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 10:19, 2 January 2013 editWehwalt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators152,563 edits see my comment on talk; we do not do badges of shame.← Previous edit Revision as of 13:35, 2 January 2013 edit undoWehwalt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators152,563 edits Per delegate's instruction http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AToday%27s_featured_article%2Frequests&diff=530915701&oldid=530915220Next edit →
Line 39: Line 39:
| 11 | 11
| 4 | 4
|-
! scope="row" | ]
| ]
| 11
| Centennial of birth, Vital Article (level 4), one year FA
| 17
| 1
|- |-
! scope="row" | ] ! scope="row" | ]
Line 164: Line 157:


*'''Regretful oppose''' for now per StringTheory11. And per my comment . More time is needed to work on the article, which (despite the FAC and despite the excellent work done to bring it to the level it reached) is not yet as comprehensive or detailed as it should be. ] (]) 00:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC) *'''Regretful oppose''' for now per StringTheory11. And per my comment . More time is needed to work on the article, which (despite the FAC and despite the excellent work done to bring it to the level it reached) is not yet as comprehensive or detailed as it should be. ] (]) 00:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

===January 9===
==== Richard Nixon ====
<div style="width: 55%; background-color: #f5fffa; border: 1px solid #cef2e0; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix">
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0;">
]
</div>
<div>

''']''' (1913–1994) was the ], serving from 1969 to 1974. He graduated from ] in 1934 and ] in 1937, returning to California to practice law. He served in the ] during ]. Nixon was elected to the ] in ] and to the ] in ]. He served for eight years as vice president, from 1953 to 1961, and waged an unsuccessful presidential campaign in ], narrowly losing to ]. In 1968, ] for president and was ]. He initially escalated the ], but ended US involvement in 1973. Nixon's ] to the People's Republic of China in 1972 opened diplomatic relations between the two nations. Though he presided over ], he scaled back manned space exploration. He was ] in 1972 despite a series of revelations in the ], which cost Nixon much of his political support in his second term, and on August 9, 1974 he resigned as president. In retirement, Nixon's work as an ], authoring several books and undertaking many foreign trips, helped to rehabilitate his public image. {{TFAFULL|Richard Nixon}}</div></div>
*'''11 points''' Centennial of birth (6) level 4 vital article (4) 1 year FA (1).--] (]) 07:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. - Obviously. ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 07:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
* '''Support''' 100th birthday! <span class="nowrap"><font color="purple">Canuck</font><small><sup><font color="purple">89</font> ]</small></sup> <small>08:34, December 6, 2012 (UTC)</small></span>
* '''Support'''. - Obviously. --] (]) 09:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
* '''Support''' important topic. --''']]]''' 09:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' blurb is about 1,570 characters, or 25% over the standard target length of 1,200 - Wehwalt, would you mind trimming it when you get a chance? Thanks, ]] 10:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
::I've cut it some.--] (]) 16:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
:::Now <s>1,236</s> 1,204 characters. ] (]) 19:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': No question. Points probably irrelevant here, but does the 20-day rule for noms with 5+ points not apply? ] (]) 11:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
**Yes, but the rule is 20 ''unscheduled'' days, not 20 days. At the time of writing, the next unscheduled day is 22nd December, and the 20th unscheduled day is 11th January, so this high-scoring (record score?) nom is legit. ]] 11:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''; very much looking forward to seeing such a prominent article featured. ] (]) 11:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Centennial is a one-time opportunity not to be missed, topic timely and interesting. Plenty of time to fix any minor glitches, none of which are significant to the issue of this excellent article being TFA for the date stated. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
{{hat|Suggestion made, suggestion answered. Hatting to ensure that nobody accidentally says something that someone else might regret. ]] 02:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)}}
Please audit the prose; a search reveals 16 instances of the word "however" in (See and for discussions of the overuse of however.) Although this issue was brought to Wehwalt's attention in ] after DCGeist copyedited an article and among other improvements, reduced the uses of "however" from 12 to 3, the overuse of "however" persists. Several of Wehwalt's recent FAs have improved on this score, but the older ones should be audited; it shouldn't require more than a few moments to review each FA. ] (]) 16:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
: Additionally, captions need to be audited for final punctuation throughout. The oversized images throughout will likely get objections when it runs on the mainpage (I see no reason for them to be oversized-- this isn't an article about art, for example, where there is a need to examine images closely since the article is about them). A bigger concern (back on prose) and an indication that a prose review is called for: see the image in ] and the caption: "Nixon chats with a future voter at the Washington Senators' 1969 Opening Day, with Baseball Commissioner Bowie Kuhn (to the right of Nixon), Senators owner Bob Short and Nixon aide Jack Brennan (in uniform)." The caption misidentifies several people (and the reference to a child as a "future voter" is unnecessarily cutesy and unencyclopedic). <p> Another sample, the opening blurb: "In retirement, Nixon's work authoring several books and undertaking many foreign trips helped to rehabilitate his public image as an elder statesman." Why "many"; what does that add? Why not just "rehabilitated his image"? His image problem that needed rehab wasn't about being an "elder statesman". Also, "Although Nixon initially escalated America's involvement in the ], he subsequently ended U.S. involvement in 1973." "Subsequently" is another overused word-- the 1973 seems to cover it. ] (]) 18:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
::: Update, one ] (]) 19:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
:::: Thank you. You also incorrectly changed an image format which had consensus, and you lack consensus to change the text of the caption as I object. Come on Sandy. Let's both walk away, shall we?--] (]) 19:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
:: The article below (]) also has 16 instances of "however" in . It's a new FA (August 2012) Should all articles be checked for these issues? ] (]) 21:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
::: All articles (here and at FAC) should be checked for lots of things, so I'm not sure I understand the question. Other than to say, "of course"; lots of stuff is sliding through. ] (]) 21:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
::::Just as a note I've looked over ] and reduced the ''however''s to five. I will read over my changes tomorrow to see if I've changed the meaning. Looking at the links above it seems the problem is misuse and overuse - I don't think it's now mis-used or overused in that article. However,{{sic}} I don't think a simple word count is helpful. ] (]) 22:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::I will of course check the article before it runs, and will give Sandy's suggestions the respect they deserve. (and yes, I'm aware that Sandy's trying to provoke conflict here, so the mild snarkiness in the last comment is the most she's going to get out of me)--] (]) 02:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
{{hab}}
*'''Support''', high quality educational and encyclopedic article on a dead politician, who has passed on, is no more, has ceased to be, bereft of life, may he rest in peace. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 18:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
::<small>Come on, he was a person, not a ] ;) ]&nbsp;<sup>(]&#124;])</sup> 05:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)</small>
:::Yay, someone got ]!!! :) &mdash; ''']''' (]) 17:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Fantastic article, centennial anniversary -- of course! ]&nbsp;<sup>(]&#124;])</sup> 05:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I had not noticed that the instruction set had been massively changed without significant discussion. I am reluctant to allow the article to run given the arbitrary nature of the changes, and now, of the instructions.--] (]) 07:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
::Where are we if the instructions (of minor importance to me) are in the way of showing an important historic person on his centenary? --] (]) 09:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
:::I see no reason to go through 24 hours of hell which this article on the main page will inevitably entail to give legitimacy to an arbitrary process. The article will still be there.--] (]) 09:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I'm confident that the article will be in perfect order by the birth centennial date, which is not to be missed. ] (]) 19:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' excellent date connection, though the image placement is far from ideal (IMHO). ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 20:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
::The image placement does not follow the ] ("Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection"), but this must be a TFA tradition ;) --] (]) 23:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
::: get easily termed "disruption of the TFA process", --] (]) 09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
::: Remember that "avoid" does not mean "never". It is just the less-preferred path. Due to the orientation of some images, and their necessary placement in text, sometimes the best solution is to not follow that guideline. An example of this is , as McKinley faces right in the cartoon, it must be a left-side image, and the image is best placed there as the image illustrates the "straddle bug" text nicely. This is something we trust editors with, and the article passed FAC like this, not that this makes it perfect but it's got something going for it.--] (]) 11:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
::::I remember. The guideline says "avoid", that translates to me to: generally it is better "right" but in specific cases "left" is preferable. The current TFA format, however, has it always "left" (at least to my observation so far), regardless of the picture orientation, --] (]) 11:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' When was the last time we had an article worth 11 points? ] (]) 14:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' ] (]) 15:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - No brainer as far as I am concerned! -- '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 05:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' and urge Wehwalt's preferences regarding the image be followed. ] (]) 19:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Question''' Why don't the images have alt text? --] (]) 19:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
:Alt text is not a FAC requirement. ] (]) 19:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
::No reason why something we promote as our best work '''shouldn't''' have alt text though, right? Or perhaps we should forget those viewers who read our FAs with screen readers. ] (]) 20:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
:::Well, criterion 2 of the ] requires the article follow the ], which states on ] that "Images should include an alt attribute..." ] (]) 20:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
::::Alt text is not a requirement but I will not oppose someone adding them. Or we can choose not to run it :) (given the grief I'm already taking on multiple pages over this article, I'd be happier if it didn't, actually).--] (]) 22:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' seems pretty obviously a good idea to me. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' mainly per the eccentric image placement policy in this article; giant images at the start of each section make the article unreadable on mobile devices, and the lack of alt text means that screen readers won't describe the images, in contravention of ]. Fixable? Yes. Our finest work that we would want to showcase? Not quite. --] (]) 09:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
::I'm not arguing with you, John, but I'm wondering if someone could take a look at the article on a smartphone and see what's going on? I'll do the same. I'll see if I can remember how to take a screenshot. It may be a problem with what browser is used.--] (]) 10:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
::: I just did. There's a problem when the mobile browser is used, though it's OK if the user happens to emulate the desktop appearance, which I always do. I'll play with it in a sandbox. If anyone is technically adept at these things please feel free to come to my talk, otherwise don't expect results soon. I have bronchitis and am also not motivated to edit right now because of hostile environment (see above).--] (]) 17:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
::::The centering of the image is causing the problem. I moved the first image left and it works on the mobile browser. John, as you opposed on this basis and I imagine checked it before doing so, can you confirm this? There's a bit of whitespace on right, so I will continue to play with it and when I find something satisfactory I will adapt it for the other images.--] (]) 17:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::Rather than change it unnecessarily, I brought it up on the IRC channel #wikimedia-mobile. I discussed it with Max Semenik, who is one of Wikimedia's software developers, and he filed a bug report which is available . He said it would be discussed today, he had no idea whether if it would be fixed by January 9. I will keep an eye on the matter, and if time is getting close, shift the images left or right (alternating has been suggested) and they will not appear as distorted.--] (]) 16:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::The developers have fixed the issue, and so the images appear now without distortion in the mobile platform, I just checked my iPhone and it looks fine. The explanation seems to be "We were setting a max-width but the height was left at the implicit original height of the image. Adding height: auto resolves this by keeping the aspect ratio neat." per .--] (]) 18:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' due to the image placement. It may not violate any guideline ''per se'', but it still makes the article cluttered and hard to read. <small>(Call it the inverse of ].)</small> -- ''']]''' <big>]</big> 20:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


===January 10=== ===January 10===

Revision as of 13:35, 2 January 2013

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 Supports Opposes
Nonspecific 1 Cracker Barrel 3 underrepresented; no similar within 6 months 1 0
Nonspecific 2
January 8 Stephen Hawking 8 birthday, vital article, no scientists for 6 months, 1st TFA for author 11 4
January 10 Metropolitan Railway 5 150th anniversary of opening, nom's first TFA 9 0
January 14 Adelaide leak 1 80th anniversary, 1yr FA, similar subject within one month 5 0
January 15 Hobey Baker 1 Date relevant to article topic 3 1
January 18 Over There (Fringe) 2 Date relevant to article topic 1 1
January 26 Douglas MacArthur 3 Birthday, vital article, recent US military biography 2 2

Tally may not be up to date; please do not use these tallies for removing a nomination according to criteria 1 or 3 above unless you have verified the numbers. The nominator is included in the number of supporters.

Nonspecific date nominations

Nonspecific date 1

A Cracker Barrel in Morrisville, NC

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. is an American chain of combined restaurant and gift stores with a Southern country theme. The company was founded by Dan Evins in 1969; its first store was in Lebanon, Tennessee, which remains the company headquarters. As of 2012, the chain operates 620 stores in 42 states. Its menu is based on traditional Southern cuisine, with appearance and decor designed to resemble an old-fashioned general store. Cracker Barrel is known for its partnerships with country music artists, and has received attention for its charitable activities, such as its assistance of victims of Hurricane Katrina and injured war veterans. During the 1990s, the company was the subject of controversy for its official stance against gay and lesbian employees and for discriminatory practices against African American and female employees. Following an agreement with the US Department of Justice and the implementation of non-discrimination policies, the company has focused on improving minority representation and civic involvement. Company shareholders added sexual orientation to the company's non-discrimination policy in 2002.(Full article...)

Nonspecific date 2

Specific date nominations

January 8

Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking (born 1942) is a British theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author. His significant scientific works have been a collaboration with Roger Penrose on theorems on gravitational singularities in the framework of general relativity, and the theoretical prediction that black holes emit radiation, often called Hawking radiation. He was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009. Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. Hawking has achieved success with works of popular science in which he discusses his own theories and cosmology in general; his A Brief History of Time stayed on the British Sunday Times best-sellers list for a record-breaking 237 weeks. Hawking has a motor neurone disease related to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a condition that has progressed over the years. He is almost entirely paralysed and communicates through a speech generating device. (Full article...)

information Note: Whichever delegate is scheduling for January 8 should check Talk:Stephen Hawking for the latest state of play about discussions concerning article content/quality. Bencherlite 19:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the corrections, I should stay away from math ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: The cn tags are all in one sentence, placed on separate clauses by a user with a contribs history that shows an obvious POV to push- an put there only a week after the article was promoted; apparently the lead editors haven't gone back and cleaned them up. This is an extremely minor nitpick. The TFA is appropriate, and any minor copyediting can and undoubtably will be completed prior to the main page appearance Montanabw 21:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Good faith should indicate that an established user, who says that an assertion is not in the cited source, is familiar with that source. Good faith should also make us reluctant to accuse established users of pushing a POV. Articles appearing on the main page should be free of such concerns. Has anyone active on the article, or this nomination, contacted the user who added the tags? Kablammo (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi everybody, I was the editor who took the article though GA and it's various FA stages (which I couldn't have done without the help and support of a large number of other editors) - and it is really extremely gratifying to find out that it is being considered for front-page status. Thank you so much for the nomination. For some general information, the editor who added the citation tags is an admin, and so it should probably be taken seriously. I'd really appriate it if a senior editor would have a go at straightening those sections out. I can certainly put some time into any other concerns raised - Kablammo - can you give me some examples of sections were copyediting would be particularly useful? SandyGeorgia has raised some issues on the talk page and I'm going to potter down and respond to them now. :) Fayedizard (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I would be happy to, Fayedizard. I cannot today, but will post them to article talk page, or (if you wish) copyedit myself. Nudge me if you don't hear from me soon. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
That's great - looking forward to working with you. By the way - I'm( I believe) the significant contributor to the article, and I've never had a front-page before - does that mean we get another point? (I'll be honest, I'm a bit out of my deapth with the process...) Fayedizard (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Normally, the easy answer would be yes, but there was just a change to the instructions about the nominator point that is still Greek To Me, so I asked for clarification on talk. With 7 points, you won't likely need any more :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The easy answer is still yes. You can claim the point, but no-one can claim it on your behalf - that's not changed. 8 points. Bencherlite 13:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
And yet it is indeed a Featured Article, and will be for the period including TFA, even if Sandy or someone else takes it to FAR. I, for one, do not think the article is so poorly written that it should be stripped of its FA status. Nonetheless, I appreciate the views of those who think it needs a total rewrite, and I commend any such critics who step up to the task. There is no rule that says an FA must remain unchanged. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Um, the banner is (I think) relating to a conversation on the talk about (I think) moving some of the lists. The list structure as it is now is the one that it passed FA with. I'm honestly completely confused and would appreciate some more eyes on the matter. :s Fayedizard (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I think that some of the parties involved there are creating unneeded drama, and that should have some bearing on this matter; that's all I have to say. Still support TFA, and the list thing probably just needs one list moved down with the others. Montanabw 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
On the drama; hear, hear! Best way to avoid that is to comment on content, not editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment earlier in the week I rang Hawking's press officer to a) let the team there know this was happening, b) give the team time check that there were no objections to the frontpaging from any of the family c) given them time to look over the article for any inaccuracies and omissions. I rang back today and was (slightly shortly) told there were no problems from their end. I don't think this should necessarily be taken as a ringing testimonial - "no problems" could be anywhere from 'I've taken a quick look and we don't see anything obviously libelous' to 'we've had one of Hawking's colleges check the science', via 'we simple don't care about what you guys on wikipedia do'. I'm noting it here because I was a little nervous of for throwing BLPs at the front page without notifying them first, I'm interested to know if this is standard practice. Fayedizard (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose The article as it stands does not represent our best work. See the detailed discussion on the talk page about several fairly serious problems with the article. --John (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per John. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose I agree with many of the concerns brought up at the talk page. In addition to (relatively minor) prose and MoS issues, I think the coverage is too thin and the article does not meet FA criteria 1b ("comprehensive"). Sasata (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Absolutely. Totally deserves to be on the main page TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. FAC inflationists have been complaining that the article isn't comprehensive enough, but I would contend that most of our featured bios these days are much too long and tedious. 50K used to be considered quite lengthy. Ah the good old days! Kaldari (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Would it be long and tedious to explain why this famous scientist is famous? At the moment the article doesn't really do that. --John (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
    • People familiar with FAC don't tend to measure quality or comprehensiveness in terms of KB, but FWIW, the article passed FAC with a mere 2,700 words of prose (shocking for a bio of a person of this caliber); it is now at 3,400 words, which by no means taxes the reader. The article does not yet address why this man is so famous, and we don't measure comprehensiveness of an article based on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. By the way, who are these "FAC inflationists"? I've always complained about articles that are too long, which is pretty much anything above 7,000 words; is Kaldari opposing those on this page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Update, the article is slowly being written using the numerous biographies available, with significant inaccuracies, prose infelicities, lack of comprehensiveness, misrepresentation of sources, and a BLP vio found so far. Changes since featured version; the talk page lists many issues that remain to be addressed, and the article does not yet meet FA standards for prose, comprehensiveness, or survey of high quality sources. Slp1, MathewTownsend, and John are rewriting (I've pretty much done only MOS cleanup and prose redundancy reduction); Brianboulton offered to copyedit later, but text is still being corrected and added. The citation needed tags (still being addressed) had been in place since September, and the original editor has been mostly absent since the article was promoted. An article about a popular figure like Hawking really should be watched. Because the article is now being written, it will eventually need a FAR to make sure standards are met. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Regretful oppose for now. Although we really need to get science articles on the main page rather than the pop culture that's been appearing there lately, this article is not good enough to be featured. The article gives way too much weight to his early life and personal life, and does not go into nearly enough detail on his scientific accomplishments, which is arguably the most important section. This is not to mention the incredibly ugly "in popular culture" section, which, frankly, does not deserve its own section. Simply, the necessary content on his discoveries is not here, and the article gives undue weight to minor curiosities, such as the Thorne-Hawking bet. However, I am almost inclined to support this due to the fact that it is a science article, and we need many more of those on the main page, rather than this popculture-cruft, and that the FA standards are often impossible for technical science articles to meet. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I am not in favor of the notion of running two bios back-to-back, and Nixon follows this with considerable support. Further, this article cannot be brought to anywhere close to FA standards by January 8. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Your standards are high, but we still have 10 days until then. Two, three, and even four bios in a row have been scheduled in the past, for example: in September 5-7, 14-16, in October 12-13, 23-26, in November 4-5, 11-12, in December 1-2, 13-14, 24-25
  • Regretful oppose for now per StringTheory11. And per my comment here. More time is needed to work on the article, which (despite the FAC and despite the excellent work done to bring it to the level it reached) is not yet as comprehensive or detailed as it should be. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

January 10

Metropolitan Railway

A steam locomotive and carriage in a tunnel The Metropolitan Railway opened the world's first underground line on 10 January 1863, connecting the mainline railway termini at Paddington, Euston and King's Cross to London's financial heart in the City using gas-lit wooden carriages hauled by steam locomotives. The railway was soon extended and completed the Inner Circle in 1884, but the most important route became the line to Verney Junction in Buckinghamshire, more than 50 miles (80 kilometres) from London. Electric traction was introduced in 1905 and by 1907 electric multiple units operated most of the services. The Railway developed land for housing and after World War I promoted housing estates near the railway with the "Metro-land" brand. On 1 July 1933, the Metropolitan Railway was amalgamated with the railways of the Underground Electric Railways Company of London and the capital's tramway and bus operators to form the London Passenger Transport Board. (Full article...)

On 10 January it will be the 150th anniversary of the opening of London Underground's first line by the Metropolitan Railway between Paddington and Farringdon. There are four points for the anniversary, and one point as I am a significant contributor and I have not previously had a TFA. I'm not claiming any 'similar article' points as we had Horseshoe Curve (Pennsylvania) on 13 November — although that's placed in the Geography and places section on Misplaced Pages:Featured_articles and the previous article to appear from the Transport section was Herne Hill railway station on 25 August — therefore 5 points. Edgepedia (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been concerned that that drawing has several inaccuracies and has been commonly used as an image of the Metropolitan opening when it's set a few years later. It is atmospheric, but I have problems making out details of that image (the one on the left above) at the 125px size for the Main Page — I think the train is lost. However, a tighter crop (right above) perhaps shows the details better? How do those images show on other people*s monitors? Edgepedia (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the enormous amount of space around the train in the drawing and as shown in the crop, that I think is down to artistic licence/marketing. How about a different crop? Edgepedia (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
A Metropolitan Railway electric locomotive

:I've changed the image and left the original one here in case anyone has a reason not to use the new one. Edgepedia (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

January 14

Adelaide leak

Bill Woodfull The Adelaide leak was the revelation to the press of a dressing-room incident during the third cricket Test match of the "Bodyline" series. During the course of play on 14 January 1933, the Australian Test captain Bill Woodfull was struck over the heart by a ball delivered by Harold Larwood. On his return to the dressing room, Woodfull was visited by the England manager Pelham Warner who enquired after Woodfull's health, but to Warner's embarrassment, the latter said he did not want to speak to him owing to England's Bodyline tactics. The matter became public knowledge when someone present leaked the exchange to the press; such leaks were practically unknown at the time. In the immediate aftermath, many people assumed Jack Fingleton, a full-time journalist, was responsible. Fingleton later wrote that Donald Bradman, Australia's star batsman, disclosed the story. Bradman always denied this, and continued to blame Fingleton. Woodfull's earlier public silence on the tactics had been interpreted as approval; the leak was significant in persuading the Australian public that Bodyline was unacceptable. (Full article...)

Two points for 80th anniversary of the incident, one point for promotion over a year ago (February 2011). However, last sports article scheduled is for 22 December, so loses two points (the last cricket article was October 13). So that makes 1 point I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

January 15

Hobey Baker

Hobey Baker Hobey Baker (1892–1918) was an American amateur athlete of the early twentieth century. Considered the first American star in ice hockey by the Hockey Hall of Fame, he was also an accomplished football player. Born into a prominent family from Philadelphia, he enrolled at Princeton University in 1910. Baker excelled on the university's hockey and football teams, and became a noted amateur hockey player for the St. Nicholas Club in New York City. He was a member of three national championship teams, for football in 1911 and hockey in 1912 and 1914, and helped the St. Nicholas Club win a national amateur championship in 1915. Baker graduated from Princeton in 1914 and worked for J.P. Morgan Bank until he enlisted in the United States Army Air Service. During World War I he served with the 103rd and the 13th Aero Squadrons before being promoted to captain and named commander of the 141st Aero Squadron. Baker died in December 1918 after a plane he was test-piloting crashed, hours before he was due to leave France and return to America. In 1921, Princeton named its new hockey arena the Hobey Baker Memorial Rink. The Hobey Baker Award is presented annually to the best collegiate hockey player in the United States. (Full article...)

Date relevant to article topic = 1 point. Similar article not showed in over 6 months. (The similar article is the Hockey Hall of Fame) = 2 points.--Lucky102 (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please add to the summary chart at the top of the page; this doesn't show in TOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Nice to see a hockey article Canuck 05:29, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
  • 1 point at most as sports biographies are sports biographies, and TFAR does not sub-divide similarity by sport (and certainly not by whether or not sportsmen are in a hall of fame). I note also that a sports article is nominated for 14th January and that, if Kenneth Walker runs on 5th January, Baker would be the third US airman killed in battle to appear within 6 weeks. Blurb expanded to proper length, years of birth and death added, full names cut. Bencherlite 11:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Article seems suitable for TFA, but we seem to be pretty sports-heavy, particularly if Adelaide Leak runs the previous day. Maybe next month? Montanabw 22:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It would be sub-optimal to run two sports articles back-to-back, and one is proposed for the 14th; why is this article not proposed in one of the non-date-specific slots, to give the delegates some leeway on choice of date? Those slots are empty. Also, point tally would be negative when we substract for similar articles (14th, and airmen). Also, there are four biographies on the page now, back-to-back sports, and three airmen killed in battle in a little over a month; delegates will have to overlook something that has community support to maintain mainpage diversity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

January 18

Over There (Fringe)

Anna Torv "Over There" is the two-part second-season finale of the Fox science fiction drama series Fringe. Both parts were written by Academy Award-winning screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, together with showrunners Jeff Pinkner and J. H. Wyman. Goldsman also served as director. Fringe's premise is based on the idea of two parallel universes, our own and the Other Side, each of which contains historical idiosyncrasies. The two universes began to clash in 1985, after Dr. Walter Bishop (John Noble) stole the parallel universe version of his son, Peter, following his own son's death. The finale's narrative recounts what happens when Peter (Joshua Jackson) is taken back to the Other Side by his real father, dubbed "Walternate" (Noble). FBI agent Olivia Dunham (Anna Torv, pictured) and Walter lead a team of former Cortexiphan test subjects to retrieve him, after discovering that Peter is an unwitting part of Walternate's plans to bring about the destruction of our universe using an ancient doomsday device. Part one aired on May 13, 2010 to an estimated 5.99 million viewers, while part two broadcast a week later to 5.68 million. Both episodes received overwhelmingly positive reviews. (Full article...)

2 points -- Jan 18 will be the series finale of the American science fiction series Fringe, so I thought I'd give it a good send-off (1 pt for date relevance). This article was promoted in July 2011 (1 pt). As far as I can tell, no television episode will have appeared within a month of this date. This is the first time I've nominated an article that I've significantly contributed to, though Caroline of Ansbach ran earlier this year. Ruby 2010/2013 18:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose:We just ran a South Park episode; seems like another TV series is not a priority. Nothing personal, just seems like we have something more interesting out there that has more potential points. Montanabw 20:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I understand your concerns. But just looking at the other potential TFAs in January (4 historical biographies, one sports incident, and this), I think this article would actually be adding some diversity. Ruby 2010/2013 21:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I have to agree with Montanabtw; I'd like to think there is a large enough variety of featured content left to make the front page without having two television episodes run within five weeks of each other. Perhaps not...--Chimino (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

January 26

Douglas MacArthur

MacArthur in Manila, 1945 Douglas MacArthur (1880–1964) was an American general who played a prominent role in the Pacific theater during World War II. He received the Medal of Honor, and was one of only five men to rise to the rank of General of the Army in the U.S. Army, and was the only man to become a field marshal in the Philippine Army. After graduating first in his class from West Point in 1903, he participated in the 1914 United States occupation of Veracruz and served on the Western Front during World War I, becoming the U.S. Army's youngest and most highly decorated major general. Thereafter he held a variety of posts, including Chief of Staff of the United States Army. He retired in 1937, but was recalled to active duty during World War II. After the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, he escaped with his family and staff to Australia, where he became Supreme Commander, Southwest Pacific Area. He fulfilled a famous pledge to return to the Philippines, and officially accepted Japan's surrender on 2 September 1945. He oversaw the occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1951, implementing many reforms, and led the United Nations Command in the Korean War until President Harry Truman relieved him of his commands in April 1951. (Full article...)

3 points: Vital article (4 points) + date relevance (1 point) - another article on a Medal of Honor winner (Walker on 5 January) (2 points). After MacArthur returned to the United States in 1951, his former staff and subordinates began gathering together annually at his penthouse at the Waldorf Towers in New York to celebrate his birthday. After his death, they continued to hold a reunion every year, but at varying locations, including a visit to Australia in 1974 hosted by Sir Edmund Herring. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Blurb tweaked to c.1,200 characters, feel free to tinker if you feel I've got the balance wrong. Bencherlite 20:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Haven't we had a lot of military figures recently? Birthday is an obvious date, just wondering if we have been a little heavy on military officers, particularly American ones? This isn't an oppose, just a question> Montanabw 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • There were two in December (Jesse Brown and William the Conqueror), and this will make it two in January (with Kenneth Walker). I am one of the guilty parties who writes a lot of military biographies. MacArthur is probably the best known though, and I'm sure the article will attract a great deal of interest. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
    True enough about interest, and William the Conqueror is a dramatically different character; just thought there'd been a lot of 20th century military articles recently, so figured I'd raise the issue in case it was an issue. Montanabw 18:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I would have run this on 5 April 2014 (fifty years since death) as there's more date relevance, but I've got no objection to this nom either. Sceptre 23:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support MacArthur is quite well known and accomplished a great many things, so there are a number of dates that this would work for. I would be fine with this running on the date suggested. I copyedited the blurb a bit. NW (Talk) 06:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article has always been too hagiographic. Too often it gives Big Mac the podium with long quotes that are not his most famous. (1. "By profession I am a soldier..." 2. "My strategic conception for the Pacific Theater..." 3. "The Japanese people since the war..." 4. "For five hours I toured the front..." 5. "I am closing my 52 years..." 6. "The shadows are lengthening...") Only the fifth quote should be present, and it should be trimmed down to the most famous bit: "...I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty." I'm surprised that the biography does not include one of his more famous quotes about the "misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear." That one seems to me more applicable to modern times than rah-rah sentiments about the "hordes of death" and "the battalions of life". In general, Wikiquote is where the lengthy quotes should be taken, not here. The bare statement in Misplaced Pages's voice, "a later generation would rediscover his philosophy of war, and see it as far-sighted", is just too much, as there is nothing like consensus on Mac's controversial legacy. The word "relief" repeatedly used for him getting fired by Truman is a powder puff replacement for the club Truman used. At the same time, the "Legacy" section does not emphasize quite enough how much respect is given MacArthur today for his guidance over occupied Japan. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The word "relief" is technically correct; we went over this ground repeatedly with the dismissal article. It is not true though, that Truman personally relieved him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Binksternet. I see a lot of unresolved discussion on the article talk page from months ago which could if pursued resolve the issues with this article. I don't feel right meantime in promoting this as our best work. --John (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Category: