Contents 1 Canadian Senate 2 Warren County Canal 3 Dorset 4 Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 5 Canadian House of Commons 6 Louis Riel 7 Kalimpong 8 Geology of the Grand Canyon area 9 Eldfell 10 Francis Petre 11 Diamond 12 Dream Theater 13 Palace of Westminster 14 Samantha Smith 15 Sly & the Family Stone 16 Diego Velázquez 17 Polish-Soviet War 18 Order of St. Patrick 19 Moorgate 20 Speaker of the British House of Commons 21 Bath 22 United Kingdom corporation tax 23 Stuttering 24 Ta-Yuan 25 Goa 26 Automatic number plate recognition 27 Hydrochloric acid 28 1755 Lisbon earthquake 29 Swastika 30 Apollo 8

Canadian Senate

-- Emsworth 19:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support, although could use one or two more pictures. (Getting pretty cocky, eh Emsworth? Not even bothering to explain your case in the description and marking it as a minor edit? Haha!) plattopus^talk 19:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I have very rarely made comments when nominating, aside from "self nomination" or some such phrase. -- Emsworth 20:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Phils 21:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support because what is there is very good. Observations for improvement: 1) I'd really like to see some inline citations, using whatever format you like, Wikipedia:Footnote3, and Template talk:Inote (invisible notes) are good ones. 2) There is still room for significant wikification it seems. 3) The power of the Governor General to "stack the deck" with eight extra Senators seems important enough to note in the lead as an example of the Senate's lack of power, but I'd leave that to your discretion. - Taxman 21:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • I chose not to include that power in the lead, since it is so rarely used, and is rather obscure. (It has only been used once in the past 140+ years.) -- Emsworth 22:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I think the article should include something about the Senate's role in the dispute over the 1989 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Mwalcoff 07:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Lorddude 04:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) This looks pretty good.

Warren County Canal

Self-nom. The story of a short branch of the Miami and Erie Canal in southwest Ohio. I started this on April 15, 2005, and it was today featured on the main page's Did you know? feature. It won't break the record for speediest time from creation to featured status (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-04-11/Speed feature) but I hope it is ready. It has a bibliography, much of it linked to transcriptions available on line. It is a thorough account of its short existance. Before anyone asks, no, I don't have any photographs or any way to post them if I did. Finally, I'd like to thank User:Bobblewik who kindly metrified my measurements. PedanticallySpeaking 15:52, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• This article is pretty good, but would it be at all possible to get a picture? It would really help the reader get a sense of the place. This is not an objection. Meelar (talk) 18:25, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support The content and presentation are nicely balanced, references excellent. Maybe one of our WP map and diagram makers could help, as it is hard to picture it. Time period was before photography was very widepread. Vaoverland 19:26, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I was thinking a photo of the area today, but a diagram and map would also be very helpful. Meelar (talk) 19:29, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Pretty much bullet-proof by my standards. I concur with User:Meelar that a diagram or a map of the canal itself would be helpful. Phils 19:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• object a) you state that it consumed water at [..] 1800 cubic feet per minute (850 L/s) [..]. Bogen says it was 2000 cubic feet[..] which kind of implies Bogen was clearly wrong. Could you give the source of the other claim and the reason why it's more certain. Possibly you could just say "between 1800^[1] and 2000^[2] cubic feet per minute." and give the source of each claim in a footnote. This continues through the article (forty-acre (162,000 m²) reservoir vs. forty-five acre (182,000 m²) lake) In any case, it would be best to try to clear this up. b) it would be helpful to be able to relate which reference relates to which section of text. You could use "invisible references" or footnotes to help with this. Mozzerati 19:48, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

• I would always support greater referencing, but 2000 is well within the range of simple rounding of a more accurate figure. Considering significant figures, variability, and measurement error, asking for more precision where it might not be available is asking for false information. - Taxman 20:28, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, I cited the differing opinions. I listed Josiah Morrow's figures first, because he was closer to the scene than the other sources. However, when he wrote his book, the canal had been out of business for three decades so exact figures probably aren't obtainable without looking through the official papers of the Canal Commissioners and the Board of Public Works, assuming they still exist. PedanticallySpeaking 15:14, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• I'll try to make a map, if I can figure out the route. --SPUI (talk) 20:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm having some trouble with the map. Can someone provide some information, namely:
    1. Which parts of the canal were later used for railroads?
    2. For the parts that weren't used for railroads, exactly where did it cross other features like roads?
  • --SPUI (talk) 21:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral Object – no map, no photo.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 20:40, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Map has been added; I got lucky and found a map in the Library of Congress American Memory Collection that shows it. --SPUI (talk) 05:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Will support fully if a photo is added. I have decided to cast a neutral vote, as an image is not absolutely necessary for a FA.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 16:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Does an aerial photo count? Not that it will actually show anything... --SPUI (talk) 15:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• After adding a map and dealing with Mozzeratti's objections, you've got my support. Meelar (talk) 01:04, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Dorset

Mostly self-nom, and I've run out of changes to make (except the politics section which will change after the election in two weeks)! Buckinghamshire is an existing featured English county article, and I recon this one's reached that standard and more. Joe D (t) 21:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• (Well, Buckinghamshire is on WP:FARC and seems likely to be removed unless it improves sharpish...)

Object for now (I am having a bad hair day :) Dorset is quite nice, with some good images and references, but the lead is quite short: could you add some more flavour of the county (Jurassic coast, Chesil Beach, Portland, Isle of Purbeck; seaside resorts - Bournemouth, Poole, Weymouth, etc; Dorchester; Thomas Hardy). Also, does it need the list of places at the end? Many are already mentioned, and there is a separate main article list. There are some nit-picky details like links (Maiden Castle is not linked in history, for example) - and are you sure it is pronounced Dorsit - but I won't go on. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've added another paragraph to the introduction summarising some of the most notable points about the county, I'm not entirely sure which things are considered the most famous by non-residents though, so there might be other points to add to that.

I'm really not sure about the list of places at the end, it's a standard feature of English county articles so it was there before I arrived. I've moved the complete list to the sub-page and cut this list down to what I consider to be the most notable, and I've been considering turning it into a short piece of prose summarising notable places, similar to how the settlements section is summarised. If people think that would work better than a list I'll get on to it.

Dor+sit or Dawh+sit looks like how most people pronounce it to me. It should probably be converted to a phonetic alphabet, but I don't think I'm up to that. Joe D (t) 22:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support - thanks, I think that is good enough. I've copyedited slightly. My only small caveat is that list at the end, but other this is good stuff, how Buckinghamshire and all the other counties should be. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I have added more links to other Wikipedias with the aid of this excellent tool. I reckon that wherever appropriate - it really only works on proper names - that should be good practice for FACs (though not an actionable objection if it's not done). --194.73.130.132 13:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only one missing is fr:Dorset, which I will add. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I took out fr:Dorset - it's only a disambiguation page, and is correctly linked from Dorset (disambiguation). The French Wikipedia has no page on the county itself. The global search tool is smart (notice how it marks :fr as a disambiguation page), but not infallible. 194.73.130.132 16:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support – good article but it would be better if you start with the ==History== or =Geography== sections first, to give the reader an idea of the place rather than its population statistics.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 17:49, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

'tis done. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support but agree with ALoan comments. --Briangotts 20:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I've removed the places of interest section in favour of a link to the full list in the see also section. If some of them are considered notable enough it might be possible to mention them somewhere in the main article. Joe D (t) 20:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support, this is a good article. Rje 01:48, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The politics section could do with a full list of parliamentary constituencies (and possibly a fuller discussion on its own page), but I dont think this counts against the nomination Andreww 06:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9

The collision of SL9 with Jupiter in 1994 was one of the most significant events ever seen in the solar system. I've spent the last couple of days expanding the article a lot and hopefully making it worthy of consideration for featured status.

As an aside, I will be proud if this nomination succeeds because it will be the 10th article I've worked up to feature-worthy (10 could be expressed as 0.2M here, because an M's worth is 50). Worldtraveller 10:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object - threatens my comfortable lead of FAs. :) Just kidding - Support, great work. --mav 13:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support! What does your lead currently stand at? Need to know what target I'm aiming for :) Worldtraveller 14:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • There are 13 FAs that I am the primary author of and two others that I greatly helped toward FA status. --mav 15:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Nice, I have only 8 myself :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • So the three of us put together still have less than Emsworth. I'd like to know what he's sprinkling on his cornflakes in the morning. Worldtraveller 22:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great stuff. Just one sentence that needs some restructuring: "Brian Marsden of the Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams noted that the comet lay only about 4 arcminutes from Jupiter, and that its apparent motion indicated that it could be close to the giant planet". Unless that is just entirely redundant, is that trying to say something else? And one more, the inner solar system is not clear of debris, Jupiter just clears a lot of it out. I tried to edit that but Aloan's edit put it back. - Taxman 14:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Worldtraveller will correct me if am wrong, but two objects being close together on the plane of the sky (i.e. a few arcseconds apart) does not necessarily mean that they are close together in three dimensions: the apparent closeness could be a projection effect. To tell whether objects actually are physically close together, you have to look for clues that they are interacting (generally their gravitational influence on each other, which produces kinematic effects, noticeable as proper motion and red shift or blue shift). The problem is that you have to try to create a three dimensional picture from measurements of only two dimensions, right ascension and declination, plus two velocities, proper motion and red/blue shift.

Indeed, apparent closeness doesn't necessarily imply physical closeness - I've reworded that section to try and make the point clearer.Worldtraveller 14:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the "debris" point, Jupiter keeps the inner solar system largely clear of debris, not totally clear. I'll amend it again. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know that bit about apparent closeness (makes sense now though), but now both bits are quite clear, thanks. - Taxman 16:46, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Support, of course - Worldtraveller and I have been discussing it on our talk pages, and I have done some light copyediting. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I was going to whole-heartedly support this until I read the Jupiter's "role as a vaccum cleaner". With formulations like "Studies have shown..." and "Some astronomers have speculated [...]", and the fact that, unlike other parts of the article, this section is not directly backed by one of the references via a footnote, this section is a somewhat disappointing end for an otherwise article. Reading any average article, I probably wouldn't even have noticed this, but this one is so excellent that even this small detail bothered me :D. Support. Good work. Phils 15:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Very true, that section was a bit vague. I had written it from what I recalled of the situation because I was having difficulty tracking down the relevant sources, but I've found them and cited them now. Worldtraveller 22:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: it would be really nice if some more images could be added, either directly to the article (though there's not really room for that) or on a Commons page. Fredrik | talk 21:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good. Reads good. What's more to ask? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Canadian House of Commons

Self-nom. -- Emsworth 20:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support, looks good. JYolkowski // talk 23:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well the middle of some of those paragraphs could contain secrets from the Kama Sutra, but I was unable to force myself to read all of it to find out. :) What I did read was very good, and I support as much as my limited knowledge of the subject allows. - Taxman 20:36, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice and smooth as usual, Emsworth. You could add the date you accessed the website in the references section. Phils 05:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, maybe I'm just a biased Canadian but it looks like featured article material. Benw 11:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, that is a good article says I. Rje 01:32, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• object would it be possible, please, to do the same work here as you did to Westminster palace to make the references easier for us to check. For each part of the text say where it came from (invisible is okay) and for each reference give a brief comment what it's useful for. Not that we don't trust you :-) , but verifiability is a great goal. Mozzerati 13:27, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
  • Addressed. -- Emsworth 14:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Louis Riel

An interesting and comprehensive article on one of Canada's most enigmatic historical figures. Denni☯ 01:09, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

• Support. Great. Phils 12:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work; among the best Wikipedia articles on historical figures. (Disclaimer: I know little about Riel from other sources besides the Chester Brown comic, so I'm not the best judge of comprehensiveness or slant, but this looks really good to me.) I wish the article on John Brown were this good! -- Rbellin|Talk 16:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: A prior featured article nomination result for this article is here. -- Rbellin|Talk 16:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, it was not defeated in the previous FAC cycle, rather withdrawn to Peer Review. It has in fact undergone almost a complete rewrite in PR. Fawcett5 18:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Reviewers might choose to take this with a grain of salt&nbsp— I here disclose that I did much of the rewrite after it went back to peer review following the last FAC attempt (with able assistance from JamesTeterenko and CWood among others). Fawcett5 18:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• seems like a great article, but object that the references section is short and it isn't at all obvious which parts of the text to look up in which reference. Also, I notice that some phrases "Riel was the eldest of eleven children in a tight-knit, highly religious and well respected French Canadian-Métis family." are remarkably similar to the dictionary of Canada article[3] "Riel was the eldest of 11 children in a close-knit, devoutly religious, and affectionate family" this seems too close to a copyright violation for a featured article. Mozzerati 20:38, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

My response:

1. Number of References - the reference section includes 5 of the most important standard works on Riel, including Riel's own writings, Boulton's first person account from 1886, Stanley's 1963 classic, Siggin's respected 1994 update, and Flanagan's 1992 work suggesting the parallels between Riel's following and Millenarianism. For those less academically inclined, there is even a graphic novel. The bases are covered. The external links also have two more quality biographies.

   almost withdrawn - I've copied your descriptions into the article, can you just verify, and as needed correct or expand my text as needed.Mozzerati

   OK, I've made slight copyedits on your changes, and added the ref for the Flanagan bio (hadn't noticed before that the extant ref was just for his pamphlet, not his book). Note also that I didn't mean to imply that Sliggins text was based on Stanley's, just that it was a more modern treatment.Fawcett5 14:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2. Finding what you want - The account sticks closely to a consensus version of Riel's activities - for 99% of the material you can refer to any of the standard texts. Footnotes or inline citations are therefore an unneccesary distraction for the vast majority of the article. There are two exceptions:
   1. Direct quotations from Boulton's account, which are attributed to him in the text where they occur.
   2. The "Reconsidering Riel" section is where non-consensus theories or interpretations are dealt with. In this section, the relevant historians are mentioned by name.

   thanks for that answer; I would still prefer if individual quotes had page numbers etc. The reason for this is that people who are once considered good historians can later be re-evaluated (see David Irving who was discovered to be a liar) and any material based on their work has to be carefully checked. If you give detailed sources then it easier for checking later. Even so, with the addition of the comments you gave earlier, your article will not nearly be worst within the FAC category, so once you've verified my edit, I withdraw this objection. Mozzerati 06:41, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

3. Copyright violation - The DCBO biography (actually by Stanley, Riel's best-known biographer) was obviously important source material for both myself and other editors. While the sentence you point out does have similarity, it most assuredly does not rise to the standard of a copyright violation. Nevertheless, I will change this, and any other instances that you can point out - I believe that very few such problems survived the rewrite. Fawcett5 21:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   I will try to check this further; in the case where the sentence actually was derived from an original source we would have to claim fair use. That would be okay only for a very limited amount of the article. Mozzerati 06:41, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

   I have checked this as far as I could (which wasn't much). That sentence was added in a small edit along with other material which appears to be original. Since that time the article has been almost entirely changed. I guess it's okay, probably the original contributor was trying to do their best and isn't fully copyright aware. I can say that this is a perfect example of where a full system of inline notes would allow much easier checking since we could see exactly which bit to lookup where. Please everybody be more careful in future. I consider this last objection answered and am striking out my object. Mozzerati 06:38, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

• Support - Covers all of his life in a well-balanced way and fits it all into the surrounding history. Great work! Radagast 02:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Just so everyone knows my bias, I have contributed a bit to the article. I also voted against it becoming a featured article a month ago. Fawcett5 has done an amazing job rewriting the article, and a few of us tried to help when we can. -- JamesTeterenko 07:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I also was a contributor to the article, so again, a bit of bias. This article has had an amazing transformation thanks to Fawcett5 and others. Riel was a complex figure in Canadian history and I think that this article does him justice. CWood 14:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I too contributed a bit, and my opinion is much like CWood's. The article now treats Riel as a historical figure; I think that was the intention of the article from the beginning, but when I first ran across it it tended towards hagiography. Riel is, despite what many prefer to think, one of the most important figures in Canadian history, and this article gives you a good idea why he is. John FitzGerald 19:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - an engrossing story of an interesting character - excellently written. Worldtraveller 21:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - This couple of sentences from the intro reads just very slightly oddly to me:

In 1884, he returned to what is now the province of Saskatchewan in order to represent Métis grievances to the Canadian government. But this resistance, known as the North-West Rebellion of 1885, escalated into a military confrontation.

"Representing grievances", which to me suggests a non-confrontational process of consultation, has become "resistance" in the next sentence. It's a very, very minor point, but pedantry is my stock-in-trade. --194.73.130.132 08:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, thats not a bad way to describe what actually happened. Took a few months in real life, rather than one sentence though... Fawcett5 11:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Object - The execution of Scott, if I remember my history correctly, hardened the public attitude in Canada against him. Yet I see no mention in that section, only of legal troubles. Can you clarify further? Burgundavia 21:40, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Burgundavia, this is comprehensively dealt with in the main article on this period of Riel's life. See Red River Rebellion. Much of the material there now was previously at Louis Riel, but was moved to conform with summary style and article length considerations. Fawcett5 23:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kalimpong

A self nomination, I have added most of the matter on this small town in the Himalayan foothills. Kaal and IMpbt copyedited most of the text. All MoS are adhered to. (PS: Some of the references (books) were already mentioned before I added info to the page). Was in Peer Review for a while: Wikipedia:Peer review/Kalimpong/archive1, but did not receive any suggestions. Suggestions welcome. :)  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 20:37, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Support ; Very nice work! Has everything I'd expect a small city article to have, and more. --mav 23:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, looks pretty good. Are you from this place, or have you been there? Did you take those nice pictures? Everyking 02:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was there last December for a fortnight. Some of the pics are mine, the rest belong to Anujkp and were uploaded by Eloquence. :)  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:01, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Good job, Nichalp (I could say "as usual"). The photos are great. Phils 08:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, never knew so much could be said of such a small place. Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Support looks good Mozzerati 10:45, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work, a paragon. To be pedantic, a prettier map won't go amiss. —Oldak Quill 14:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know the map looks a little odd. Once we get a detailed West Bengal state map, I'll replace this map.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:01, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A very good article and effort --IMpbt 23:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - really, Kalimgpong is a 'work of art by the God', and this article by User:Nichalp reflects the beauty of the place - as a featured article, a wider section of wikipedians will be able to enjoy this beauty of nature. Congrats.--Bhadani 03:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --DanielNuyu 03:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Yet another model article from Nichalp; thanks to the other contributors too. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 04:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Geology of the Grand Canyon area

Self nom. This article has been on peer review for a while now and I've fixed most of the issues brought up there. So what else needs to be done? Note: I already plan to take close up photos of each formation during my trip to the Grand Canyon this summer and later add those photos to this article. --mav 22:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Looks pretty fantastic to me. A few really great illustrations, especially the cross-section. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A short introductory paragraph for section 1 would be nice. It might be useful to make the relation between the subsections and the figure clear in the text (not only in the caption). Also, I'm not sure every reader will understand that "group" has a special meaning in geology. If so, a short intro would be the place to define it. Finally, is there any reason the cross section picture is not under section 1. From what I can see using "Preview", putting it under that section would not break layout, and it would probably make sense. Phils 10:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments! An intro para for section 1 is a good idea. Concepts like groups, supergroups, formations, members, and the various kinds of unconformities are all already parenthetically explained inline the first time each of those concepts are introduced in the article. But putting those in a quick intro is a better idea - and I’ll do that later. I’m not exactly sure how I could make the connection between the figure and the text clearer than having the current inline refs to the figure such as (see 3b in figure 1), but a mention in the section 1 intro may help. Hm, inline links such as (see 3b in figure 1) may make it clearer still (that image description page could then have further explanation). The cross section picture is where it is in order to give room for photos and/or other illustrations that would be specific to the sub-section (such as having a close-up photo of the rock unit being talked about and, if room, an illustration of what the continent looked like and where it was on the globe when that sediment was deposited). --mav 13:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Intro created as well as other fixes per above. --mav 00:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent overall, keep them coming. The beginning of the intro is a little tough though, esepcially for someone that doesn't know geology. What is a column? I guess the first sentence tells what the subject is, but world renowned seems like gratuitous peacock language, and makes the real meaning of the sentence less accessible. I think if you add some context for column, and time progession, and NPOV that a bit, or at least rework the structure of the first sentence it would be much stronger. - Taxman 14:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Lead section expanded a tiny bit to be less dense and hopefully more accessible. Got rid of 'geologic column' and 'world renowned'. --mav 00:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, excellent, though if geographic column is more accurate or useful in some way, it could be put back in with some careful context. Either way, how it is now is good. - Taxman 19:51, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. My god, those pictures! I really have to get back there... Meelar (talk) 02:10, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Extraordinary. I strongly support. Hydriotaphia 03:57, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Question/Object looks like a great article, but, a) I see the diagram comes from a display the visitor's center. I think that it qualifies as their copyright and would question whether it is covered under fair use: does it come under US.Govt PD or is it from a non-governmental s ource? b) could you please make it easy to work out which bit of the text is covered by which reference, using, for example "invisible references" or footnotes to aid in verification. Mozzerati 07:03, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
  • a) Even if the display were not a work commissioned by the United States government and therefore eligible for copyright protection, under what provision of U.S. copyright law would a two-dimensional representation of a three dimensional object be a derivative work that would be hindered by the 3D object's original copyright? Such a hindered derivative work would certainly be created if a three-dimensional work were copied from a copyright-protected three-dimensional work, but that is not the case here. I know for a fact that photographs of buildings are not hindered by architectural copyrights but I'm not aware of similar provisions one way or the other for statues and other three-dimensional works of art. b) I'm not going to use any hacked template-based reference system (I tried this at helium with very bad results due to the fact that I have so many references and so many of those refer to the same reference and same page). The HTML commented out citations are just a temporary solution until a real referencing system is in place. For now I’ve mentioned that the source text has these citations. --mav 16:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • a) there are differences from a building due to the function of a display; I'd like to discuss further... Do you know of any previous policy discussion on this. b) apologies; I really did go into edit mode and look for the refs but didn't see them. Your solution, whilst not so good for the normal user, is acceptable to me. BTW, there is a manually numbered footnote system (mn/mnb templates) but it doesn't seem to work right now (probably a wikimedia bug?), When that is fixed, doing something like helium should be no problem. b2) I like your idea for making commented out notes visible by mentioning them in the references section. Mozzerati 19:05, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eldfell

This has been on peer review for several days with no comment. So, it's either just not very interesting, or there's not much that can be done to improve it. I'm hoping it's the latter, so I thought I'd give it a run past FAC. I think the eruption of Eldfell is a very interesting story, which I hope I've done justice. Worldtraveller 10:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support: I think it's interesting and has some brilliant photograph too. Giano | Talk 11:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It does have some nice pictures. And it is rather crufty. Should perhaps be more crufty, though. Lukewarm support. Everyking 11:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What could be changed to make your support more enthusiastic? Worldtraveller 13:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting subject, and nice pictures. — mark ✎ 12:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very intersting, sorry I missed it on peer review. Sometimes it takes a couple weeks there. But this is great. - Taxman 14:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great article, breath-taking photography. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 15:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Lovely article. One major and a few minor nitpicks though:
  • Text says the lava flows added land to the west of the island, but the map shows lava flows on the east of the island. One or the other is wrong. I suspect from other context that the "North" arrow on the map is actually a "South" arrow.
  • On the map, I assume the white section is the town -- it should be labeled as such.
  • A couple non-SI units slipped in (I recall seeing "mile" somewhere); these should be fixed.
  • Coverage of submarine effects is spotty. Is there any more info available?
  • I'd love to see more info on national and international reaction. Was this a local disaster or was the whole of Iceland gripped by it? What about internationally -- was this the top of international newscasts for weeks like the tsunami, for a few days, or mostly ignored?
  • Recovery: Was there government assistance in rebuilding homes and businesses? Insurance?
  • Looking ahead: how long do they expect the geothermal plants to continue to produce electricity and heat water? What are the expectations of future eruptions? Has anything else changed (i.e. planning, evac procedures, etc.)?

- Bryan is Bantman 17:15, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for those comments - my inability to tell east from west has been cruelly exposed! Always get those two confused. The map is right, the text was wrong. Town is now labelled, miles converted to kilometres, and a bit about funding of the recovery added. It was certainly a major Icelandic news event and I'm pretty sure it was reported around the world as well, but would need to do a bit more research on that. Likewise with the geothermal power. I've mentioned that there's speculation that volcanic activity in the archipelago is increasing, can also give that a mention nearer the end. I think I've covered pretty much all that's known about the submarine activity, all I can find in my sources anyway. Worldtraveller 21:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Bantman, the media reaction where I live (Sweden) was very intense, with the slow-moving lava threat against the Heimaey harbor being top of the news day by day. I'd say it would have been like the tsunami coverage, if it hadn't had so much competition from breakthroughs being made in the Vietnam peace talks in Paris at the exact same time. I have some strong visual memories of newspaper front pages divided exactly in half between Heimaey and the peace talks, with world war typography used for both. Worldtraveller, possibly this media schizophrenia would even rate a mention in the article? (OK, now y'all know I'm really old, see if I care.)--Bishonen | talk 19:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Multiple untagged images which would appear to be copyright violations unless permission has been granted. 119 04:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The two untagged ones might have qualified as some sort of fair use, but to be on the safe side I've swapped them for two fully legit ones. Worldtraveller 11:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but image copyright status does need to be established for the untagged images. I also think Bantmans commnents about media coverage of the event should be covered--nixie 04:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added a bit about the media coverage now. Worldtraveller 11:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Awesome. jengod 00:46, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. What Jengod said. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:13, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, wonderful volcanocruft.--Bishonen | talk 19:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I have one minor suggestion: the article could include Imperial equivalents for the metric units, as suggested by the Manual of Style. As the subject is scientific, however, this is by no means necessary. Nevertheless, an excellent article. If Worldtraveller keeps up this rate of FA creation, I shall have quite some competition :) -- Emsworth 01:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and suggestion, I've added imperial equivalents for most things now (wasn't sure about giving gallons for litres as litres are pretty much universally understood I think). I think if you stop writing articles now, and I manage to keep on working at the rate I have been, I'll be catching up your FA total by about early 2007 :) Worldtraveller 10:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Francis Petre

One of New Zealand's greatest architects sadly little known outside Australasia. This is mostly a self-nom (I want him to be better known). The page has had fantastic support, courtesy Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board which resulted in help and great photographs specially taken and supplied by Grutness and one by Silenceisfoo, without which it would be pretty dull. I think I've (or to be exact Bishonen has) sorted my English grammar. New Zealand has some great unappreciated (outside NZ) architecture, I'd like to see something about it on the front page. Giano | Talk 10:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I can't say anything about the material, but the writing looks good, has good pictures and structure, and has references. I made a few copyedits, again hopefully all good. - Taxman 14:45, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I had never heard of Petre before, and found the article an entertaining introduction. I would recommend removing or sourcing some of the rather peacockish language, though: "successful" and "skillful" are particularly overused, and some of the article's praise of Petre seems a bit fulsome. Perhaps find some sources to cite others' assessments of Petre? Surely his skill is adequately demonstrated by simple description of his work, in any case. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, I've attempted to remove some excess adjectives etc.Giano | Talk 19:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support, but it needs propper footnotes where webpages are referenced in text see:Wikipedia:Footnotes--nixie 04:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks! I've added the footnotes, that's great I didn't know you could do that! Giano | Talk 08:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Yeah, I know, I was one of the lesser collaborators on this page, but even if I hadn't been I would see this as a potential candidate. Grutness|^hello? 06:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Neat! jengod 00:45, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, I've done a little copyediting (Giano is modest about his "grammar" as always). I think this is a very enjoyable, vivid article, it would be a treat to see it on the Main Page. Bishonen|talk 08:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I've watched this one grow, and it really is a fine article on a subject who is little-known in the wider world; just what Wikipedia should be doing. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:48, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment surely his exact birth-death dates must be known? Fawcett5 16:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Dates now given Giano | talk 18:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Diamond

Partial self-nomination. This article spectacularly failed an earlier nomination (archived) about six weeks ago. Since then, I and others (notably User:Hadal and User:Jasper) have tirelessly whipped this article and its sub-articles into shape. This includes a massive, total rewrite of the article as well as the creation of eight sub-articles, two sub-lists, and filling in of numerous red links on everything from Gemological Institute of America to Argyle diamond mine. In my truly humble opinion, this article is a great overview of the topic, discusses all important topics while leaving details and minutiae to the sub-articles, and is interesting, well written and well organized. In short, I believe this article does its topic justice. I'm quite proud of it. Thank you in advance for your comments. - Bryan is Bantman 01:33, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Definite support. I've been watching this one improve and waiting for its nomination here. Great work. - Taxman 02:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Shouldn't the sections on "Diamond cut" and "Diamond cutting" be merged or at least be placed closer together? Also, isn't there some sort of standard infobox for gemstones? Mgm|^(talk) 07:42, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

"Diamond cutting" is a subsection (TOC 2.4.3) of the "Diamond cut" section (TOC 2.4). The infobox is not exactly standard (only on about 10% of the articles in the gemstones category [4]), but is located in the subarticle material properties of diamond. - Bryan is Bantman 16:24, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Comments: it seems the intro is a bit over-long and could use some clipping; at least two users (including me) had a difficult time finding the properties - the subpage link is there but easy to miss - maybe somehow make that more prominent. I've tweaked the Natural history section a bit and will probably do a bit more - see some possible fixes that need checking (nothing glaringly major - my interests are from the mineralogy/geology end). Over all a very good article and obviously the result of a lot of work. -Vsmith 04:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some fool (OK, I'm pretty sure it was me) forgot to indent the Main article: material properties of diamond line; I've fixed it so it should be easier to see now. (I should point out that that article, along with three other sub-articles - diamond cut, diamond simulants, and diamond enhancement, are perhaps FA quality themselves.) Re: the intro, it was certainly a struggle to get it as short as it is now; what do you think we can trim out of it? I tried to touch on each of the most major points, and I don't think it's overly long given the length of the article. Any help on the natural history section would be great; thanks for the changes you've made already. - Bryan is Bantman 17:13, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: It would be nice with an image of an uncut diamond. Thue | talk 10:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive. :) Granted, it's not the best image, but it's the only sizable PD example I could find. (It's incredibly difficult to procure a rough diamond that's above a few millimetres in size.) -- Hadal 13:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great picture - and a great addition to the article! Vsmith 15:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice image; thanks :). Thue | talk 16:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support Holy cow. I would recommend though moving the natural history section to after the material propeties but before all the gemological/industry stuff. Fawcett5 13:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree w/ Fawcett5. It would make the article flow better. Although I prefer my cows w/out holes :-) Vsmith 15:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. (No cows were harmed in the editing of this article.) - Bryan is Bantman 17:18, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

You didn't even have one tasty burger or steak in the whole time you've been working on this article? - Taxman 14:52, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Support The article is comprehensive and well-organized and has spawned many high-quality subarticles as it has avoided becoming too long. Vengeful Cynic 20:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Surport tooto 00:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object until inline external links are removed or cited at bottom, rather than in the text. Neutrality^talk 18:49, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Done: inline external links are now also cited at bottom. - Bryan is Bantman 21:08, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Dream Theater

Self-nomation. Spent over a week in peer review and only received one set of comments, all of which have been addressed. IMO one of the more complete and informative band-related articles on the 'pedia, but that's for YOU to decide! (I don't know if this affects anyone's voting, but all related articles [albums, members, etc] have also been completed.) plattopus^{is this thing on?} 14:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now - Nice - but the TOC is a bit overwhelming. Consider combining smaller sections (esp for lists - the ; character can also be used in lists). History seems a bit long - consider summarizing it and creating a separate 'history of ..' article. --mav 16:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • History has been abridged and moved to History of Dream Theater. Not sure what you mean about the TOC, though. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 21:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't understand. All you did was copy the text and create a new article. The history section that was left is not an abridged summary, it is a complete fork. --mav 21:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I moved the previous history section to its own article, then cut-down any unnecessary content to create a shorter history section for the Dream Theater article. People wanting to view an in-depth history can click on the main article. Or have I missed the point completely? plattopus^{is this thing on?} 21:25, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, I see what happened. In one of the subsequent edits I must have been using an out-dated window, so the full version was restored. Fixed. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 21:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • Much better. Support. --mav 21:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I disagree with the above objection about the TOC, although I agree about the length of the history. Good to see some people still believe in subheadings. It would be good to add a reference section, too. The Notes section already contains many references, but it's practical to have all references summarized in a separate section. Phils 20:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • See above for History; external links contains every website I referenced, and as far as I know there are no books on Dream Theater, so would renaming external links to "external links and references" be suitable? plattopus^{is this thing on?} 21:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Follow the policy on Wikipedia:Cite sources. Object until thats completed, support after.  ALKIVAR™ 05:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I have cited specific sources (see Footnotes), do you mean I should compile a list of external references? If so, the external links is just that. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 06:33, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • If thats what they are, label them as such. External Links is for sites that represent the content but are not used as references.  ALKIVAR™ 06:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks, I've added a references section. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 12:42, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I've been watching this article and making minor edits for a couple of months now, and it's amazing to see how far it has come in that time. I've been a fan of Dream Theater for over 10 years, and even I was able to learn new things from this article. Well-written and very comprehensive - well done! --Durga2112 20:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No bibliography. PedanticallySpeaking 16:54, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are footnotes, references and external links. I don't see how that doesn't cover it. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 17:23, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Considering the frequency that weblinks go dead, there should be citations to print sources that will still be available in the future. PedanticallySpeaking 17:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Like I mentioned above, I am unaware of any books about Dream Theater, so there aren't any to reference. Although you have alerted me to the fact that I should have referenced my DTIFC magazines. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 17:33, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• All you can do is note the date you viewed the references. See Helium#References for an example. This is both standard and acceptable. If and/when these links go dead, then just find new links that confirm the info in this article. No big deal. :) --mav 02:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• OK, I see what you mean now. I've given general retrieval dates from when I wrote the article, but can't give specific dates (see below). plattopus^{is this thing on?} 06:49, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• WP:Cite sources says "Since you're referring to a general website, and not any particular content on it, you do not need to give a retrieval date". I will add retrieval dates for the magazines. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 05:49, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Whoa! You're quoting the WP:Cite sources comment on the example reference "Slashdot is a popular web site at http://slashdot.org/ ". For that, it would be plain silly to give a retrieval date, and for your "External links" it's hardly necessary, either; but your reference websites are another matter. If you haven't used "any particular content" on these sites for the article, I'm sorry to say that would make them kind of lousy references. I would really recommend you to provide retrieval dates for those. And the magazine articles need to be linked, or those retrieval dates aren't much use. (I know the examples at WP:Cite sources are a little confusing, but note the common-sense recommendation: "for online articles, make the article title a link to the URL.")--Bishonen | talk 00:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, but they aren't online articles. I can't link to a URL that doesn't exist. I've just followed what it says on Cite Sources, so if something is wrong then it's a policy problem. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 17:53, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• What? I'm mystified, sorry. I was talking about the magazines in the References section. You have added retrieval dates for them. They're not online? Uh, then what do you mean by "retrieval"? As for following what it says on Cite Sources, no, it actually isn't a policy problem. Maybe it's my explanatory skills that are the problem, or maybe I have annoyed you, but could you please just read my post above again while strenuously assuming good faith? I am trying to help, however unskilfully. You've used a fragment from Cite Sources for a context it doesn't apply to. Bishonen | talk 18:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• You seem to be turning this into an argument... all I'm doing is taking peoples' suggestions and enacting them in the hopes of getting the Dream Theater article up to scratch. So I should remove retrieval dates for non-online references? Done. I should add retrieval dates for the websites? I'd love to, but I didn't look up specific pages when writing the article... those sites (especially the FAQ) are repositories of information about the band, which I have read thouroughly. I originally had them as external links, because that's what they are, but I was told to put them in the references. I'm just doing what people are telling me to do, and unfortunately for me, I'm getting conflicting suggestions. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 06:44, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

(Outdenting.) I'm sorry you've felt buffeted by conflicting advice. I do understand that these things can be confusing, to the point where you'd start putting sources that weren't used as references into a references section, or adding retrieval dates to sources that were never retrieved. I have to say that nobody "told you" to do these things, though. (Example: saying "If that's what they are, label them as [references]" (Alkivar) is not synonymous with saying "Label them as references!") All the advice people have written you on the subject is good, you know, excepting the statement that you must have printed sources (which Mav immediately picked up on and contradicted). We're all trying to help. I will not strike out my own tips, but I do withdraw them as an objection, since their importance for sure doesn't warrant any more arguing. The particular issues I raised aren't so central that they ought to stand in the way of an article becoming featured. --Bishonen | talk 09:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So I will take your comments as a non-vote (personally I believe they should be striked out because you have withdrawn them, but obviously it's up to you), but PedanticallySpeaking you have left your objection in place and I assume you are not aware of the changes I have made to the references. Do you still take issue with the formatting of the references? plattopus^{is this thing on?} 18:55, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have not withdrawn my comments, only (and with some hesitation) my objection. I'm beginning to wonder if that thing is on.--Bishonen | talk 20:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to take your comments seriously when you're so obviously looking to turn this into a petty argument. I have been open to all suggestions from reviewers (including you) and have been doing my best to accomodate what people suggest I do with the article, but all you're doing is "defending" what you presumably perceive to be your ignored opinion. I originally confused two sections of WP:Cite Sources, and instead of constructively suggesting how to fix my mistakes, you started insulting my intelligence and assuming I was ignorant of peoples' suggestions. I have stated numerous times that I am only attempting to fix what people believe is wrong with the article, there is no need to insinuate that I am mentally inferior to you or anyone else (and I assure you, it most certainly is on). I said that I consider your comments to be a non-vote (which you in fact agree with) and said that in my opinion they should be struck out (and, you'll notice, I mentioned that it's obviously not up to me to make that decision). Maybe you should start taking your own advice and assume a little good faith of your own? (Specifically the following warning of what might occur if you fail to assume good faith: "You might make a personal attack. Once you've made a personal attack on someone, they are likely to stop assuming good faith in you.") plattopus^{is this thing on?} 20:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely did not mean to insinuate any derogatory opinion of your intelligence! Sheesh. I absolutely don't have a derogatory opinion of it. I'm very sorry you feel insulted. Your sig is a little elliptical, so I ought not to have jestingly quoted it, but made sure of being understood instead. "Is your readiness to listen switched on?" was what I meant.--Bishonen | talk 21:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment (Fully outdented, new train of conversation.) OK, instead of bickering, I think we should get back to the original point of this vote and try to make the Dream Theater article as good as it can be. I admit that I confused when one is or is not to use retrieval dates in references, and as a result of the helpful suggestions of others the online references are now dated and the offline ones are not. I understand that you believe I should give direct links to exactly the pages I have used as references, but to do that I would practically need to link every single page under the sites I listed. I think links to the DTFAQ and Tourography main pages are sufficient, because those sites are direct portals (front pages, if you will) to hundreds of individual pages of information, most of which have been used as references in the article. The pages I have used from the official Dream Theater website are all directly linked as notes, so should I remove that reference or leave it as a general website link? -- plattopus^{is this thing on?} 17:45, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Support Great article, NPOV, references, all top drawer, strong support --PopUpPirate 16:43, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. One of the best band-related articles in Wikipedia. --Jannex 09:09, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Damn close to the best and most interesting Dream Theater read on the internet. - user:defunkt 00:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Palace of Westminster

I would like to say (perhaps at the risk of being accused of immodesty) that I am proud that if the nomination passes, this will be my 50th featured article. -- Emsworth 10:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I may copyedit later, to reduce the German Capital Letters and make the prose somewhat less artful, but an excellent summary. How does he do it? He must have too much time on his hands... I suppose the moral is to concentrate on one article at a time, rather than scattering your favours around willy-nilly, like certain others...-- ALoan (Talk) 13:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Congratulations. Phils 13:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Hallmark of quality. JuntungWu 14:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. First let me offer my congratulations to Lord Emsworth on another outstanding piece of work. For producing fifty featured articles he ought really to be given a peerage! (Oh, wait a minute...!) After reading through this article an area in which I feel it may be slightly lacking is the historical and architectural context in which the palace was rebuilt after the fire of 1834. There is some good description of the what the building is like, but not so much explanation of why it is so. I quote from Simon Schama's History of Britain (he talks before this passage about Pugin's role in the Gothic revival, which I note is linked from the article, but perhaps we need a bit more about how it applies specifically to the Palace of Westminster):

Just such an occassion delivered itself in 1834 when parliament burned down and a debate ensued about whether it should be rebuilt in the Gothic or neo-classical styles. The winner of the competition, Sir Charles Barry, had made drawings that amounted to an almost fantastic vision of a Gothic medieval palace; not, in truth, a structure that owed its precedent to anything truly medieval, but a decorated 'module' of pointed Gothic, extended indefinitely along the Thames as far as money and the needs of government dictated. It was a far cry, in fact, from Pugin's beautifully crafted fit between form and function. But the arguments rehearsed to justify a Gothic Revival parliament must undoubtedly have appealed to the romantic historian in Pugin. For they were all about acknowledging that the distinctive characteristic of the 'ancient' British constitution—its liberty and the rule of common law—was a medieval inheritance. The pediments and columns, the dominant squatness of classicism, were thus made to seem, somehow, not only 'foreign' but also the expression of authority, in a way which the pinnacles and pointed arches of Gothic building were not. Classicism was top down; Gothic was bottom up. Classical architecture was the visible declaration of hierarchy, built by slaves, in Ruskin's view; Gothic was about the community of craft, designed by free men. Inside a classical legislature, rulers would lay down the law; inside a Gothic parliament, they would make it accountable to the people. Such a building would not only be a dignified convenience to the law-makers; it would, by connecting them intuitively with the world that had produced Magna Carta, also ensure that they would legislate in a spirit of freedom, justice and virtue.

I apologise for making these comments without first working to incorporate something like this into the article itself, but I'd be interested to hear others' comments before proceeding. I am in no way, shape or form an expert on architecture, but I'd be happy to help add something to the article about this. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I have added information on why many individuals seemed to prefer Gothic architecture. -- Emsworth 21:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with the above. It needs more about the building's position in architectural history. It is one of the most important buildings of the gothic revival. And it took so long to build that by the time it was finished, the gothic revival had moved on somewhat. Barry and Pugin had something of a tempestuous relationships, and Pugin was not at all pleased with it in the end. In an edit I did a long time ago, I included the famous Pugin quote, "All Grecian, Sir; Tudor details on a classic body", which I think deserves a place back in the article. It seems to have been lost over the edits recently. Maccoinnich 20:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • The quotation has been added back. -- Emsworth 21:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I would like more about the pre-1834 Palace. But I am probably the only wikipedian who has the information and the inclination to add it. Dbiv 11:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Great article, but a quickly fixable objections; a) please can you mark which information comes from which of the references. b) Also, in the security article it would be good to see some comment about limitations of accessibility caused by security c) something about the big ugly concrete blocks might be worth mentioning d) the public galleries shouldn't just be a matter of "tourism", but also mentioned in terms of general public accessiblity and openness e) could we please have a daytime photograph of the outside? Mozzerati 21:05, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  • I must object to objection (a), because the FA criteria only require that there be references, not that the article include paranthetical citations or footnotes. I feel that such citations only serve to clutter the article, and prefer not to use them. (b) Addressed. (c) I am not familiar with the blocks of which you speak; perhaps you would be kind enough to clarify? (d) I think that the Culture & Tourism section addresses public accessibility: it states that there is no casual access, that tickets are normally required, and that access is generally limited. (e) Addressed. -- Emsworth 21:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • a) I object^3, there is no request for footnotes, just for verifiability. There are many other suggestions, ranging from decent descriptions of the references (see Louis Riel) through invisible footnotes (facts from the article are listed at the bottom with page number and name of reference, references in as separate section) through HTML comments visible only to editors, name/test/page references as suggested in Wikipedia:Cite your sources and only finally ending at footnotes. Whilst I certainly encourage footnotes, I have no objection to any other method which allows verifiability which is a criteria directly referenced from the FAC criteria (point 1). Please note that i) the style guides about references encourage adding descriptions and ii) there is no exaclusive list of FAC criteria which are the only ones upon which to object, they should be "the best" work on Wikipedia, (point 3) and the best nowadays is quite seriously verifiable.

    b) thanks c) at the front (road side) of the palace are a layer of concrete blocks for crowd and car bomb control they are a big, ugly and very visible; see this BBC article for example. I was there recently, but I didn't think to take a photo of this. If you won't be able to go there soon, I can try again in May/June and promise to take a photo if you'd like one. e) great. Mozzerati 10:10, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

    • • a) If footnotes are not necessary, then I have no problem with the objection. I have added a section in HTML at the bottom of the article describing the sources used for each section. Generally, one source supplied all the info. for a particular section; specific exceptions are noted. c) Dbiv has been kind enough to add a description of the blocks. b, d, and e were previously addressed. -- Emsworth 12:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Great, almost everything is fixed, only one comment on d, I was trying to say it would be worth covering positive / open democracy / public access aspects of the public galleries, not just tourism. Whilst nowadays access via television and radio is available, previously the public gallery was the only way, and even now, most debates are not covered by most channels. One last comment, there was no coverage of the gardens. I've added something, but it's really just a list of names with some red links right now Mozzerati 16:28, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• support most objections covered. Excellent article. Mozzerati 16:28, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Samantha Smith

Fits the criteria in my opinion - deserves a nod. PMA 04:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It needs work. The introduction needs a brief description of her and why she became famous, sans the letter itself. I tried fixing this but couldn't make it work. It also needs better sectioning (the TOC is halfway down the article). →Raul654 04:47, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think, these were reasonable concerns. I've just made some mostly cosmetic changes proposed by you.We dealt with these issues. Cmapm 15:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object, at least for now. The current sectioning is rather poor, with an immense lead that contains the full transcription of the letters and nearly the whole story. The texts of the letters are almost all that the article contains; it's not comprehensive enough, missing many details of the social repercussions of her story in the US and the USSR, while mentioning trivial information. External references should be put under External Links, not in the article's text itself. Dubious copyright status of the sole picture included. While not a bad article, it's not near FA status. -- Shauri 05:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just included some info on social repercussions into the section Worldwide success. Cmapm 11:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article has improved, and I withdraw some objections, but I also must add now a minor objection regarding the presence of some POV, like Wordtraveller says ("tragic death", "famous letters"). That's easy to solve, tho. -- Shauri 19:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All my objections have been taken care of. Now Support. -- Shauri 20:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Her letter to the Soviet leader and Andropov's reply to it is the first and the main thing, which made her famous. Therefore, I see it pretty natural for it to be included into the leading section or at least to be contained in the first section of the TOC. As concerns "external links", there are many featured articles, which even were on the Main Page already, with many references to external sources inside the article (e.g. Isaac Asimov, Laika etc.). In my opinion the "social repercussions" were trivial (general love in both USSR and USA and negative reaction of the lesser part of people, mostly Soviet emigrants and dissidents), however, details on this can easily be found through external links. All details of the image copyright status are clear from the {{Fair use}} template, article's and image's talk pages: Patrick Carkin is the copyright holder, whose image was placed "for educational purpose" on (now not-functioning) PD website Proactivist.com and was taken from there under Fair use to at least two websites before it has been uploaded into Wiki. While some places of it may seem infantile and too simple for some people, I believe, that considering that the article is about a child, this does not make it less encyclopaedic. I think, after some recent edits by other people and many my ones the article became much less simple and lost much of its "infantile" details. I personally think, that "complicated" and "adult" style is inacceptable for articles about such young persons, but I still support it as FA candidate, mostly because it became very informative. However, I give up all my possible edits of this article at least until its status (whether FA or non-FA) becomes clear, because firstly, I don't want to be its constant "English grammar worsener" and secondly, I don't want to completely destroy myself my ideal of the article about a child. Cmapm 15:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object for the moment - I had never heard of Smith until I read it and found it a very interesting article. But I think that although it's an excellent short summary of the story, I'm not sure it's comprehensive. What did she do in the Soviet Union? Was she accompanied? So she 'became a social activist' - how so? How did the meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan come about and what did they say? I see that her book was co-written with her father - how much did he write? Did her parents push her into all this at all? Were they politically active at all? How come her plane crashed?
  More minor points: some of the writing is not very clear, eg Nearly the same situation was in the USA, although certain part of its population, mostly 1950s emigrants from the Soviet Union, called Samantha Pawn in Propaganda War. Also, there's a lot of very short sentences which don't really flow very well. Some POV as well, for example I don't think you need to title the section 'tragic death' - it's evidently tragic without the need to explicitly say it. Worldtraveller 19:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I expanded some sections, including info, directly related with some of your questions. However, I believe, that for a complete answer on all of them a separate solid research should be carried out with the free access to all possible sources and with the ability to browse a lot of them in other languages (e.g. Japanese one to browse sources on all Japanese Prime Minister's meetings). I seriously doubt, if some info requested by you can be retrieved at all, but well, once again, it's my POV. However, I did all I was able to do to the moment, maybe someone else will be a more lucky searcher. Cmapm 00:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll just summarize, what your questions I've answered. Was she accompanied? What did she do in the Soviet Union? Did her parents push her into all this at all? How come her plane crashed?So she 'became a social activist' - how so? Minor points you mentioned, that short sentences and POV issues have been also dealt with.The remaining your points: 1. How did the meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan come about and what did they say? (some info on her visit to Japan added, but concerning details on meeting Prime Minister seems unbelievable to answer at the moment). 2. I see that her book was co-written with her father - how much did he write? (I cannot get the book, in any sources I found so far no details on this) 3. Were they politically active at all? (I added info on where they worked, I didn't find any info on whether they took part in elections or were some pol. party members). Cmapm 15:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great work on the article, I think almost all of my original points have been answered, and the article is much improved. But I think there are two points that need more expansion. When you say she became a social activist, I think that needs more explanation. Did she give up normal activities like school? What exactly was her social activism? I think it might actually be easier just to omit that sentence - I don't think it harms the sense and flow of the article to omit it. Also, the fact that there were no US government representatives at her funeral is attributed to many in Reagan's administration regarding her as a Soviet dupe. That definitely needs some kind of attribution or reference, otherwise it looks like speculation or weasel words. Worldtraveller 16:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Should the letters not be at wikisource or somewhere else and be summarised here instead? violet/riga (t) 14:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I personally think, the long reply from Andropov may well be e.g. in wikisource (although this seems minor for myself as the article itself is not very long at the present), but a short Samantha's letter should be here. The problem is that it will be pretty difficult for myself to summarize Andropov's letter, if someone can, you are welcome. Cmapm 14:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikisource is for something along the lines of the US constitution. Using it for a 20-odd sentence letter is definitely overkill, particularly when it's intimately relavant to this article. →Raul654 14:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support this then - I agree with the replies above. violet/riga (t) 15:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object - While I can tell that a lot of hard work went into this article, I still find the way that it is written to be too infantile and simple, and includes a lot of irrelevant information that makes it less encyclopaedic. The lead section also needs to be much longer, and which airport did her plane crash in? What were the rumours around her death over? Why would the CIA or the KGB want to kill her? And the section about the memorials is blatantly POV, and again poorly written. Páll 00:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The leading section made longer, e.g. it is now longer, than that of "Main Paged" FA Suzanne Lenglen. We've also dealt with other issues you mentioned. Cmapm 19:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • There were a lot of good edits to this article, but I maintain my objection. The writing is better, but still very immature sounding. What does "loved" mean? American people cannot just "love" someone they see on TV. Páll 16:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I think a lot of the style is very (as stated above) "infantile and simple". Examples - the reader does not need to know her dog's name, or that she was "having a problem" with mathematics - that's trivia, and simply not encyclopedic. In the section about her death "she was only 13 years old" - is it necessary to tug at the heartstings? Reading it, I can almost feel a solemn pause hanging in the air at that point, and it should not be there. The article says she was born in 1972 and died in 1985 - and yes, that's very sad, but it's enough information to calculate her age at death and that should suffice. There is a fair degree of POV, example - the seeming indignation that her "anniversaries" are not "even" recognised. How about her popularity in the US? ("she was generally loved"). I'm not doubting she was popular, I remember her popularity very well, but how is public adulation quantified? Was it genuine adulation or was it just whipped up by the media. Also wouldn't it be equally true to say that a lot of cynical Americans may well have had opinions about her other than "love". Couldn't they have also believed she was being used by the media, or was this clearly only the opinion of Russian Americans? Once again, how can such a statement be quantified, let alone verified? Finally, it is conventional to consistantly refer to a person by their surname in the body of a biographical article, or their full name if considered necessary, but never by the given name alone. ie "Samantha Smith" and "Smith" are both fine. "Samantha" is not. It changes the tone of the article considerably. Having said all that, I think the article is one that could be easily elevated as most of the hard work has been done and I'm hoping that I'll eventually be able to support it. Rossrs 13:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We've just dealt with some of these issues. Cmapm 14:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greatly improved. A couple more suggestions : do you think it may flow better if the "death" and "funeral" sections are combined into one section, and also the three individual "tribute" sections combined into one? Also in the funeral section, I think the representative of Gorbechev should be mentioned first ahead of Robert Wagner, whose presence at the funeral is less noteworthy. I like the article - I'm glad people have taken the time to develop it. Rossrs 14:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I love Samantha, my contributions to this article, including some POV, corrected by guys here is a consequence. As concerns merges, partially agree (article corrected). But I think, if we combine Russian and Soviet tributes, USA tributes will seem poor. And if we combine all three in one, it'll be completely unclear,what and when. Cmapm 15:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More copyedit done to correct the English, and some additional background added. Denni☯ 23:12, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Thanks. I added Soviet contribution to the international tension - war in Afghanistan since 1978 - for NPOV-ing.Cmapm 23:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've made a few edits, which I think are fairly minor - removed a few superfluous phrases/words and changed others.

Support now. Rossrs 06:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object interesting story, but seems to lack comprehensiveness. More about her social activism is probably called for. And it still needs a good copyedit. See for example this train-wreck sentence: No representative of the American government was present, certain part of them, probably, due to the fact, that many people within administration circles saw her as a Soviet dupe. Fawcett5 15:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that both Samantha and Arthur's 1985 book and the 1987 biography of her are out of print and trying to locate copies of them has proved difficult. PMA 15:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support There is more that could be added to this story, but then there always is. It no longer suffers from English-as-a-second-language problems, and I can no longer find evidence of POV issues. I'm at a loss as to why you see the need for a "good" copyedit. Not only can I find no evidence of the sentence you quote, but I have worked through the article almost word by word, correcting bad grammar and irregular constructions. Denni☯ 21:30, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I made it up? It seems unreasonable to expect to find evidence of a particular flawed sentence 6.5 hours and several edits after I pointed it out to the world on FAC. And as you said yourself, you went through word-by word fixing things. So it sounds like YOU might have been the one that gave it the "good copyedit" I requested. Anyway, I will give it another read through when I get the chance, and will reconsider then. By the way, Denni, I'm going to make a final push on Louis Riel and Red River Rebellion this weekend to get them ready for resubmission.. I'll drop you a note sometime soon. Fawcett5 21:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No way I'm suggesting you made it up, Fawcett5. Your good work precedes you, and I'm sure it existed there in some incarnation. Looking forward to seeing your finished version of Riel. Denni☯ 00:24, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Sly & the Family Stone

Self nomination. When I first came to Wikipedia, I was shocked and appalled that one of the most important bands in American music history did not have an article (Sly Stone had an article, and the band information was tucked into it). --FuriousFreddy 22:57 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Question: the band was certainly multiethnic, but in what sense were they (as the lead paragaph calls them) "multicultural"? -- Jmabel | Talk
  • There's at least three distinct cultures in the band (African-American, Italian-American, and Caucasian American). All of the members are American, but they still came from three different cultural backgrounds (even if all the members were the same ethnicity, they could still come from differnet cultures; i.e. Southern U.S. blacks and West Indians. In