Morwen - Talk 18:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I, too, think City status was a better title. Difficult to call, though :-) James F. (talk) 19:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • "City status" is a better title. The Lord Chancellor's site, for example, refers to the "City status" contests so the phrase cannot be dismissed as never being used, etc. . -- Emsworth 00:33, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Support as is, name and all. Bmills 13:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Uncontested - Jul 1) Lawrence_v._Texas

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

(Previous nomination: Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations#June_2003.)

• Approve - It was a great artilce before your refactor and it is even better now. --mav 01:27, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Acegikmo1 21:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• The public response should be noted as well - this one was international news. Are pictures possible? e.g. notable reaction from the public? - David Gerard 10:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Nice pics! Who is the other guy in the second pic? Garner? The public reaction and news quotes should be a section, that would cover public reaction reasonably easily. See Hutton Inquiry for an excellent example of media reaction coverage, though I'm not asking for something that good - David Gerard 22:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Er. The pics really need why they are fair use. At present there's just a link to the source and the assertion this is fair use - David Gerard 22:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Done, thanks. Neutrality 02:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Aaand the lawyer pic! - David Gerard 16:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I'll withdraw the 'public reactions' objection if you can source the lawyer pic - the pics tell that story nicely - David Gerard 16:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Fine by me - David Gerard 15:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Suporting for good measure. Ambivalenthysteria 15:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Uncontested -- Jul 1) Prince-elector

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

• Looks good to me. The first image is a bit dark, but it's obvious the original painting is dark also...we're better off with it than without it, to borrow a phrase from Ann Landers. Jwrosenzweig 17:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I agree with Jwrosenzweig about the pictures, but it's an excellent article. I've just added a link to List of Reichstag participants (1792) in the last section, as the content is very closely related, but it's a fantastic article; good job! -- OwenBlacker 18:22, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 21:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Query: "The German monarchy has since time immemorial theoretically been elective rather than hereditary." — is it possible to be more precise? "since time immemorial" means "reaching beyond the limits of memory, tradition or recorded history" (dictionary.com); surely that can't be verifiable? — Matt 16:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know what the precise meaning is in German law, but in English law I believe it means "since before the time of King Richard I" i.e. 1189-1199. -- Arwel 16:49, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've removed the phrase "time immemorial." -- Emsworth 15:04, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Object: Some years (or rough periods in history) are needed in the lead section. — Matt 16:33, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Object. I don't know much about the topic, but it's very well-written and seems comprehensive. One thought: the topic covers over six hundred years of history, and the article goes into quite some detail at points (which is great) — because of this, one thing that might help a reader to get the overall picture would be a timeline / chronology. Would this be worth adding? — Matt 22:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with the idea; a timeline would, for the most part, be a repetition of the "Composition" section. -- 16:37, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Hmm...maybe; I've "unobjected" — my thought was it might be an easier way for a reader to get a grip on the entire chronology of the topic, complementing the "Composition" section (700 words long), and the events mentioned in the other sections. — Matt 16:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Contested -- Jul 1) Melbourne

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

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

(Contested -- Jul 1) Debian

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

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