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 20:55, 4 November 2009 editTonyTheTiger (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers400,474 edits →Summary chart: update points← Previous edit Revision as of 20:58, 4 November 2009 edit undoMattisse (talk | contribs)78,542 edits →November 24: supportNext edit →
Line 160: Line 160:
*'''Support''', obvious choice. ]] 20:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC) *'''Support''', obvious choice. ]] 20:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''', a very significant anniversary year for this publication which has continued to attract attention worldwide. . . ], ] 20:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC) *'''Support''', a very significant anniversary year for this publication which has continued to attract attention worldwide. . . ], ] 20:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Agree with above statements about the significance of date and the publication. —] (]) 20:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


===November 30=== ===November 30===

Revision as of 20:58, 4 November 2009

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

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

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

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

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Shortcuts

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to post a new nomination:

I. Create the nomination subpage.

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


II. Write the nomination.

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

Your nomination should mention:

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

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

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

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

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

Scheduling:

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

Summary chart

Currently accepting requests from February 1 to March 3.

Date Article Points Notes Supports Opposes
November 14 William III of England 3–4 359th Anniversary of birth 5 0
November 15 Prairie Avenue -1 or 3 27-year anniversary of National Register of Historic Places listing. 3 0
November 18 Chrono Cross 1 10-year anniversary of release; promoted over 2 years ago 4 0
November 24 On the Origin of Species 5 150th anniversary of publication. 3 0
November 30 Scotland national football team 3 Date of first ever game and St. Andrews day. 2 0

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.

Requests

November 14

A portrait of King William III standing, facing the viewer's right, and wearing armor
William III of England

William III of England (1650–1702) was the Prince of Orange, Stadtholder of the main provinces of the Dutch Republic, and King of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Born a member of the House of Orange-Nassau, William III won the English, Scottish and Irish crowns following the Glorious Revolution, in which his uncle and father-in-law, James II, was deposed. In England, Scotland and Ireland, William ruled jointly with his wife, Mary II, until her death in 1694. A Protestant, William participated in several wars against the powerful Catholic King Louis XIV of France in coalition with Protestant and Catholic powers in Europe. Many Protestants heralded him as a champion of their faith. Largely due to that reputation, William was able to take the British crowns where many were fearful of a revival of Catholicism under James. William's victory over James II at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 is commemorated by the Orange Institution in Northern Ireland to this day. His reign marked the beginning of the transition from the personal rule of the Stuarts to the more Parliament-centered rule of the House of Hanover. (more...)

Four points: 2 for its long tenure as FA (more than four years), one for it being basic subject matter, and one for the anniversary -- Nov. 4 (old style) was his birthday (1650) and wedding day (1677), and the date his fleet arrived off of Brixham, England to start the Glorious Revolution (1688). Coemgenus 23:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - At first glance I'll generally support this, BUT we have to get the dates straight. Footnote 1 in the article was very confusing regarding New style vs. Old style (Gregorian vs. Julian) dates, but I believe that we have to use the New Style dates (after all you are proposing it for November 4 - New Style). So the proper date of the anniversary would be November 14 - New Style. Maybe it was just a bad day, but I thought I understood OS vs NS until I read the article, so that might suggest that the article should be worked on a bit, re: the dates. Smallbones (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the footnote about OS/NS is correct, but the bit about the New Year starting on March 25 in England is confusing. I wrote it, and it confuses me a little. I'll try to work on it. As to the date for featuring, I think Nov. 4 makes sense, since that was the date people remember, even if by modern reckoning it would be Nov. 14. Coemgenus 22:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd still be more comfortable with Nov. 14. Smallbones (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I agree, it should be November 14, this is like having GW's birthday on February 11. True in one sense, not true in another. Also query point for basic subject matter. Our precedent on this was William IV which was felt not to be basic subject matter.

I don't have a strong preference about the date, I just submitted it for Nov. 4 because that seemed appropriate to me. Guy Fawkes Night is still commemorated on November 5, even though it happened on November 15 (N.S.). And William's arrival at Tor Bay on the 4th (he came ashore the next day, the 5th) is connected with that anniversary, as both have to do with religious turmoil in Britain. But, as I said, if there's consensus for the 14th, I'm not going to pitch a fit about it. I changed the heading to reflect this ongoing discussion.
As to the William IV comparison, I think William III has a much more substantial place in history. Likewise, I'd say William I (the Conqueror) is basic subject matter, while William II is not. They're all kings, but some were more noteworthy than others. Coemgenus 21:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree on the place in history bit. But does he get taught to 12 year olds?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
In the United States? No. In the United Kingdom or Ireland? I don't know. I'd be glad to hear what some British or Irish editors think. Coemgenus 21:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
In Northern Ireland? Probably the single best-known historical figure other than Jesus, albeit as a hate-figure among a significant proportion of the community; The Twelfth is still a public holiday in N.I. (and, oddly, in Newfoundland). From that perspective, undoubtedly a core topic in Irish studies. – iridescent 21:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought he would be kind of a big deal there. The Twelfth, incidentally, is also an old-style date that we still commemorate. Coemgenus 21:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Could we have alt text added to the blurb and article? — Dispenser 05:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support for Nov. 14 - might still be convinced for Nov. 4. As far as basic subject matter (bsm)point, let's hear from the Brits. It should be basic subject matter in the US, but isn't. After all the Glorious Revolution set the stage for the American Revolution, set the Parliament above the King in the UK, but ... He probably is bsm in Northern Ireland, with some pluses and minuses that go with it. Smallbones (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree that this is not basic subject matter for US, as we are learning to look at our history from a broader spectrum, but so what? —mattisse (Talk) 22:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support for either date. A great article that illuminates important events in English, Scottish, Irish and Dutch history. I would be shocked if it is not basic subject matter in the UK (I know it is in parts of Northern Ireland). As an extra bonus it has nothing at all to do with atheletics.Rusty Cashman (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Until we hear from the Brits, I've reduced this inthe summary chart to 3 points. I'm just not certain they teach that kinda history to 12 year olds. At least not today.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    They do (or we do). It's certainly taught at Key Stage 3. Yomangani 14:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It's a tough question. I looked at the Key Stage 3 (11-14) materials, and there is mention of the kids learning the altering relationship between the rulers and the ruled. So no doubt they study the Glorious Revolution/Bill of Rights/Claim of Right. Does that mean they've studied William III? Look at it this way, they are bound to study the Reform Act 1832. Does that mean they've studied William IV? Probably not, and we decided IV was not basic subject matter. Let's keep this as a disputed point and wait to see what other community members think.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
      • My gut feeling here is that III played a pivotal part in the Glorious Revolution - it couldn't have happened like that without him and his influence - whilst IV's involvement in the changes of the 1830s was mostly driven by events, and probably would have happened had someone else been there. I don't know about the rule of thumb we conventionally use here for "basic subject matter" - and the Glorious Revolution is probably one of the less taught parts of history in that syllabus - but he's certainly got more claim to it than his namesake. Shimgray | talk | 18:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
        • The Glorious Revolution is very embedded in the competing royal personalities in a way that the Reform Act is not. Wills and Mary were acceptable, Jimmy was not is the start point, especially when brought to the level of a 12 year old. Thus Will III is intrinsically part of the topic. Surprised it's in KS3 though - I "did" it at A Level. <rant>Thank the lord they seem to have moved away from "ancient history for the littluns, modern for the older ones" that's <OR> led to an incredibly recentist view of history in British society. </OR></rant>--Dweller (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Of course, a lot of it was religion, which I really doubt they push on 12 year olds. 11 to 14 is a broad range, and I doubt that 12 year olds, under the best circumstances learn more than William III's name and origin. And possibly religion.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Given my extremely jaundiced view of GCSEs, I'm probably not the best person to disagree with you, lol, but on that basis, we'd discount every single historical figure - on the basis of the British educational system, anyway. Which of course is absurd. Lol. --Dweller (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
            • I agree, the British educational system is absurd. The basic subject matter point is awarded for being basic subject matter that a 12 year old could use for a report. Since if taken literally that is almost impossibly broad, in practice, we look to see if it is a matter that is taught in the classroom. Since most of us are not 12 year olds, though we sometimes act like same, we look to our own memories, what we can find out about school curricula and what we think of as common sense.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Not a basic subject-matter IMO, but still worthy of the main page. –Juliancolton |  14:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - on reflection, most probably four points, but certainly three either way. Shimgray | talk | 17:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, I'm surprised we aren't considering basic subject matter for either The Netherlands or Western Europe, considering how important William of Orange is in the anti-Sun King coalition. NW (Talk) 00:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what Biography conventions or Manual of style say, but the Old Style birthday is not listed in th lead, as it is at Samuel Johnson; might I suggest, also, moving this to Nov. 14, unless there is a compelling reason to use Nov. 4? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment – Came to this and had a look for evidence to support importance of the topic. King Billy has considerable significance in Scotland as well as Ireland, and his accession and dealings with intitial civil wars initiated the hugely significant constitutional dispute of Jacobitism over the rights of Parliament over monarchs, and a series of risings or attempted invasions, but these aspects seem to be not covered or barely touched on in the article, which doesn't even mention that he was present at the Battle of the Boyne. Had a look for the equivalent of Key Stage information, but Scottish school history studies seem to be focussed on more recent history so no evidence there of significance. Sadly, can't support it in light of these issues. . . dave souza, talk 18:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

November 15

Image of a side of a stone building Prairie Avenue is a north–south thoroughfare on the South Side of Chicago, which historically extended from 16th street in the Near South Side community area of Chicago to the city's southern limits and beyond. The street has a rich history from its origins as a major trail for horseback riders and carriages. During the last three decades of the 19th century, a six-block section of the street served as the residence of many of Chicago’s elite families and an additional four-block section was also known for grand homes. The upper six-block section includes the historic Prairie Avenue District, which was declared a Chicago Landmark and added to the National Register of Historic Places. Several of Chicago's most important historical figures have lived on the street, especially after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 when many of the most important families in the city moved to the street. Preservation battles regarding properties on the street have been notable with one having been chronicled on the front page of The New York Times. As of 2009, the street is being redeveloped. Redevelopment has extended the street north to accommodate new high-rise condominiums, such as One Museum Park, along Roosevelt Road (12th street) and bordering Grant Park. (more...)
  • Minus one point Yes, I-355 is a bit busier than Prairie Ave, but both are black with stripes, have cars running up and down them, and a lot of the drivers are White Sox fans. I say similarity, and two weeks or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I *think* there is, but I can't recall which and I could be mistaken (it can be found somewhere way back in the talk archives, when we originally set up the points). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

readded at 17:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC). Had been removed at 23:43, 3 November 2009.

I am contesting whether modern highways and historic streets are the same type of article. The case could be made that they are as different as athletes and sports teams, which are considered different. When I read this article and the November 4 TFA Interstate 355. I do not feel that they are the same type of article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. note that these are in different sections at WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

November 18

Image of Hiromichi Tanaka, a Japanese man who produced Chrono Cross; he is wearing a blue shirt and leather jacket in front of a poster depicting a character from the Final Fantasy series of games
Hiromichi Tanaka
Chrono Cross is a console role-playing game developed and published by Square (now Square Enix) for the Sony PlayStation video game console. It is the sequel to Chrono Trigger, which was released in 1995 for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Chrono Cross was developed by Masato Kato and produced by Hiromichi Tanaka. Composer Yasunori Mitsuda scored and Nobuteru Yūki designed characters. The story of Chrono Cross focuses on a teenage boy named Serge and a theme of parallel worlds. Faced with an alternate reality in which he died as a child, Serge searches for the truth of the worlds' split. Upon its release in Japan in 1999 and in the United States in 2000, Chrono Cross received high ratings and critical acclaim, earning a rare perfect 10.0 score from GameSpot. The game shipped 1.5 million copies worldwide, leading to a Greatest Hits re-release and continued life in Japan as part of the Ultimate Hits series. (more...)

November 24

Image notebook page with a crude sketch of an evolutionary tree and hand written notes On the Origin of Species, published by Charles Darwin in 1859, is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Darwin's book presented evidence that the diversity of life arose through a branching pattern of evolution with common descent caused by the mechanism of natural selection. Prior to its publication various evolutionary ideas had been proposed to explain new findings in biology, but the English scientific establishment was closely tied to the Church of England, and ideas about the transmutation of species conflicted with beliefs that species were unchanging parts of a designed hierarchy and that humans were unrelated to animals; such ideas were not accepted by the scientific mainstream. The book attracted widespread interest, and generated scientific, philosophical, and religious discussion. This debate contributed to efforts to secularize science by promoting scientific naturalism. Within two decades there was widespread scientific agreement that evolution had occurred, but until the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 20th century there was much less agreement on the significance of natural selection. (more...)

5 points, 4 for 150th anniversary of publication and 1 for basic subject matter. There has been a lot of attention (including the release of a feature length film, a 2 hour Nova special on PBS, and numerous articles and books) paid to both Darwin and Origin recently, as 2009 contians both the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of this book's publication, which in my opinion makes this a particularly appropriate nomination. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

November 30

The Scotland national football team represents Scotland in international football and is controlled by the Scottish Football Association. Scotland are the joint oldest national football team in the world, alongside England, whom they played in the world's first international football match in 1872. The majority of Scotland's home matches are held at the national stadium, Hampden Park, with friendly matches sometimes hosted at club stadiums. Scotland have qualified for the FIFA World Cup and the UEFA European Football Championship several times, but have never progressed beyond the first stage of a tournament. The team have achieved some noteworthy results, such as beating the 1966 FIFA World Cup winners England 3–2 in 1967. Archie Gemmill scored what has been described as one of the greatest World Cup goals ever in a 3–2 win during the 1978 World Cup against Holland. In their qualifying group for UEFA Euro 2008, Scotland defeated 2006 World Cup runners-up France 1–0 in both fixtures. Scotland's supporters are collectively known as the Tartan Army. Their traditional rivals are England, whom they played annually from 1872 until 1989, but there have only been three senior level fixtures since then. (more...)
Category: