Contents 1 Søren Kierkegaard 2 Kolkata 3 Halloween (film) 4 Muhammad Ali Jinnah 5 Mosque 6 Tenebrae (film) 7 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 8 Solar eclipse 9 The Office (US TV series) 10 Lastovo 11 Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima 12 FIFA World Cup 13 Perfect Dark 14 Demand Note 15 Bangladesh 16 Sanssouci 17 Rabindranath Tagore 18 Ina Garten 19 Music of the United States 20 Corinthian War 21 Mariah Carey 22 Rush (band) 23 National Anthem of Russia 24 Mount Rushmore 25 Nostradamus 26 Hong Kong action cinema 27 The Catlins 28 Gerald Ford 29 Australia at the Winter Olympics 30 AIDS 31 Ran (film) 32 Geology of the Capitol Reef area 33 Diane Keaton 34 Simon Byrne 35 Hopkins School 36 Battle of Austerlitz 37 Retreat of glaciers since 1850 38 Hurricane Gloria 39 Manchester City F.C.

Søren Kierkegaard

I've been working on this article for several months, motivated by a previous fac. I think I've improved this article since November; I've addressed comments from the peer review and got this to be an good article. This is a biography containing details about his life, his writing methodology, his journals, and his critics and supporters. His philosophy and theology have been extracted to other articles and a summary has been left behind for those aspects of his work. I've also cited references throughout the article. Poor Yorick 03:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Looks very good. I suggest that there is still some copyediting to be done; there is some overuse of passive voice, a few instances of odd phrasing, etc. One minor referencing problem; the 2002 Danish demographic information is referenced to a Wikipedia article, which is something that we want to avoid doing. The sentence could be safely removed without any impact to the article, in my opinion, but if I'm missing its importance, it needs better referencing. Jkelly 04:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok removed, that 2002 ref; shouldn't need it since kierk didn't live in 2002. looking for those passive sentences now. Poor Yorick 04:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support I only have several minor issues with the article. WP:MOS states that the headings of articles should not start with the word "The" when possible. In addition, non-proper nouns should not be capitalized outside of the first letter of a heading. Finally, could footnotes be provided for the several quotes also? AndyZ _t 19:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok removed "the" from the article headings, removed caps, and added footnotes for those quotes Poor Yorick 21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - How did Kierkegaard make his living after leaving University? The article makes no mention of it (or it is not made explicit). --Knucmo2 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The article mentioned he was born to a wealthy family, so I've elaborated that K lived on his inheritance. Poor Yorick 22:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Tentative Support. The content is there, but I don't have time to read it really closely at the moment. Ironically, I have to read a chapter of Crime and Punishment for my English class tomorrow. RyanGerbil10 03:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Full Support. Upon having more time to read the article, I lend it my full support. RyanGerbil10 03:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Looks very good; I see no problems reading through it. One thing is the possible overuse of long quotes, particularly in those quote boxes. They look clever when small in number, but this article is rife with them. It bothers me a little bit, but not too much. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 25 April 2006 @ 21:40 UTC

• Support. This article is certainly up to, if not beyond, the standards of Wikipedia featured articles. Ig0774 09:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Supplementary comment: I kind of like the quote boxes, except in two places where they are (at least in my brower) a visual distraction — the first quote box and the picture of Regina Olsen overlap as does the one next to the Journals. That said, I don't think visual distractions like that really matter when it comes to considering a page for FA status — it seems to me that it is more about content (see [WP:WIAFA]).
    • Personally, I kind of like the overlap, as the first quotebox (about Regine) overlaps with Regine's pic, while the other quote (about the journals) overlap with the journal pic. Poor Yorick 11:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support. This article is well written and well referenced. My only problem is, as Cuivienen also noted, the use of many quotes. In my opion it disrupts the flow of the article and I'm reminded of why Wikipedia should be based on secondary or tertiary sources. If you pick 2 or 3 really good and short ones it would work better. Another technical problem is that the quote box doesn't look all that good in combination with thumbnails or infoboxes. --Maitch 10:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright guys, removed some quote boxes. Poor Yorick 10:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I've made a few emendments to the article, such as the age at which Michael expected his sons to die (it was 33, not 34), and a few more clarifying edits. It is worth noting that although the University did regard Kierkegaard's thesis as wordy, they converted it to a doctorate! He conducted his dissertation defense in Latin, a condensed version of the original Danish text. Other than that, I like the article and can find no other inaccuracies at present. Perhaps there might be a little more made of the "Edifying Discourses", but I understand there is an article solely devoted to his philosophy. Nevertheless, I feel a little more mention should be made of them. --Knucmo2 11:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • About the 33/34 thing, it's sorta similar: the previous version is something like < 34, this version now says something like <= 33. Back then, it was a masters, and K was awarded an MA, but nowadays that kind of coursework would be awarded a doctorate, which is kinda of a ripoff for K, LOL. And yes, his philosophy is treated in another article (I'd like to try to keep this article under 50k). Poor Yorick 11:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Kolkata

Article on a metropolis of eastern India. Major works have been done on the article from February 2006. The article has passed through a peer review and further reviews by wikipedians, and edits have been done accordingly. The article has been selected as a good article. I request your support for making this article an FA. Thanks. --Dwaipayanc 17:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support - it is indeed a comprehensive article , that is not just well written but also gives a good insight into the fabric of Kolkata.--Jordy 17:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support it needs a light copyedit. Rama's Arrow 17:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support; I don't see any major reasons why not. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 18:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment You might want to put in the Indic Text template. --Osbus 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This has now been done. Rama's Arrow 18:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: is there any reason why the Indic Text template is in the middle of the History section? Shouldn't it be either at the top or the bottom of the page? AreJay 18:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll transfer it to the bottom - when placed at the top, it was creating formatting issues. Rama's Arrow 18:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It was already there at the bottom! I placed the template one or two days back! --Dwaipayanc 18:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious....I missed it completely. Rama's Arrow 18:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too...I thought it was just my browser acting up! This is a good article. I am happy to support it, congradulations to the authors.AreJay 18:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Only one issue. Since there is a separate article on History of Kolkata, why does it need to have such large a redundancy in the History section in the Kolkata article? Also the lead-in section is way too streched out. --soUmyaSch 19:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have shortened and copyedited the History section. Rama's Arrow 19:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support A few more books rather than websites as references would be good, otherwise fine. History of Kolkata needs a lot more work. Sikandarji 20:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Sikandarji for pointig out that the daughter article History of Kolkata needs a lot more attention. We shall soon work on that article.--Dwaipayanc 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work, congratulations. Joelito 00:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - the editors have transformed this article and it meets all the criteria for featured article. Green Giant 01:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support + Question First of all, this article has my full support. But I've always wondered why articles related to India are among the highest quality on this site? Is it an interest of Brits who have a strong attachment to the country and thus put so much effort into it, or is it an equal contribution from all English speaking regions on a subject that fascinates many many dedicated people? Thanks. Sean WI 03:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No sir - it is the effort of Indian editors that is by and large responsible for the work. In 2006, there has been systematic and determined activity amongst Indian Wikipedians to elevate many articles on Indian subjects to FA status. Plus folks like user:Nichalp had already done fabulous work since 2004. Rama's Arrow 03:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the comment of Rama's SrrowArrow should slightly be modified. Not only Indian, as a whole South Asian wikipedians are doing good work lately.--Dwaipayanc 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll let the secret out: Firstly, we have two reviews: an internal review by Indian editors and the normal peer review. We use peer review to obtain comments from the community, especially those not familiar with India-related topics. The internal review gets a lot of constructive comments, and since many Indian reviewers do have FAs to their credit, the article is shaped well after their comments have been sorted out. Thus, listing it here becomes a mere formality (one of our articles was featured in just 5 days). Secondly, we do have model India-related featured articles to quite a few categories. Hence, all we have to do is to use that as a template and match it section to section, and better it if possible. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Is there a need of the name of the city to be in the introduction section? It may be put in the History section. --soUmyaSch 05:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  There's no harm in having the name listed in the lead. Having it merged with the history will be difficult. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - a really good article. By the way, I don't know too much about the other nations on Wikipedia, but I know for sure that Indian Wikipedians are organized and know what they want (in terms of aims and goals). We've also got some really good Indian admins that are consistently improving articles. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, I don't know how many things I've had to "borrow" from WP:INCOTW to help improve WP:USCOTW ;). (Oh and by the way, support!) AndyZ _t 19:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support : Nice work by the editors. --Ragib 08:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Well-referenced article, good work with the contents. --Andy123(talk) 08:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- having closely worked on it for many days. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- I have worked extensively on this article and feel that it is of the same caliber as other FA city articles. --Blacksun 17:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Provides a very rounded and well-balanced description of the city. Saravask 17:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Excellent work! SwiftRakesh 18:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: A beautiful page in every respect. Informative, comprehensive and skilfully written. Two of the images are of tremendous quality and interest Image:Flowermarket.jpg and Image:Kolkataslum.jpg give an almost tangible understanding of the city to the page. Another (obscure) link in the page has conveniently filled a gap in a page I am writing myself, I actually found this page through google while researching my own new page - which proves This is wikipedia s it should be. Giano | talk 18:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Nicely written. A few random fact and reference checks worked out fine. Beautiful pictures. Balanced in all respects.--ppm 23:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support, brilliant. Well written, great images, a solid FA -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 23:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Once again another great South Asian article. joturner 23:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Tentative Oppose Sorry to be going against the grain here. In all, the content of the article is excellent, and it would have my strong support, aside from a few minor objections. Firstly, it requires a light copyedit to remove the instances of passive voice which are throughout the article. Sentences such as "During World War II, the city's port was bombed twice by the Japanese" need to be reconstructed. Quite easy to do. Secondly, the references are badly cited. For instance, the reference "Spiegel online article URL accessed on 23 April, 2006." Is a nice reference, but who wrote it and when? The same argument applies to "Air quality monitor on 16-17 March, 2006 URL accessed on 20 April, 2006 " and others throughout the article. In the case of "R. Gandhi, Patel: A Life, pp. 497 " What is the ISBN of the book? Is it a book? When was it published? Who by? Thirdly, there are not enough references. Finally, the format of the references throughout the article is not consistent. Do we have a space between the reference and the period/comma, or is there no space? This is not consistent. These are minor objections and should be quite easy to fix. Support Well done. --Bob 18:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've begun to address your points, but I believe that in British English, which is the main source of Indian English, it is passive voice which is emphasized, unlike with American English where the active is stressed as a better way. Rama's Arrow 18:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistencies in citations. We have fixed them. Some sources lacked the name of the writer. Some sources lacked a definite date of writting. Otherwise, all references have been updated and formatted. Please let us know if we inadvertantly missed something.

Regarding the use of passive voices, I think using it is grammatically correct. May be it is less beautiful than active voice. Could you please specify where should we change voices? (I have very less idea of British and American English differences, as Rama's Arrow pointed out. So specific portions you want to see changes, along with proper rationale, would be very welcome and also a learning experience for a person with weak English grammar like me.)

Regarding the number of references, WP:WIAFA does not specify any number. Still, 5 to 6 book references are not really inadequate in number, I guess. Even then, if you would like to see citations/ references on specific comments in the article, please let us know. Specific citations from the reference books have been denoted with inline citations. Other than those specific citations, the books listed as reference have been used as a guide to create the article.

Thanks a lot for your extremely alert review of the article. We have tries to fix the inconsistencies. Please comment. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 05:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have changed my vote to support after some work was done rectifying some instances of passive voice and references and notes were correctly cited using publisher/author names of the works. --Bob 22:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support BengalRenaissanceEccentrica 04:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see any need to change passive voice to active, I find properly used passive voice beautify the prose through their slightly roundabout and flowing way of saying things. Loom91 05:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good article.--Raj d0509 10:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Many improvements since my last visit.--Victor.P.Das 16:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Kolkata was in a very bad shape 6 months back. But now seems to be perfect with the nitty-gritties worked out. --Aryasanyal
• Strong Supportfor this well documented contribution.--BobClive 08:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - present state of article is comprehensive and excellent. Pradiptaray 14:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Halloween (film)

this is the seminal late-70s horror film that launched the slasher genre. as Tenebrae (film) went through FAC so successfully i feel this article, about a film from the same era and same genre, could do the same. what is best is that many of the sources are scholarly print publications, its not just rehashing material from the dozens of web fanpages. it also successfully avoids trivia, fancruft details and original research. article appears to be comprehensive, neutral and well-written (i copyedited).

• Support per nom Zzzzz 20:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Why is Moustapha Akkad described simply as a financier. Even if he did the financing, wasn't he more important than that creatively ? Bwithh 20:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I added some additional information about Moustapha Akkad in the Sequels section. All the sources that I have seen give little (if any) credit to Akkad for creative contributions to the film, mostly just his role as financier and executive producer of the other films in the series. If you know of anything to the contrary, let me know. Dmoon1 16:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Myles Long 23:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comments I have some minor problems with the article All below concerns have been addressed:Hal Raglan 13:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The sentence: "The film is generally considered the first of a long line of slasher films inspired by Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960)." While undoubtedly true, as written doesn't this contain weasel words? Shouldn't this say something like "Some critics have referred to the film as the first..." then have a link to at least one or two reliable sources saying that?
    • Fixed this. Dmoon1 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In the first paragraph, it reads that "Original drafts of the screenplay were titled Babysitter Murders" But in the "Production" section it says the title was discarded while Carpenter and Hill "began drafting a story". Which is it? If the latter, I think reference to the title should be removed from the lead, as its not an alternate title or early shooting title for the film.
    • Clarified this (I think). Dmoon1 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Yep, makes more sense now. Hal Raglan 03:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Direction" section: "Film critics contend that John Carpenter's directing and camera work made Halloween a "resounding success." This seems like pure POV/hyperbole to me. Does the referenced book actually say this? If so, sentence should read, "According to Nicholas Rogers, film critics contend that..."
    • Yes, this is a direct quote from Rogers, but he is a historian referencing other film critics. Fixed anyway. Dmoon1 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Reception" section: "Renowned critic Roger Ebert..." This seems like a pure POV-insert from an Ebert fan. How about just simple "Roger Ebert"?
    • I used "renowned" just to emphasize that Ebert is considered an important critic. Dmoon1 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I understand that, but after all your recent edits the only thing that still rubs me the wrong way about your otherwise fine article is referring to Ebert as "renowned". It really seems completely POV to me...what makes Ebert more "renowned" than, say, Vincent Canby, who also wrote extremely favorable things about Carpenter's film in the New York Times?Hal Raglan 03:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I guess that I put renowned also because most people would recognize Ebert's name over others' like Canby, regardless, I removed "renowned". Dmoon1 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Ebert won a Pulitzer Prize for Criticism. Ebert can be seen by anybody in the US with a TV set, being on a major network (and also an occasional guest on late night talk shows). Renowned may not be quite the right word, but award-winning and well-known is quite true. Шизомби 16:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
            • I just don't think its encyclopedic to qualify Ebert in that way. Yes, it is true he's well known--I'm not arguing that he isn't famous. If, as you say, he can be seen by "everybody in the US with a TV set", then it really doesn't need to be said that he is well known, does it? It seems very POV to specifically say "Famous/Pulitzer Prize-winning critic Roger Ebert..." For any young film fan who reads the article and doesn't know who Ebert is, they can click on his link and read the wikipedia article on him for the details of his career. I also think it would be just as POV to refer to Pauline Kael as "Influential (or National Book Award-winning) film critic Pauline Kael", or to Donald Pleasence as "Beloved character actor Donald Pleasance". True statements, but not encyclopedic. Hal Raglan 18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Reception" section: "Once-dismissive critics were impressed by the simplicity of the film's camera work and music and surprised by the lack of blood, gore, and graphic violence." Is this saying that critics who had originally given the film a negative response changed their minds ("once-dismissive critics")? The linked review says no such thing, and I certainly don't recall this happening. Also, the sentence indicates these same "once-dismissive" critics were impressed by the "simplicity of the film's camera work". I've never heard this before; I seem to remember many reviews being impressed by the relatively stylish widescreen cinematography. Again, the linked review indicates that the music was "simple and unsophisticated" but says no such thing about Dean Cundey's camera work.
    • This is referring to the fact that serious critics did not bother to even review the film until The Village Voice wrote a positive review--hence they were "dismissive." Clarified "simplicity" quote. Dmoon1 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Criticism" section: "Negative reviews by film critics of the early 1980s are near impossible to come by.." I don't like the way this is phrased at all. First, the film was released in 1978, so why the reference to reviews by critics of the early 1980s? Second, its not near impossible at all to find negative reviews: Pauline Kael hated the film, and Cinefantastique's original review of the film was extremely negative. McCall's called the movie "sick". I'm sure there are others. I'd rewrite to something like, "The film received a mostly positive critical response at the time of its intial release..."Hal Raglan 00:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for these references. Incorporated Kael's review (having trouble finding Cinefantastique and McCall's online--I'll keep looking). Dmoon1 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I think the Kael quote is probably enough to balance things out. The Cinefantastique review probably isn't online, but if you are interested its from the Forbidden Planet double issue, Vol 8 No. 2/Vol 8 No. 3, pg 73, written by Dave Schow. From the review: "...Halloween broaches intriguing twists on standard themes, only long enough to abandon them for obvious and easy climaxes. Though Dark Star really didn't get any careers off to flying starts, Carpenter's "apprenticeship" in film is taking too long."Hal Raglan 03:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - One other comment, tho. Take a look at Casablanca and my own Tenebrae and see how the references have been formatted. During the peer review/featured article candidate stage for my article, it was recommended that I use that new format; after making the change, I have to admit it looks better. Just a suggestion.Hal Raglan 13:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Fine article. One style nit: (===Casting===) I hate the sentence "Laurie's other promiscuous friend, Lynda Van Der Klok..." It's clunky as an introduction of the character but I'm not sure how to revise and keep in the promiscuous part. Fuhghettaboutit 15:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Smoothed out description of P.J. Soles in Casting sub-section. Does this work better? Dmoon1 19:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Much, much better.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Circeus 18:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment While the article itself is surprisingly well-referenced, I notice most related articles are not referenced at all, fr example Halloween (film series), Michael Myers (Halloween) or Halloween II (film). Circeus 18:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • NOTE: I updated/rewrote the Halloween II (film) article this morning; it has nits that need picking. Dmoon1 14:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great article, not too bloated and easy to read. --Osbus 00:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very well done. Cvene64 07:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support definitely, and suggest this could be used as template for other film FAs. Marskell 22:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali Jinnah

Hi All - After 8 days of revisions, analysis in peer review, I've decided to submit this article to FAC. I think all objective and poignant criticism that remains to be given will only be obtained here. I'm prepared to listen to and address all concerns, and I request your support for making this article an FA. Thanks, Rama's Arrow 14:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I know there will be some concern about describing Jinnah as an "Indian." There are many reasons for this: (1) Pakistan did not exist till 1947 (2) Jinnah himself said: "I am an Indian first second and last". He lived in "India" for most of his life, save one year. (3) Up till 1940, he was an Indian nationalist politician. In terms of content for an encyclopedia, I think it is justified to describe him as an Indian who became the founder of the state of Pakistan. Rama's Arrow 15:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Support per nom. Rama's Arrow 16:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - this image needs its copyright status resolving. —Whouk (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply - it should be a PD-India or PD-Pakistan, given that the date of this pic being taken is definitely in the 1930s. Rama's Arrow 15:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. All issues raised in Peer review were well handled and the writing is very good, well structured and balanced. I'll see if I can't dig in again to see if there is anything left that I can find to improve, but I don't see anything as of yet. - Taxman ^Talk 15:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Followed the peer review where the issues raised were addresses properly. Describing Jinnah as an "Indian" should not give rise to discontent as it is well-referenced. With well-placed inline citations and references, the article is comprehensive.--Dwaipayanc 15:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A well written and well referenced article. --Andy123(talk) 15:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Really well written article — however, can you clarify the source and the tag for the image Image:Mazare Quaid.JPEG? It dosen't look like the image exists in the source CC gallery. There is a Noman Janjua image there, but it is different from the one used in the article. AreJay 15:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply' - I will have to ask user:M.Imran to clarify this. In the interim, I will remove this pic. Rama's Arrow 15:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

With the image in question out of the way, I'm happy to vote Strong Support. Great work as always, Rama's Arrow! AreJay 16:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• request Could you upload an audio pronunciation of his name? lots of issues | leave me a message 16:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply - Humm....I'll have to ask somebody...dunno who does audio around here. Please wait about this. Rama's Arrow 16:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You might want to ask User:Ambuj.Saxena. He produced the audio version for the India article. - Ganeshk (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The uncle is on a wikibreak - I've asked Nichalp. Let's c. Rama's Arrow 00:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. And I am not an uncle (if at all you were refering to me). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support: This article is a prime example of what Wikipedia is all about. Great work! I found couple of minor typos that I corrected. Otherwise, referencing and text looks great. --Blacksun 17:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Of course. Saravask 21:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Ganeshk (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You need references in the intro. For example, some historians say needs a citation. Btw, I think that's considered a weasel word. --Osbus 22:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply - Hi Osbus - all facts/assertions in the intro are mentioned in the main paras and referenced thru there. An intro is a summary, so I personally guess its ok. I'll address the weasel word issue. Why the double referencing? Rama's Arrow 00:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi to you to...I guess it's ok. But over citing never hurts. --Osbus 01:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support - Excellent and committed work by the Arrow. Green Giant 03:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: On a cursory reading, this article seems to have a wealth of information. However, it could do with shorter paragraphs, and if possible, a reduction in article size. Use summary style. The lead definitely needs some reduction in size. The section titles could be made more "encyclopedic" avoiding, for example, the double quotes around a part of a section title. I know that these comments are too demanding, but this is just my greedy wishlist. :-) -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll do my best to fulfill them - I can reduce the intro size definitely, and I'll work on article size reduction. Please clarify more what you believe is necessary to make this more "encyclopedic." Rama's Arrow 12:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not able to characterise which subsection titles could make the article more "encyclopedic". Besides being unactionable, it's not a major issue at all. Support This article is highly informative and very well-written. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have slashed the lead and cut 5kb and some pics from the article. I don't think I should go further in cutting, as valuable info will be removed. Rama's Arrow 14:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support Nicely done article. Neutral and everything properly cited. Mercenary2k 3:20PM 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• It is amazing how you single-handidly turned this article around from where it was to on the verge of featured status in less than two weeks. I do however have minor issues with this article that can be corrected quickly. First, there seems to be a desire to include both Americanize and British English forms in this article. I suspect it is due to the fact that some of the content remained from its previous version. However, just searching for the term "organize" and "organise" reveals that both forms exist in this article. As far as a I know, the general consensus on articles about Pakistan is to use the British English and I'm fairly certain the articles about India also use the British form. And secondly, another minor issue, is with the dashes. For some reason, some of the dashes are longer than the others, and I see no justification for it, or rather, for some of the dashes to be smaller. I know its a manual of style concern, but since I am not proficient in this whole MOS, I leave these corrections for others. Nonetheless, I Support. Pepsidrinka 20:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi - your first concern is my fault - I generally use American English, and sometimes forget to differentiate when it comes to such articles. The second concern comes from the use of not "-" but "&mdash ;". This is as per WP:MOS and I was advised to do this by Saravask. I will work to fix the first issue. Thanks for your feedback. Rama's Arrow 20:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please convert the hyphens to dashes (&mdash;)

• Comments:

1. List the location of Kaithawar
2. Christian Missionary Society High School -- location?
3. Dadabhai Naoroji and Sir Pherozeshah Mehta -- who were they? list them for the benefit of those not familiar with the India independence movement. Similary for Annie Besant et al.
4. English better and more regularly than his mother tongue, Gujarati. -- could it be summrised to "Spoke English more fluently than ..."?
5. Child Marriages Restraint Act -- italics?
6. wakf? -- context
7. Sandhurst committee -- wikify/ expand
8. Wikify Neville Wadia,
9. "mission of British minister Stafford Cripps" -- split into 2 wikilinks
10. Use of Bombay -- convert to Mumbai, The first instance of the word should be written as: Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay)
11. Sikander Hayat Khan? -- who is he?
12. May 16/ June 16. I'm sure it was known as "16 May" and "16 June" plans. If this is a proper noun, it need not be wikified (eg the movie 16 December)
13. U.S. -- remove the full stops
14. Caucus Case -- wikify
15. I've noticed some missing information:
    • Ruttie was his second wife. Details needed on his first
    • That Ruttie and Jinnah were estranged and that her death devasted him
    • Jinnah, despite being Muslim, used to consume pork and alcohol [1]
    • That Jinnah envisioned India and Pakistan coexisting peacefully together and that he hoped to return to Jinnah House. (This source can be taken from the ToI references I've added to Jinnah House last May)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi - your points have been addressed. Thanks for your input. Rama's Arrow 16:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I would still like to know about his first wife and why he remarried. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Emibai is already mentioned in the second para in "early life" - she died a year after he moved to London. He married Rattanbhai 20 years after Emibai's death. Rama's Arrow 19:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The cirumstances surrounding Jinnah's marriage to Rattanbai are written in "Early political career." Rama's Arrow 19:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

How did I miss that? Support now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A google for 'Emibhai' and 'Jinnah' comes up with two links both of which say that she was 14 at the time of marriage. The article says that she was 16. Can you pl. cross-check the sources. Tintin (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

While the Pak-gov site asserts she was 14, no other site says so. Ndless, I will insert that "she is believed to have been between 14 or 16 years old." Rama's Arrow 04:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support (with some comments): Nice article. However, there are two red links now Caucus case and Khurshid Ahmed, these should be fixed. Also, the article states that Jinnah had Hindu ancestry; while that is a known fact to south asians, a reference should be provided to back it up. Thanks. --Ragib 20:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed your points - I removed the Hindu ancestry mention becoz I couldn't find any independent source. Rama's Arrow 20:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am sure there would be some history books that can support this. I believe I read a reference to it in "Freedom At Midnight", but I don't have the book with me. You can check that book if you can find one. Thanks. --Ragib 20:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That book is generally frowned upon for being dramatized. Thanks for your feedback. Rama's Arrow 20:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Should definitely be promoted to FA status. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Looks alot better than before, looks like there has been lots of improvements (Fast track 21:06 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mosque

Self-nomination: I put a significant amount of work into this article in December 2005, but more notably in early April 2006. Now I believe the article is comprehensive, detailing the history, significance, and design of the mosque. There are a great number of references as well a great number of images that supplement the topics discussed throughout the article. joturner 03:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Support I recommended that the article be improved to be featured a month ago. Since then it has improved well. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Support This article is so good it shines. I'll read it more in depth tomorrow, but at first glance it seems up to snuff. Only problem I have is with the use of the picture of the Dome of the Rock. It isn't a mosque, it's a shrine. Find another pic of a gold dome as an example. There are thousands of them. --Jayzel 03:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the image, but this one has a blue dome instead of a gold dome. I don't think you'll object though. joturner 04:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Very promosing, but I had a few issues... mostly with the intro...
  • Intro is too short for an article of this length, see WP:LEAD. Doesn't really seem to be an overview of what the article covers... just focuses on the meaning of the name and its english usage. Article covers way more than that.
  • Although iwans and minarets are associated closely with mosques, mosques originally lacked these elaborate features. - confusing sentence as it doesn't tell the reader what the potentially unfamiliar words "iwan" and "minaret" means. Minarets are discussed at length but it never exactly explains what they are! I just found this a little annoying.
  • special tarawih prayers are offered another instance of an unfamiliar word being used without really saying what it means without requiring the reader to open a new page
  • The last two paragraphs of "Ramadan events" section seem to be uncited (probably not a huge problem since there aren't any POV claims there). There are some other uncited sections, such as "Social events".
  • Article, at 44k, might be a tad too long. Some of the repetitive descriptions of functions where larger mosques buy food and smaller mosques bring food for potlucks, etc. could perhaps be scrapped or move to subarticles. --W.marsh 04:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As the article (esp. not including references) is actually < 30,000 characters (although on the high end), two paragraphs is sufficient. However, I or someone else could work on expanding that. I tried to clarify the information about iwans and minarets; hopefully you are satisfied with the changes. Tarawih prayers are explained in the same paragraph they're introduced; they're nightly prayers during Ramadan in which the entire Qur'an is recited. I added the word "optional" before tarawih, but it seems to me as though the explanation is sufficient, as there really is nothing more to that. If you want more information, you can always click on the link. Yes, those two paragraphs aren't cited; I tried very hard to find sources for those sections to no avail. But as you said the information isn't controversial and therefore shouldn't be a big problem. And 44kb certainly is a bit large, but take a look at Canadian federal election, 1993 (FA of the day - 2006-04-12) and Antarctica (FA of the day - 2006-04-09). They're 50KB and 43KB, respectively. If you believe there is information that does not need to be included, certainly I'll consider removing it, but if you believe we should delete a bit of information only because the article is a bit large, I don't think that's necessary. I couldn't discern which of the two you were thinking. joturner 04:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your pleasant reply. Yeah I mentioned the stuff about where the article goes into who brings food to what events as stuff that is probably beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article, regardless of overall legnth issues. But as I'm not terribly familiar with Islam I didn't want to remove it without research. Anyway my main reservation is with the intro... which does need to be improved before I think this is an FA. I will take a look at it tomorrow if no one else has gotten to it by then. --W.marsh 04:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nitpick: footnotes should go after punctuation (i.e. "...statement.^[2]" instead of "...statement^[3]."
  • Support.--Fallout boy 06:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I move the footnotes to before the periods as you requested. joturner 13:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Nice article with lot of references. Perhaps would have been better with slight less length.--Dwaipayanc 17:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I think it's hella tight. No criticisms at all. Fantastic job! The Disco King 21:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Maybe you should include info about the geometric art in Mosques. --Osbus 23:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I could work on that section later, but since the article is quite long already, I'll have to keep it brief. But certainly, that was something I overlooked. On the other hand, I want to make sure I stay specific to mosques and not delve to far into Islamic architecture; talking about the geometric art may do that. joturner 12:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment very nice article, although one thing that seems rather odd is linking to Allah while labeling the link God. Why not label the links appropiately? It's not like we're talking about unfamiliar terms. Besides, these kind of links are misleading. Sheehan (Talk) 02:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Since Allah is just a translation of God, I decided to use the word God in the article, but like to the Allah article. I don't want to give the impression that Muslims worship a different god than the ones Christians and Jews worship. I could have also linked to Islamic concept of God instead. joturner 12:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support with a few notes:

The location of the mosque was declared as such after Muhammad hosted the first Friday prayer.

I don't get this line. Does it mean Muhammed preached somewhere and declared the spot a place of worship?

Today, the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca and the Masjid al-Nabawi in Medina are considered the two holiest sites in Islam, respectively.

"Respectively" seems out of place here. The sentence is constructed in a way that the locations are attached to the specific mosques. If you mean one is considered holier than the other, I suggest rephrasing.

I removed the word. I was trying to say the Masjid al-Haram is the holiest site while the Masjid al-Nabawi is teh second-holiest, but I removed the word altogether because that's really irrelevant. joturner 12:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite the provisions allowing non-Muslims to enter mosques, there is still a difference in opinion, even in countries where Muslims are the majority, over whether Muslims should be permitted to enter. The Hassan II Mosque in Casablanca, for instance, remains the only mosque in Morocco open to non-Muslims.[54] However, mosques in Turkey are open to everyone.[55]

I think there's a typo here. I think it should say non-Muslims in the bolded spot. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the mistakes you mentioned above. About the first one, that was what I was trying to say. The Prophet Muhammad hosted the first Friday prayer at the location that was later declared the Prophet's Mosques. Hopefully my rewording of that sentence clarifies things. If not, go ahead and fix it. joturner 12:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - this meets all FA criteria as far as I can see. Sheehan (Talk) 02:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose based on the extremely poor quality of sources due to which the article has been delisted from good articles. The article relies extensively on unacademic web sources like about.com, Enyclopedia of the Orient (run by a Norwegian programmer), IslamOnline, sunnipath.com, modernmuslima.com, or no source at all. See Talk:Mosque#About.com_-_Dubious_Source.3F for more details. It's an utter disgrace to Wikipedia that an article on such a thoroughly researched topic uses virtually no relaible academic sources; it should never have been nominated for the featured status in the first hand. Pecher ^Talk 10:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I'd like to point out that Pecher was the one who delisted the artilce from Wikipedia:Good articles. Regardless, I'm working on rectifying this at least partially at this moment. joturner 13:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding Encyclopaedia Britannica to which you've just provided a couple of references, here is a statement from WP:RS: "Note that unsigned encyclopedia articles are written by staff, not by experts, and do not have the same level of credibility." That's certainly an improvement over Enyclopedia of the Orient, but still not enough for a featured article. Pecher ^Talk 14:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Doesn't it also say There is a wealth of reliable information in articles signed by experts that appear in tertiary sources like reputable encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopædia Britannica...? joturner 14:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Britannica's article on mosque is not signed; correct me if I'm wrong. Pecher ^Talk 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've, for the most part, replaced the not-so-good sources. There are maybe three more I'll replace, but because it's approaching 3:00am where I'm located, I'm going to retire for the night. Sometime tomorrow, in between or after some reality work, I'll finish up the final sources. In the meantime, feel free to comment. joturner 06:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have eliminated all of the bad sources, including the encyclopedic ones. joturner 03:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• You shouldn't be surprised by Pecher's conduct. He is pretty much opposed to any article that shows Islam in a positive light. He will drag you down using normal Wikipedia policy and will never be pleased with your changes. I suggest doing your best to address whatever issues he's states but realize his desire is to make sure the article does not make it as a FAC. User247 17:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Ideally the article should avoid citing the Council on American-Islamic Relations as well. Andjam 14:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't really see why citing them is a problem, especially here where these are poll results and not, for instances, comments on the oppression faced by American Muslims. joturner 07:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain.Object. This is a good article, but the 'Functions' section - while much better than I expected - is not comprehensive, I am afraid. The 'Education' section mentions nothing about woman (can they attend the schools?), 'Social events' and 'Charity' sections are but a stub sections and a cursory glance at the literature about social functions of mosques indicates that we are missing any reference to the use of mosques as government propaganda machines, as well as discussion of relation between mosques and the local communities.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• I will mention something about women being allowed into Islamic schoools. However, what in the link you provide refers to mosques being used as propoganda machines? The relationship between mosques and the local communities I believe is discussed in a subsection under History. Perhaps I could expand the 'Social events' and 'Charity' sections, but I don't want to give undue weight to these subjects, especially in an article of such great length already where other more relevant topics are discussd. Nevertheless, I will most likely add a bit of (but not too much) information to the sections while I working on addressing Pecher's concerns. joturner 00:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• For propaganda and government control, see this. I am not an expert on mosques, but I definetly think that more sociological information and references should be added to the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I added information regarding Saudi influence on foreign mosques. See my latest comment in below in response to Tickle me for more information. I didn't want to go over-the-top with the subject as that would be giving it undue weight. joturner 03:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the changes. I still think that the article would benefit from more social science academic citations and sociological perspective, but as I am not a specialist in sociology of religion I will change my vote to abstain for now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object for now. I see that concerns on link quality are being addressed, however right the first entry of Piotrus' list informs about the issue of governmental influence on mosque building and it's political implications. The Islamic Supreme Council of America cites an extensive piece from the Washington Post, relating political issues concerning the building of mosques all over the world:

• "...70 percent of [US] mosque leaders were generally favorable toward fundamentalist teachings, while 21 percent followed the stricter Wahhabi practices."
• "...The survey also found that the segregation of women for prayers was spreading, from half of the [US] mosques in 1994 to two-thirds six years later."
• "...the kingdom established ... 1,500 mosques and 2,000 schools for Muslim children in non-Islamic countries, according to King Fahd's personal Web site."
• "In the United States, Saudi Arabia's infrastructure of preachers and money started as a bulwark against the spread into American mosques of radical Shiism, which surged after Khomeini deposed the shah of Iran."
• "...Hathout, an outspoken critic of Wahhabism, said the result was the increasing isolation of women in American mosques starting in the 1980s. 'Mosques became gender-segregated, which didn't make any sense at all,' he said"

The issue of gulf states, mainly Saudi Arabia financing new mosques to propagate Wahabism and Mosques as centres of Islamist activities is not being dealt with at all, as is the controversial role of mosques as focal points for political islam. The New Republican writes on the "Saudi government-backed Muslim World League and other clerical endowments continu[ing] to finance mosques and seminaries in every Arab country", detailing the struggle for dominion on political orientation against rulings in more secular Near East countries regarding the curricula taught. At the moment the article reflects what a conservative Muslim government might report on the topic, avoiding politics and controversy if possible. --tickle me 14:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll certainly add this information to the article. But not at the moment; the real world calls. joturner 16:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think I addressed the concerns. It seems like the subject of foreign Saudi influence could warrant its own article. In the Mosque article, I only discussed information that related directly to mosques. The article you told me about, as well as a few other sources I found, talks extensively about the connection between Saudi charities and terrorism, but that is irrelevant to mosques and thus omitted it. I also didn't go over the top with the information on Saudi influence in other countries as that would give the subject undue weight. joturner 03:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support The article is well written. The idea of adding unrelated items of terrorism on an article solely addressing Mosques is unwarrented. If someone has an axe to grind then they can create a new article focusing on it. Great work and let me know if you need any help. User247 17:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object This article could greatly benefit from a section on the mosque’s political role throughout the Islamic world and in the west. To say “the mosque is the center of the Muslim community” doesn’t sufficiently describe its importance.

I’d also like to see a section on mosque’s role in contemporary social conflict, particuarly that resulting from mosques being built atop the sites considered holy by other religions; e.g. Ayodhya’s Babri Masjid, which was destroyed in the 1990’s after the claim - apparently accurate - that it had been built over a Hindu temple destroyed by the Mughals, and most especially Al Aqsa, the importance of which to international political and military conflict can scarcely be disputed, built atop the most (arguably the only) sacred site in Judaism, yet now considered one of the most important mosques in the Islamic world.

In Iraq over the past few years, we've seen both issues coming up front and center, with mosques as the bases for populist political factions as well as staging grounds for insurgent activity and ensuing battles.

There's a lot of good work here, but these serious, highly salient points of interest are far too relevant, both contemporarily and historically, to be left unaddressed.Timothy Usher 02:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As my spring break has drawn to a close, I will have less time to devote to improving the Mosque article. However, I will consider adding a section (with a daughter article most likely) on the political role of mosques, especially if others agree it is relevant. But you shouldn't expect a 24-hour turnaround time. joturner 04:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course I wouldn't expect that. I realize that content creation requires a lot more time and effort than content criticism, as I'm engaging in here.

A better candidate for a daughter article would be entitled something like “Architecture of Mosques” or “Mosque design”, and would include “Features” and “Types of Mosques”, which are in both cases about design (where one might have easily considered “types” to mean Sunni, Shia, etc.), their role in city planning (“Mosques as focal points”), perhaps also including sections of sections of “Diffusion and Evolution”, wherefrom it could be aptly linked.

We might also consider a daughter article Mosques in Islamic Practice - obviously Mosques are only important because of Islam, but some have objected to length, and it would be an appropriate place to go into the details of religious practice at some length, such as the "Ramadan events" section which strikes me as somewhat out-of-place in the main article.Timothy Usher 05:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably create the new section late Friday night or Saturday. joturner 16:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have completed the new section. I hope your concerns have been addressed. joturner 07:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely - there is still no discussion of Al-Aqsa, the most salient of political issues - but you've done a lot of good work here. I went throught the advocacy section and am pretty satisfied. I eliminated the last sentence, which I hope is alright with you - I'm not sure what the rules are here - if they are that other editors don't touch it, simply revert it. I don't dispute it's a small number, but I feel it better to let the facts, once presented, stand on their own and let the reader judge their significance for him/herself. Still looking at the other sections.Timothy Usher 10:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This article is comprehensive and the references are neutral. This article most certainly meets the featured article criteria. Pepsidrinka 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This article is well written, neutral and seems to meet FA criteria. -- Underneath-it-All 23:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Occasional stylistic bumps, but they can be ironed out easily enough. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• abstain Still Abstain (until NPOV issues addressed) NPOV is missing, The article could benefit from a section on the mosque’s political role throughout the Islamic world and in the west. To say “the mosque is the center of the Muslim community” doesn’t sufficiently describe its importance. Zeq 17:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I may have addressed this one with the new section (although I was intending to address some of the other concerns, not yours specifically). joturner 07:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you but it is not enough. It is also using words like "small number" without any sources for that statement. There is areal anti-Jewish anti-west incitment that goes on. Since you "took ownership" of this article I leave it to you to practice NPOV and write the facts as they are. If you wish me to step in I'll be glad to. Zeq 07:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to await others' comments. If I still hear complaints of POV, perhaps something can be done. I used words like "small" as you indicated in the FAC because I didn't want it to sound like one can step into any mosque and just hear condonements of bombings and terrorism, as that clearly is not true. joturner 08:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object Lead section has citations, and mentions stuff that isn't in the body of the article. Andjam 14:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• What's wrong with citations in the lead section? And what is mentioned in the intro but not mentioned in the rest of the article? joturner 15:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• The lead section is a summary of the body of the article, so the citing should be done in the body, not in the lead section. An example of something being mentioned in the lead section but not the body is the word "sajada". I've also left some comments in the article's talk page. Thanks, Andjam 00:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• From Talk:Mosque...

• Citations in lead section is a problem.
• The word "sajada" is mentioned in the lead but not in body. This'd be in conflict with how a lead section should be.
• Saying mosques could once only be found in middle east seems a little awkward.
• Starting the history with a negative statement (about minarets) seems a little odd.
• There is an inconsistent hyphenation of Masjid Al Haram
• "has acquired the nickname of city of a thousand minarets" - does this have a citation?
• The change from Egypt to Sicily and Spain in "Diffusion and evolution" is a bit sudden
• "While only two percent of the country's mosques appeared in the United States before 1950, eighty-seven percent of American mosques were founded after 1970 and fifty percent of American mosques founded after 1980." The "while" doesn't seem right to me. Any thoughts?
• There seems to be a bit of repetition between the history and Features section about architecture stuff.
• The phrase "images of spiritual figures or other animals" seems odd - it'd be suggesting that a spiritual figure is an animal.

• I believe I have addressed all of your concerns except for the second-to-last one (about the repititon). I don't seem to agree. If you can give me one or more specific examples, I'd be glad to fix them. joturner 07:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The article looks pretty nice. Wow, lots of pictures! :) --Aminz 08:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article is no way near FA status. Not comprehensive. Thumbs down. Amir85 16:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object As per Amir85. --ManiF 17:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Tenebrae (film)

an early 1980s italian whodunit/slasher film by legendary director dario argento. the article is on a par with existing FAs on individual films, covering it throughly from all perspectives in a comprehensive and neutral manner. the sources for the major assertions are the world's most acknowledged argento experts: mcdonagh, jones, lucas, so very reliable and easily verifiable. any other bold assertions are inline-cited. peer review suggested lack of detail so article was massively expanded in response. the film is not argento's most famous or influential so info regarding its legacy remains somewhat scarce, but i think it does a good job summarizing what is out there. appears to be well-written, i copyedited the article (not written by me) and found very few things i needed to change.

• Support per nom Zzzzz 10:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - looks good. You could consider converting the footnotes to the new style. —Whouk (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. An excellent example of a movie article. I could only imagine that very minor things could be wrong,but I don't see them. RyanGerbil10 12:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per above. Dwaipayanc 13:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As good as November. Batmanand | Talk 14:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article on a movie I'd never heard of. I edited the one thing that bothered my out (describing the ribbon in the London Underground poster as a "pretty red ribbon"). Staxringold 14:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Made me want to watch the movie! Well-balanced, seems to cover all the bases. The Disco King 16:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Rama's Arrow 16:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Шизомби 02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. However, I too would suggest using the cite.php format instead of the old format.--Fallout boy 04:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support. I would like a reference as evidence that this movie was a box office hit in Europe. While not a deal-breaker in my support, I would like to see the notes formatted as references and put in a references section, rather than a notes section. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll start working on reformatting the footnotes, since three of you have indicated you'd prefer they were in the new format. And I'll see if I can locate a reliable reference indicating the film's box office success.Hal Raglan 13:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • So far, an online search for supportive evidence (i.e., exact dollar amounts) regarding the film's box office success in Italy and Europe has been unproductive. I've rewritten the offending portions of the article to remove this unsourced detail. Please advise if the article now can receive your unconditional support. As far as the notes/references reformatting issue, thats going to take some time, and some real patience on my part, but I'll get to it.Hal Raglan 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Footnotes have now been reformatted as requested.Hal Raglan 04:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. One other suggestion to do with the references: the URLs themselves don't need to be displayed. I'd suggest using the various cite templates (e.g. {{cite web}}) to make them consistent with other articles. I'll try to find time to help. —Whouk (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Done! Thanks for your very helpful assistance in reformatting the footnotes.Hal Raglan 22:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Unconditional support now. Offending section is longer there (please double check, I think it was mentioned twice in the article). - Mgm|^(talk) 21:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It was indeed mentioned twice, in the lead and in the "Response" section, and I have rewritten both sections accordingly. Thanks!Hal Raglan 21:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Partial self-nomination. The United States Bill of Rights recently achieved FA status, so I thought I'd nominate this in the interest of fairness. Just kidding. Seriously though, this has come a long way since the original version. While the Charter has generated so much case law and commentary that an article on it could never be comprehensive, as with the US Bill of Rights information on individual provisions have been forked to their own articles. As an overview of all the Charter, what's here, I think, covers all main bases. Some of the footnotes are missing specific page numbers, but I have easy access to those books and will fill those out in the next couple days. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Page numbers have been added. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support well written. Ardenn 03:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary object. In other words, I'd be happy to support this teriffic article once the following issues are addressed:
  • You need to define "back-to-work legislation," a concept unknown in the U.S.
  • I would go into more detail on Section 1.
  • Perhaps you should put "notwithstanding clause" in bold on first reference, since you refer back to the term several times.
  • The article says, "some of the Quebec representatives did provide input into the Charter because they shared some of the underlying principles." What do you mean by "representatives" here? Do you mean "MPs?"
  • The phrase "Vriend v. Alberta (1998), which read equal treatment into a law that had been discriminatory toward homosexuals" is confusing. I think this sentence should be rephrased to say, "Vriend v. Alberta (1998), in which the Supreme Court ruled the province's exclusion of homosexuals from protection against discrimination violated Section 15."
  • You refer to "Scholars Morton and Knopff." I think that if a source is not famous enough to have his own article on Wikipedia, you need to say who he is -- e.g., "University of Calgary political scientist Rainer Knopff. At the least, you should include their first names.
  • The section beginning with "Scholars Morton and Knopff" is somewhat confusing. It contains run-on sentences. It also assumes the reader knows what "the living-tree doctrine" is, which most readers probably don't.
  • You probably should explain what you mean by "fundamental justice."
  • I don't know what you mean by "substantively" in the comparison with the Bill of Rights' due-process clause.
  • I think the sentence about the role of the religious right in defeating the ERA is unnecessary.
  • You mention that Mandel and Lipset criticize the Charter for making Canada more like the U.S. You've got to point out that this is considered by many Canadians to be a bad thing. Most Americans probably think other countries want to be like the U.S.
  • You should use an expression other than "launched several charges" in the paragraph about Morton and Knopff's complaints. When I hear "launch a charge," I think of someone filing a lawsuit.
  • I think you ought to mention under what circumstances the courts can rule on charter rights. I know the government can ask the Supreme Court ahead of time whether something violates the Charter (which they can't do in the U.S.). Can private citizens challenge the constitionality of a law directly, or can they only do so by appealing a lower court's verdict of fact? -- Mwalcoff 05:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that feedback. Back to work has been simplified to ending a strike; some more introductory detail on section 1 has been added; Vriend has been revised but the phrase "read in" is preserved, please say if it is now clearer; Morton and Knopff are given fuller introduction, and the sentence is broken up; fundamental justice is described as natural justice, a term known beyond Canada with a long tradition in British law; "substantively" has been revised to "more protections"- as I'm sure due process would be perceived by Americans as consisting of legal protections, hopefully this is clearer; the religious right sentence is temporarily preserved as it helps explain the different circumstances that led to the constitutional difference- if you still disagree I will gladly remove it; Americanization is further explained as being feared; more information is added on how rights claims come before courts. The precise identity of the Quebec representatives is, regrettably, within a source I do not have at the moment- I will retrieve it when I fill in page numbers, in the next couple days, and specify who they are. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
      • As it turned out I misread Chretien entirely on the Quebec representatives; thus the sentence is removed, so there's no need to specify who the non-existent people were. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks for addressing those concerns. I would go into Section 1 a bit more in the comparison with the U.S. Bill of Rights. There are a lot of Canadian laws that would not pass muster in the U.S. but which are OK in Canada because of Section 1. Publication bans, for example, and the parts of Bill 101 the courts have allowed to stay. You might also give some real-world examples of how sections 2 and 7 are broader than their American equivalents, since I was always under the impression that the U.S. Bill of Rights was broader. I also think you need a sentence about why Lipset thinks eliminating a US-Canada distinction is a bad thing, if in fact he does. Finally, you still need to address how consitutional issues come before the courts -- which can include Section 21 and "references" from governments to the Supreme Court. -- Mwalcoff 00:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Went into a little more description regarding how section 1 works and gave an example of how rights can be more generous under the Charter; IMO other examples can go into the articles on the sections themselves, as Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms both have "Comparisons with other human rights instruments" as well; the mention of s.7 being broader is referenced. The Lipset paragraph is removed in response to your concerns, and as its point was redundant anyway. Reference question information has been added. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm going to go ahead and support, notwithstanding (no pun intended) the couple of areas where I think the article could be improved. Specifically, I'd like to expand a bit on Section 1 in the comparison with the US Bill of Rights and a bit more on the section where a reference from the government is mentioned. Is that OK with you? -- Mwalcoff 23:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
              • I'd be fine with it if it's kept brief here and more detail moved to the section 1 article; but in the comparative journals I looked at I never saw actual references (though I don't doubt the truth of what you've said), and with little discussion in the general references as well I don't think it's absolutely necessary to the article's comprehensiveness. Thanks, CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support I was going to nominate it too. ;) Needs some fixes, but it's a very good article. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 11:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• temporary oppose
• The refs are a bit confusing:
  • I don't think you need to duplicate titles in "footnotes" and "references".
  • When refering back to a book already cited, giving the full ref again is poor style.
  • There are a few identical refs that should be combined, if you don't know how, I'll do it.
• Circeus 00:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have cut down on redundancies between the footnotes and references, consistent with today's FA Frog; full references are shortened on next appearances, although for Hogg I still used the title since a different book by him is listed in the bibliography and he's also quoted by CBC; I'm not sure what references need to be combined. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object: needs a good copy-edit, if this sentence from the lead is anything to go by.

Desires to improve upon this rights protection, the general human rights and freedoms movement that grew after World War II and was enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and intentions to unify Canadians around a certain set of principles, led to the Charter being enacted by the government of Pierre Trudeau.

Tony 05:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Revised. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great work. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 09:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment to my objection. The second para of the lead suggests that the whole text needs a thorough copy-edit, not just the examples I've brought to your attention here.

the Charter makes its guarantees and its expectations on the role of judges in carrying them out more explicit than had the Bill of Rights.

"Did", not "had"?

However, courts also gained new powers to enforce more creative remedies and exclude more evidence in trials than was typical under the common law and under a system of government that, being influenced by Canada's mother country the United Kingdom, emphasized Parliamentary supremacy.

"However, the Charter gave the courts new powers ..."; this sentence, like many in this article, is too long and complex. Break it up?

The result was that the Charter would inspire both passionate support and fierce opposition among Canadians.

"As a result, the Charter inspired passionate ..."; but the (resulting) logical connection needs to be explicit.

Please try to have someone run through the whole article carefully. Tony 01:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - It's looking good to me, pending most of the suggestions made by Tony. The Disco King 00:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, his specific examples have been looked at. Generally I've been going through it and have broken up a few more sentences, and have made other small copyedits. Anonymous editor has also done a lot of copyediting, and I think a few others did too (like Ground Zero). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Duly noted, change to support. Excellent article. The Disco King 02:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well written, very informative! Anger22 00:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Further comment. It has improved, but the writing is still not nearly good enough for a FA, especially one on a legal subject. If you can get someone who's unfamiliar with the text to go through it carefully and fix it, I'll change to 'weak support'. Here are more examples I've picked at random.

"Talk of introducing a constitutional bill of rights for Canada became the subject of more serious attention in 1967"—talk became the subject of attention?

"The Canadian Bill of Rights, which the Canadian Parliament enacted in 1960, compiled many of these rights"—compiled is an odd word in this context.

"some within government and other groups"—the government is a group?

"meaning full sovereignty from the United Kingdom"—"from" is a problem here.

Most sentences need tweaking. Tony 08:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support though the first section looks kinda messy. pm_shef 04:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to go. Circeus 12:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose:
  • The article still needs a thorough copy-edit (particularly the opening paragraphs).
  • Under "Features", the rights under s. 2 seem to be given lesser treatment because it is laid-out less prominently than the rest of the section. To be consistent, it should start with "fundamental freedoms" in bold (like the following sections). In fact, it might improve if you have a separate line entry for s. 2(a), 2(b), etc.
  • Section 1 should be given prominence over Section 33; while s. 33 may be "forbidden fruit" and therefore the more interesting topic, s. 1 plays a role in almost every Charter case. Furthermore, if you are contrasting the Charter with the US Bill of Rights, the inclusion of s. 1 ought to be highlighted as a significant distinguishing feature of the Charter.
  • The commentary on s. 25 - 32 is weak compared to the preceding commentary. Section 24 (Enforcement) ought not to be lumped into sections 25 - 31 (General).
  • I agree with your desire to preserve the term "read in" or "read into". While even before the Charter the court could strike provisions of a statute, it is a somewhat radical concept for the court to have the ability to add to (or "read into") a statute language that wasn't put there by a legislature.

-- Overall, a good article, but not "featured article" good.

(Sorry for the afterthought, but it just crossed my mind that this article might benefit from a nomination at