Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2005

Contents

Gray Wolf

previous FAC

Phishing

I nominated the article back in May: May 2005 nomination Since then, the article has received two extensive peer reviews. July-Aug 2005 peer review and the June 2005 peer review. Both reviews have been extremely helpful in improving this article. I believe the article is now ready to for becoming a featured article on wikipedia. It meets the criteria for becoming a featured article, and also has been cited as a source by three different media organizations. (See the article's talk page for more information on that.) Furthermore, phishing has become an important issue today as the number of phishing issues reported increases rapidly.

  • Nominate and Support --ZeWrestler Talk 15:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Much better than last time. Interesting article too. --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Two problems--first of all, the copyright status of the User Friendly strip isn't clear to me; all it says on the image description page is that it was "released to the internet", and that it's copyrighted by the strip's creator. Secondly, the section entitled "Attempts after AOL" is full of confusing technical jargon (sample sentence: "Secunia has issued a security advisory on the IDN spoofing issue[1], based on the IDN homograph attacks identified by Eric Johanson [2]. Users of web browsers that implement IDN are affected"). You should lead up to the technical stuff, rather than simply launching straight in after the easy-to-understand "early phishing on AOL" section. Meelar (talk) 15:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • The picture is can be used on Wikipedia, because of the following message in the Userfriendly FAQ section. I have already updated the image description page. I am going to update the userfriendly tag, so this issue can be avoided in the future. As for your second object, I will begin working on it.--ZeWrestler Talk 15:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the quick reply. I look forward to seeing your work--the rest of the article is very good. Not sure if the User-Friendly FAQ entry helps much, though--it appears to allow non-commercial use only, which violates the GFDL. Might want to either justify fair use or yank the strip (it doesn't seem essential to the article, esp. considering the large number of other excellent illustrations). Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 15:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • The user friendly copytag is not listed under GFDL. It is listed under Free licenses. GFDL does not apply to this image. Copyright for the image applys to this site, because the image is being used for educational purposes, as specified on the FAQ above. If the image becomes too much of an issue, i'll remove it from the article, but personally, I would preferr to keep it in. I believe it adds a nice touch to the article. --ZeWrestler Talk 17:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I have made corrections to the section per your suggestion. Are the changes good enough, or is there something else that needs to be changed? --ZeWrestler Talk 17:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Support--your changes address my concerns. The User Friendly image isn't compatible with Wikipedia, unfortunately. He says he's fine with re-use, "as long as no money changes hands"--this essentially prevents commercial sites from mirroring this image. Non-commercial-use-only images aren't acceptable. I personally would pull the image. But with or without it, this is a very feature-worthy article. Best, Meelar (talk) 17:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • Thank you. What I will do involving your image concerns are make a note of it on the takepage of the article. There it can be determined if the image stays are goes. talk page --ZeWrestler Talk 17:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Looking back at my original objections, it appears that they have been addressed. This is a marked improvement from the previous version. Well done! slambo 15:52, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks really good. --Alabamaboy 17:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    • One thing I noticed though (and this doesn't change my vote) is that the in-line notes don't add up. The body of the article has 14 in-line notes, but the note section lists 17. Obviously, three notes were deleted at some point but the in-line note system wasn't corrected. This causes the notes to not link up properly. I don't have time right now to fix it so I thought I'd point out the issue.--Alabamaboy 18:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I added one of the missing tags to the article. (honestly, i forgot to include the note tag for that one.) The other two articles, were used as references, but not cited directly. The information in them is reflected in the article, and because of that, they have been put in the reference section but given no direct reference in the article.--ZeWrestler Talk 18:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
        • They were still out of order in the notes section, causing text reference 1 to link to note reference 4, and so on. I think I have corrected this (although there appear to be two references in the notes section (#16 & 17) that have no corresponding note in the body of the article). Please verify that they are now correct and that I didn't mess anything up. --Alabamaboy 19:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I guess they had to be in order they were used in the article. I had them in alphabetical order. With 16 and 17, those two sources were used in the article, but not directly cited because content and idea were not directly taken from them. Because they were used, i thought it right to include them, without any reference notes. Thanks for making the fix.--ZeWrestler Talk 20:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Yeah, they have to go in the order they're used in the article. That's the most time consuming aspect of using the system. best, --Alabamaboy 20:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Shrimp farm

A quick comment of mine led to some research that kept me occupied for several weeks. The peer review was rather unspectacular, and I think it's ready to be discussed here, although an anon recently said the article should be even more critical (see Talk:Shrimp farm). Lupo 09:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support The "Economy" section could be expanded but I think this article is ready for FA status anyway. Nice use of free license images, too. --malathion talk 09:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you have any particular ideas on how to expand that section on economy? Lupo 09:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Has been expanded and reworked significantly. Lupo 15:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Quality work. Everyking 11:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support interesting and informative, good work! --PopUpPirate 11:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I think the article has good "bones", but is a ways away from FA quality. Here's a few points to start with:
    First off, thanks for these pertinent comments. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Title - if there is a freshwater prawn farming article, this should probably be titled marine prawn farming or some such, not just "shrimp farm" seeing as it only covers half of that topic.
      • I disagree. In most cases, when people talk about "shrimp farms", they talk about the type of farms described in the article. Also, did you see the usage note on "shrimp" vs. "prawn"? "Shrimp farm" appears to be the common term. Feel free to create redirects as you feel are needed, though. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Maybe this can be addressed with a rewording of the message at the top. I will try to fix it. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Organization - I think it would read much better if the article were reorganized; I would like a section close to the beginning that explains the basic theory and methodology of shrimp farming; I would like "life cycle of shrimps" to be integrated with that explanation; I would like the various types of farms ("extensive" to "very intensive") sectioned separately and explained coherently. Other changes would fall out of such a reorganization.
      • We now have "History and geography", followed by "Life cycle", "Species", "Technologies". The latter gives a brief run-down of the basic theory and methodology. "Species" comes first because I thought it important to state first what these techniques are applied to. I'll make "Life-cycle" a sub-section of "Species", though. I won't do a more global reorganization because I'm content with the current one and I'm not sure what exactly you mean. Maybe you could show me? Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Will address on article talk page. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • We simply disagree on this one. Interested third parties: see the article's talk page. Lupo 08:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Avoid repetition - some facts are repeated a couple times in the body of the text (notably, production); the best data should be used once to make a table and the rest deleted.
      • Production data is all from FIGIS, rounded. It makes no sense to provide data with more accuracy: first, the FAO databases may contain estimates anyway, and second, production fluctuates regionally. There is some overlap between the "History" and the "Economy" sections (market share and such)—I'll see what I can do about this. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Fixed, IMO. Lupo 08:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Define techical terms - several technical terms are left undefined; these should be defined briefly and if necessary linked to an explanatory article. (Striking peremptorily assuming it will be addressed per talk page)
      • Which terms? Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Will address on talk page. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • Still waiting, despite my having asked twice more... Lupo 08:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
            • Calm down, doing the best I can. - Bantman 17:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Missing information:
      • There is very little discussion of "sustenance" shrimp farming - it is only implied.
        • That's because I have found no information on sustainable industrial shrimp farming. Note that programs to work in that direction are very recent; for instance, I have found no information that the World Bank/NACA/WWF/FAO programme had any noticeable impact on shrimp farming practices. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • I meant small-scale low-intensity shrimp farming. I found one link (on talk page), will look for more. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
            • Would like to see more, and more objective discussion. - Bantman 17:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
              • I don't seem to know what you are talking about. How about taking a shot at it yourself? Lupo 20:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
                • I don't think subsistence farming of shrimp is a widespread practice as I haven't found any information on that. Shrimp farming is an export-oriented business (note that most of the producer countries do not have sizeable home markets for shrimps). Lupo 11:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • A few years ago there was a big hubbub in the USA about farmed shrimp being too cheap and driving shrimp boaters on the Gulf of Mexico out of business. There was lots of arm waving and some discussion of tariffs, followed by counterthreats... a full-blown international trade fiasco. This needs to be explored in some depth.
        • Well, the interaction between shrimp farming and shrimp fishery could be explored... thanks for the idea. I think farming supplements fishing, though—IIRC, annual catches also rise constantly. I'll go check FIGIS. Do you have any links on the incident you mentioned? Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • One link found, will look for more. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
            • Allright, I think I got it. I think you mean the "anti-dumping case". Is mentioned now. Lupo 15:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
              • I want more discussion than half a sentence. - Bantman 17:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
                • This is an article on shrimp farming, not the U.S. foreign trade relations. Lupo 19:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • There is not discussion of the economics of the farms themselves - are they highly or barely profitable? Have poor rural rice farmers been able to supplement their income with small shrimp farms?
        • I'll see what I can write about the social impacts of shrimp farming. On the profitability of individual farms: I'm not sure this can be answered in any meaningful way because it depends on too many factors. The figures given in [1] and many of the assumptions made there for one particular experimental type of farm would be utterly meaningless for an extensive farm in, say, Ecuador. I'd expect the profitability to vary greatly by region and from year to year. It may be very difficult to find average values for farms in one region, but let's try. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • Dealt with, IMO. Lupo 08:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
            • Inadequate in length and colored by anti-shrimp farming POV. - Bantman 17:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
              • 'Scuse me?? Lupo 19:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Any information on benefits / risks of farmed shrimp as a food? Farmed salmon are controversial because they may have higher levels of certain pollutants (among other reasons). Maybe shrimp do too; or maybe they are bigger, firmer, more consistent... I'd like to know.
        • Do I understand you correctly that you basically want to know why the demand for shrimp has grown so much? I'm not sure I'll be able to answer that... Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • What I'm asking is whether or not the market discriminates at all between farm-raised and wild-caught shrimp, and if so for what reasons. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
            • Oh, I see. AFAIK, as far as the farmed species are considered, that does not appear to be the case. In fact, a recent import ban by the U.S. on Thai shrimp was issued because Thai fishers generally do not use TEDs, although 95% of the country's shrimp production comes from farms. (IIRC, this is the second time this happens, a first time was in 1996.) I would have to check, but I'd guess similar bans on shrimp imports due to Chloramphenicol contamination (a problem that is present only in farmed shrimp) also covered caught wild shrimp from these countries. Some caught shrimp are sold under a "turtle safe" certification, but I haven't investigated how serious this certification is and what its marketing importance is; that whole issue of turtle protection and bycatch is more appropriate for the Shrimp fishery article. Of course, there is a market segmentation between different species; the small shrimp caught in the North Sea (Pandalus borealis) widely consumed in Europe play in a different league than the much larger farmed Penaeids. Other than that, the reason why farming was "invented" at all are summarized at the beginning of the "technology" section. Lupo 14:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • POV - this is a biggie; the article is pretty strong on pointing out the detrimental effects of shrimp farming, but does not discuss the positives. Obviously, people in developing countries are employed or given a supplemental cash flow. Shrimp farming helps sate the global demand for shrimp. There must be some effect of decreased pressure on wild fishing stocks.
      • "People are employed..." - For some background, see Genuine Progress Indicator. It's not that simple. I'll see what I can do... (related to the social impacts mentioned above) "...helps sate the demand" is mentioned. "decreased pressure on wild stocks" - As I wrote above, I'll check the FIGIS databases, but I don't think so. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Furthermore, let me just point out a few more things: if the negative side of shrimp farming gets so much coverage, this is not through any intent of mine. Might it not just be an indication that shrimp farming is indeed a highly problematic industry, at least with current technologies? And shrimp fishery, BTW, is problematic, too. It uses bottom trawling with a massive bycatch problem and causing severe destruction in the benthic zone. From what I've discovered, the social side of shrimp farming isn't exactly rosy, either... For now, I'll just post at the article's talk page an assorted link collection I intend to use for a new "social impacts" section. If you find positive links, add them there! I'm a bit dismayed that I didn't find any... Lupo 10:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm concerned that you seem to be "against" shrimp farming (and for that matter shrimp fishing too). Obviously people engage in shrimp farming because it is in some way beneficial to them (increased income, productivity, etc.). You have explored the problems of shrimp farming, but there must be some benefits to somebody. Bantman 16:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
            • Expanded the sections on "economy" (exploring some of the perceived benefits of shrimp farming) and on "ecology" (mentioning some of the industry's responses to come to grips with these problems). Still waiting for Bantman to review it. Lupo 08:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Some copyediting is also in order.
      • Please help, especially on the last two points. Lupo 07:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Will help as I can, and strike out my objections as they are addressed; I will move further discussion to the article's talk page.
          • Still waiting. Bantman has stated on the article's talk page that he didn't want to rewrite the article himself. (That said, I don't think a rewrite is in order. But unless some native speaker fixes any grammatical goofs I may have made or points them out to me, I can't do anything about that.) Lupo 08:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • -Bantman 01:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • I really don't mean to be difficult, although I'm sure it appears otherwise. I firmly believe that the article should be reorganized as I suggested. The more I look at the article, the more it screams POV as anti-shrimp farming (honestly, I have half a mind to slap a {{NPOV}} tag on it, except that would be such poor manners). Unfortunately, Lupo has addressed my less important objections and ignored my biggest concerns. Therefore I will affirm my oppose vote with little expectation of changing it unless my concerns are addressed more fully. - Bantman 17:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • I have ignored your biggest concerns? I don't think so. Did I really misunderstand you that badly? Lupo 20:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
          • This is not a case of misunderstanding. We have agreed to disagree on the organization and overall structure of the article; in my opinion your refusal to reorganize constitutes a perfectly valid reason to object on the grounds of not being good writing. I have pointed out that the article is quite opinionated against shrimp farming; it continues to read that way and I will continue to call POV as I see it. Again IMO, this is an even more valid reason to object. Both of these objections are actionable. Under FAC guidelines, it is your responsibility to address actionable objections, not mine as a voter. I have tried to give you assistance via constructive criticism and suggestions; if you choose not to carry my suggestions through there is nothing I can do about it, short of doing it myself which I choose not to do. You also have to realize that your dedication to the article as an author is much higher than mine as a voter. I have no animosity toward you or your article, and I hope that we can continue to keep things cordial. - Bantman 00:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
            • I never questioned the validity of your vote or opinion, so don't insinuate that I did. However, I find your accusations of bias rather unspecific. This process is not about "author vs. others", it's about making articles better! Lupo 06:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
              • I don't want to quarrel. I apologize if I made any untoward insinuations - it was not my intention. That said, I'm afraid I'm losing interest in this topic. You can lead a horse to water, and all that. I suggest that you re-read my reorganization proposal and pay attention to the specifics; it is a big job (which is one reason I didn't want to tackle it) and is not much addressed by the rather cosmetic section move recently made. The POV issue is hard to point out specifics on because it is pervasive; I recommend you try to either a) find another editor with a more neutral POV who wants to help you, or b) rewrite the article from scratch playing "devil's advocate", and then use the two versions to create an NPOV mixture of the two. As it is, it is fairly obvious that the main author is quite against shrimp farming... the first step is admitting that is the case, and then trying to overcome it through careful attention to your biases. Good luck with the article; I really do hope it improves, but the article / topic just doesn't inspire me to do it myself. From now on, I will be limiting my further attention to this article and FAC nom to occasional reviews to see if my concerns have been addressed, at which time I would be happy to change my vote. - Bantman 17:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks like another great article, Lupo. Most of the above seems taken care of in my opinion, though I am certainly not an expert on the subject. I only have a few observations: 1) the difference between intensive and extensive methods doesn't seem explained anywhere, though I had thought it had been in past versions of the article. If that's an important distinction it should be explained early, if not, simply explain it quickly the first time either term is used. 2) The very prominent initial placement of the species list seems a bit out of place. That seems like too much detail for that soon in the article. How the farms work and their impact seems much more high level, overview information, which means it should be placed before the detailed species list. 3) This sentence in the economy section is not terribly clear: "This accounts for 25% of the total shrimp production from farming and wild catch that year." I think that means farming is 25% of the total shrimp production, and if so, even just parentheses around "from farming and wild catch" would make that clearer. Other than that, looks great. - Taxman Talk 01:31, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Taxman. I'll see what I can do about (1). On (2): User:Bantman thinks so, too. My problem is: I believe the life cycle must be explained before the technologies, otherwise there will be lots of forward references. The life cycle seems to be explained best in the "species" section. Maybe someone with greater language skills than I could move up the "technology" section before "species", but I don't see how to do it. The article currently explains "what do you farm?" before answering "how do you farm". On (3): done. Lupo 07:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see anything about the lifecycle information that needs to be right after the species stuff. Simply move the species section down, and leave the lifecycle as the first thing in what is now the technology section. You may want to rename the section from technology to reflect that it is about shrimp farming methods in general and not just the technology. - Taxman Talk 18:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • Hmmm... will try that out tomorrow. Lupo 19:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
          • Done. I'm not very happy with it, though, but what the heck. Should also take care of Bryan's (Bantman's) reorganization objection. Lupo 09:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Outstanding article. I am especially impressed by all the references in the body of the text. About the POV concerns of Bantman, I personally think the article is well rounded, and includes both the Pro's and Con's of shrimp farming. Judging which one is more important is difficult to do, and I think just stating the (available) facts is the best approach. Hence unconditional support for the article. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge

This was submitted previously. We have worked to address the concerns that were mentioned. This is the best example of an article of a bridge at Wikipedia. We are hoping to use this article as a model of what a bridge article should look like. -- Leonard G. and Samuel Wantman 18:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Support--looks good to me, and very interesting. Forgot to mention earlier, but the pictures greatly enhance the article, especially good work with those. Meelar (talk) 18:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--Incredibly good article, I like how you took most of the pictures yourself. PRueda29 (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - No references. Please do not nominate articles before they meet basic FA requirements. - Bantman 21:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - Lacks a reference section. If some of the external links were references, please place them in a separate section. Also, I would like to see inline references for the bridge statistics so that it would be harder for someone to vandalize that information. Pentawing 00:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry about the reference section. They were mixed in with the external links. I've separated them and added some inline references for the statistics. I wasn't quite sure how to add the inline reference for the entire "The Bay Bridge at a glance section". I didn't want references on each line, so I added the comment "The following information..." -- Samuel Wantman 08:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this is as thorough an article as can be written about a single bridge. As far as the references go, a lot of this is a matter of public record, so it's difficult to reference. However you seem to have addressed this issue. Great job! My only real objection is the mirrored use of the phrase "at a glance" on this page and on the CalTrans facts page. Semiconscious (talk · home) 21:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Weak Object mainly on style considerations. 1) The images in the middle are all bunched up clubbing the sectional [edit] buttons together. Add an image just after a heading. 2) "5.1 Eastern span name proposed" : a single subheading under a heading is bad style. Merge contents with parent heading. 3) Use the inline footnote style of referencing {{inote}} or {{ref}} instead of directly putting the link. 4) Could you modify this Image:Wpdms usgs photo golden gate.jpg to show where exactly the bridge is located? 5) Is the section "In fiction and film" complete? 6) When I first read this article I thought I was reading about the Golden Gate Bridge, (the construction does look similar). Could you mention something in the lead so that a person not familiar with this topic would know immediately that there are two bridges? Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    1. I think this is fixed. There may be some differences in this problem from browser to browser, so let me know if this is still a problem. all the pictures are after the headings.
    2. This was changed to a heading "Official name" and I added some more information.
    3. You've lost me on this one. Virtually all the information in this article was found on-line. Most of the information comes from government websites, the California Dept. of Transportation site, and the SF Museum site. I don't understand what would be added by having the inline footnotes. It seems like just another layer of indirection. I can add the inline cites if you insist, I just don't understand why.
    4. I modified it, and added it at the bottem near the maps external links.
    5. I doubt this is complete. The bridge pops up all over the place in movies and TV shows. I think the most mentioned ones are here. These sections grow as people add trivia. I think most of these sections are way too long and mention far too much. If this keeps this from being a FA, I'll have to pass the ball to someone else. I don't particularly enjoy researching this sort of trivia.
    6. I've added a mention of the Golden Gate. Leonard and I are from the Bay Area, so we'd never confuse these bridges, but I'm sure you are not the only person to confuse them.
-- Samuel Wantman 06:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, the images don't conflict now. 1) I'd prefer you move "In fiction and film" to a separate article and link it from the =see also= section. Its more of a trivia section here, and as you say its incomplete. (FAs shouldn't be incomplete). Having a new page will allow people to expand the listing. 2) Some units are only in imperial units. I would strongly recommend metric equivalents be added for a wider audience. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
1) A seperate article San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in fiction and film has been created and linked.
2) All measurements are now metric or have metric equivalents.
--Samuel Wantman 07:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:20, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Jean Schmidt

Self-nom. A second try at this (the previous FAC is here). Profile of the newest Member of Congress. I'd like to have it featured by September 6, the day she takes her oath. Photos, full bibilography. Was on peer review here. PedanticallySpeaking 17:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support; well-written, well-balanced and readable; to my eye it seems like a model of NPOV on a potentially divisive political figure. Impressive references list. Antandrus (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks. PedanticallySpeaking 16:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; ditto --WizardOfTheCDrive 17:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; ditto --Ian Pitchford 18:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--looked great on peer review, looks great now. Meelar (talk) 18:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--Very Nice PRueda29 (talk)
  • Support. Niteowlneils 21:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support For the most part it is a textbook example of how political articles should be written. --JamesB3 22:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank for your praise. PedanticallySpeaking 16:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object This is a very good, well referenced article that should be using inline notes in addition to the references. This is especially important since almost all of the direct reference links are to news reports. Within a few months, many of these news links will go dead. With inline notes, the information about which news sources were used as references for each part of the article will not be lost. If this is corrected, I will change my vote to support.--Alabamaboy 00:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I would note that most of the news links are to the Cincinnati Enquirer and Cincinnati Post which retain valid links for years. Some links are five years old or more and are still valid. I am aware of even older pages still available. PedanticallySpeaking 16:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support upon changing of citational style. I normally give much less than a fig about citational style, but in a breaking-news setting inline probably is better. I know it's a PiTA for something that's trivial, but there may be a good reason this time. Geogre 01:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support obviously great work: well referenced, many photos (although the last few parts are a bit dry in terms of photos, but its ok), superb grammar, lots of factual information, a great read. no question in my support --Lan56 03:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks so much. PedanticallySpeaking 16:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, support. Another classic piece of high quality writing by PedanticallySpeaking. Politics can be surprisingly interesting. :) — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I yearn to support, but the captions aren't exactly following the typical caption policy. Johnleemk | Talk 16:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Solid reporting, though I'd like to see the external links not go dead as well. Jokestress 17:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Columbine High School massacre

Self Nomination. I have been working on this article for eight months now, with the help of countless contributors. I believe this article now exemplifies the qualities for featured article status. It has been peer reviewed twice, and has gone through FAC status twice. Every issue brought up in all four reviews has been attended to. Almost every portion of the article can be supported with facts and information found through official investigations and several sources on the internet. It is comprehensive, concise, and should be featured as one of wikipedia's best works. - PRueda29 - 13:08 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Links to its archived candidate and peer review pages:

  • Support. After the recent edits and the addition of inline references, I fully support this article. I know I was initially hard on the article, but that was b/c the subject matter had to be fully researched and sourced to avoid future trouble with reverts and edits. In response to concerns raised, PRueda29 has done some amazing work on this article over the last day and it fully deserves to be a FA at this point.--Alabamaboy 14:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A great article that has addressed the concerns I had for it in Peer Review. Cedars 14:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild object. This is a detailed and extremely well written article, but I have a couple minor quibbles. Image:ColumbineLibrary.jpg does not meet the Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines, as it would possible for us to create a free version of it. I would also like some information on what happened prior to the shooting, specifically the bowling question is not covered in the article. - SimonP 17:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. The Bowling question was covered but I decided to remove it since I couldn't find a good place for it. I'll add it back. Thanks. - PRueda29 - 17:33 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Reference to bowling added. As for the image, even though it can be recreated, It is a screenshot placed in a relevant article and no larger than required for the web based article. So I believe its rationale is fine, but I could be wrong. I have replaced it. - PRueda29 - 10:45 23 August 2005 (UTC).

Support, thank you for the changes. Using the CNN map may very well have been legal, but overusing fair use conflicts with Wikipedia's own goals, since such images can only be used in the United States. - SimonP 13:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, text is great, the only thing I found distacting was the section headings in the Aftermath section, which could be shortened or done away with since the section is quite short anyway.--nixie 13:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral - The article lists "The final grand jury investigation was released in September 2004." In reguards to the county sheriff having prior knowledge. expand on it and this will have my support. --ZeWrestler Talk 15:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Suppport-Nice expansion on the investigation.ZeWrestler Talk 17:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The topic is still controversial as well as a touchy subject amongst many people. Nevertheless, the article is quite comprehensive and detailed. Pentawing 23:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support-Nicely researched article, and author surely went great extents to make sure everything is told about this subject. Airodyssey 01:58 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent article! Well thought and researched. Jigglz2003 19:28 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A very interesting article. I read it months ago and it was great. Front page is a maybe, I don't think its still that big of a deal 6 years later. (note: please don't go and shout me down for saying that.) I say that not in an insensitive way but in the most-people-don't-flinch-anymore-at-its-mention way. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Augustan drama

I hereby nominate this marvellous article for Featured Article status, as I believe it exemplifies what a featured article really should be. An informative, well-written, well-researched article, it provides an excellent overview of plays of England in the early 18th century with a good choice of images to accompany the text. It is well-organised and well-laid out; it is about the right length, in my view, and is perfectly comprehensive and accurate. I thus have no reservations in nominating this article. --NicholasTurnbull 21:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Won't vote, as I wrote it, but I will say that the article's thesis and purpose is not the same as Augustan literature, and I worked for 2 months to try to ensure that it was an independent article in spirit and letter and in no way a subpage. Geogre 02:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The article ought to be categorized. —thames 00:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I have added it to Category:English literature, which is the category inhabited by Augustan literature. I can't find any other category that seems applicable, though I encourage others to look. Jwrosenzweig 01:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A only slightly hesitant Support. Geogre, as usual, does a phenomenal and thorough job. I would personally like to see a little more use of sub-sectioning (the section on Spectacle, in particular, is big enough to make me feel overwhelmed without a little more guidance from subsection titles), but that may be a personal preference, and certainly, I think, should not stand as an obstacle to this being promoted to FA status. Jwrosenzweig 01:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I agree. It's one of my typical faults to make readers run a marathon just because I see the subject as unified. I have attempted to subdivide the "re-emergence of satirical drama" into a first generation/second generation split (they are different generations, but I don't discuss that, explicitly, in the article). I'll attempt to do the same for "Spectacle." It is rather vast, and I'm now attempting to create a Spectacle article, as well as articles for some of the little-known plays (such as Chrononhotonthologos) to take the narrative pressure off the section. I have created subdivisions now to separate the pantomime and opera "spectacles." Geogre 03:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
      • You're certainly welcome, Geogre! And thanks for the sectioning--they helped me make better, more fluid sense of that section. I hereby withdraw any hesitancy in my support for this being featured. :-) Jwrosenzweig 10:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now. Not objecting because my issue is a bit vague. I find the prose of the article a bit leaden, and also in places a bit redundant. I made a few small edits myself, trying to tighten it, but I'm not taking this on. If at a later time someone feels they have addressed this, let me know and I may support. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Understandably, you can't tell me what's "leaden," as that's affective and not demonstrable, but you can tell me what's redundant. Needless to say, I think my prose style is pretty good, but, as you say, you're not objecting, and de gustibus non disputandum est. I do wish, though, you could show me redundancies, since I've been fairly careful and written from top to bottom more than once (i.e. not section by section, which is where redundancies usually creep in). I appreciate the copy edit you've done. Geogre 11:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Y'know, I've looked again and the latter sections are stronger than the early ones that I copy edited. I'm changing my vote to support. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Another excellent literary article from Geogre. --Alabamaboy 18:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support—comprehensive, scholarly, fascinating. This is an extremely under-researched and under-discussed area. Wikipedia now has great coverage of it, in contrast to the EB, and don't even talk to me about the rest of the web. Bishonen | talk 12:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

My Belarusy

Self-nom: My Belarusy is an article about the national anthem of Belarus. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Too early. Needs lots of cleanup, in English language and in exposition. mikka (t) 23:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

*Object: Definately needs some help with the English. There's even some errors in the intro. Scott Ritchie 23:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

    • I ran a spell check throughout the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not just spell checking, it's some hefty grammar and style errors that make it hard to read. I've also noticed a few issues that seem a bit POV to me - sentences like "Several organizations, such as the United Nations, have stated that adopting the anthem was another step of Lukashenko to turn Belarus back to the days of the Soviet Union and away from independence" right in the article lead without reference or context are a problem. Scott Ritchie 22:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I have a reference to the UN report. I made the UN remark again later in the article and I ahve a footnote next to the quote from the report. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Changing to No Vote at the moment. There's still some touchup work being done on the article. It may be ready for FA within the next few days. Scott Ritchie 19:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Since I know this is a lot about putting Belarus on the map, how about concentrating on improving the article about the country itself rather than its national anthem? / Peter Isotalo 23:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • My main interests are in national symbolics, such as the national anthem and flag. I could see what I can do the main Belarus article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I like it. :) Func( t, c, e,  ) 02:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak support I like the layout and section outline and media collection the very much, but the article must be looked throughly for sneaky minor problems.–Gnomz007(?) 05:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

(Sound Off) 05:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I have been through the article tidying up the grammar. Would someone please check that I have not introduced any inaccuracies. It would also be good to clarify in what sense "Young Belarus" was a favourite, and what if any links it has to the political party of the same name; and which bodies other than the UN commented on the choice of the anthem. If these issues are looked at, then it will have my support. Warofdreams 10:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, thats it, I think it is ok now, but taking in account my en-1, additional review should help–Gnomz007(?) 19:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Great, it now has my support. Warofdreams 13:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I've just gone through and made some minor stylistic and presentational changes to improve the article just a little. (Silverhelm 12:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC))
      • From what I checked online, I only found the UN body to officially condemn the anthem. Other bodies do not outright condemn the hymn, except they just call it "Lukashenko's symbols." I also checked on why Young Belarus was not selected as the hymn, and the only explanation I have found is the one that I was give: no music. As for the political party of the same name being connected with the hymn: none. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Provided you put a pic in the leadin paragraph. Perhaps the flag of the country. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan

Self-nomination. This is a detailed and extensively footnoted article on a hot-button topic. It's just been through peer review, which gave some helpful comments leading to improvements. I think the photos are in pretty good shape legally; there is one that's claimed as fair use, Image:Lynching-of-michael-donald.jpg, and I've detailed in its image description page why I think it fits the guidelines at Wikipedia:Fair use. What might perhaps arouse stronger feelings is that two of the pictures in the article are of lynching victims. These are not just random pictures of Klan lynchings --- they're both of great historical importance, and I think they follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Profanity#Offensive_images.--Bcrowell 23:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support - Some of the pictures are poorly arranged on the page, at least in Firefox @ 1600x1200. Nick Catalano (Talk) 01:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone suggest a good strategy to make it look nice at a variety of resolutions? NickCatal, are there any sections that look particularly good or bad at 1600x1200? I'm using 1280x1024.--Bcrowell 03:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • SupportObjectThe content is good enough, but I have some nitpicks.
    • Rename sections to better reflect its contents. One has a vague title like Today and other has an unneccessarily long one like The Ku Klux Klan in the arts.
    • The Ku Klux Klan in the arts can surely be expanded to a para from the current 2 lines.
    • Switch to {{inote}} for references and {{mn}} for notes. See the Economy of India, for how it is done.
    • Some of the images like Image:Viola-liuzzo.jpg are marked PD based on some debatable assumptions. Probably, they can be marked as fair use or you can try to contact your primary source for more information.

pamri 03:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hi pamri -- Thanks for your comments! I've actually gone ahead and deleted the section on "The Ku Klux Klan in the arts," which has always been problematic; it was just acting as a magnet to attract lots of material about movies that just happened to have some content relating to the Klan. I've renamed the "Today" section to "The Ku Klux Klan today." Re the Liuzzo photo, as noted in its description page, the Detroit News apparently does not know the copyright owner either (all the other photos in the Detroit News article were credited, but this one wasn't). Although I think it would definitely qualify under fair use (not notably artistic, historically important, doesn't cut the commercial value of the original), I think that's unnecessary because it's almost certainly PD in the U.S., for the reasons given on the description page. Re the footnotes, can you fill me in on the relative pros and cons of the two styles? I've had another article accepted as an FA just recently with this style of footnotes, and I wasn't aware that it was an issue.--Bcrowell 17:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Its not mentioned how KKK influenced and was influenced by groups like Nation of Islam,Black Panthers,etc., "The Ku Klux Klan in the arts," is certainly needed, so you can either add a para and create a main article, which can be expanded or you can add everything in that article and link it from see also. You can probably experiment with right-aligning the images and see if it solves Nick's problem. If you switch to {{inote}}, links to websites will go under references, inline citations(page nos.,etc.,) will be visible only in edit mode and you will be left with 7/8 notes and you don't have to deal with the pain of updating the order of references everytime you insert a reference. Of course, this is secondary to the other objections and can be worked on later. I will switch to support if the other objections are resolved. pamri 06:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Hi -- Thanks for explaining about inote; it sounds like a good idea to switch to that style. I doubt that the Klan was influenced by the NOI or BPP, since the Klan's priorities and traditions were set in 1866-1871 and 1915, long before those groups existed. If the Klan influenced the NOI or BPP, there is no mention of that in those two WP articles, but if you have a verifiable source of information saying that there was such an influence, I'd be happy to hear about it. It's true that, e.g., David Duke portrays his NAAWP as simply the white counterpart of the NAACP, but of course black civil rights groups don't buy the analogy, and that type of claim of symmetry is more of a feature of recent post-Klan white supremacist groups. I disagree that the section on the KKK in the arts is necessary.--Bcrowell 14:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm...after reading the documentation on inote, I don't think it's necessarily appropriate here. It sounds nice not to have to worry about the ordering of the notes when you move text around, but I don't think it would be desirable, in this article, to make the notes invisible.--Bcrowell 03:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
It won't make the notes invisible, but only inline citations (page nos. referenced). You can still use {{mn}} for the notes.pamri 03:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Well written article. Haddock420 10:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong object. The post-World War II history is utterly inadequate. It omits, for example, any discussion of the Klan's role in supporting resistance to school desegregation and in attempts to disrupt voter registration drives; and it spends more text discussing COINTELPRO than on Klan activities during the decade that followed court-ordered desegregation. With regard to more contemporary material, it omits any mention of David Duke, and contains no discussion of the more media-savvy successor groups which avoid the Klan's name and most overtly offensive activities while continuing its paleopolitical activities. Monicasdude 14:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Monicasdude - Thanks for your comments. I had just recently moved a bunch of material, including the discussion of David Duke, from the KKK article into Notable Ku Klux Klan members in national politics, but in fact David Duke doesn't fit the criteria of the notable members article, so I've moved the discussion of him back. Thanks for the pointers about school desegregation and voter registration; I'll work on that ASAP. Re successor groups, I'm not sure if you're referring to the various current Klan groups (which are discussed) or to groups like Christian Identity, neo-Nazi groups, and racist skinheads, which are also mentioned, although they're only peripheral to the article's topic. In general, the article focuses on the time periods when the Klan was strongest and most influential, and had the greatest historical effects: 1866-1871, and 1915-1930.--Bcrowell 16:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I've moved the David Duke material back in, added to the discussion of the Klan's role in resisting the civil rights movement and voting rights, and added discussion of Klan resistance to court-ordered busing. Thanks for your comments, which have definitely led to an improvement in the article! I hope after seeing these changes you'll be willing to change your vote.--Bcrowell 17:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm still unsatisfied with the post-WWII discussion, which I don't think is well-developed enough. I think it needs more discussion as to both why the Klan regained strength -- most significantly, resistance to school desegregation -- and why resistance to it gained even more strength (the influence of Truman's integration of US military forces, and the effect that TV coverage of events had, especially after 1960). The successor organizations I mentioned are groups like this this one, http://www.southernmessenger.org/ , whose current efforts are concentrated on (relatively) PR-savvy falsification of history and corruption of public discourse rather than brute force. Some are more adept at this than others; that one is not among the more adept). Monicasdude 23:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The web page at southernmessenger.org isn't a Klan site at all, AFAICT. When you talk about "successor organizations," are you talking about Klan organizations, or non-Klan organizations? The article is only about the Klan, not Aryan Nation, White Aryan Resistance, NAAWP, etc. Oh, I see, in your original comment you referred to "the more media-savvy successor groups which avoid the Klan's name." This article isn't about those groups at all. The white supremacy article would cover them.--Bcrowell 23:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think any extensive discussion of the successor organizations is necessary, but their growth (and surprising respectability in some circles) is a nontrivial factor in the "klassic" Klan(s)' contemporary insignificance. Monicasdude 00:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree, but there's already a brief mention of that at the end of the section "Later Ku Klux Klans." I think part of the problem is that it's easy to miss things like that because of the way the article is organized. There's a lot of overlap between "The Ku Klux Klan today" and "Later Ku Klux Klans," and also between "Later Ku Klux Klans" and "Political influence." I think I'll do a little reorganization.--Bcrowell 02:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A well done article on a disturbing subject.--Alabamaboy 20:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-researched and well-written. Though many editors participate, Bcrowell deserves special credit for improving (and maintaining) this non-contentitous article on a contentious topic. -Willmcw 21:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Provided Raul never puts this on the front page, that would suck like nothing has ever sucked before. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! Assuming for the sake of argument that it achieves FA status, I agree that the result of front-paging it would probably be horrific. Even under normal conditions, this article gets vandalized much more often than any other article I've had experience with.--Bcrowell 05:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The Jackson 5

Partial self-nomination. Was originally nominated last November. All previous concerns have since been addressed, and the article and its related articles have beeen significantly improved since then. --FuriousFreddy 22:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Have been reading this in bits throughout the day, it's great. - Phoenix2 00:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object
    1. The image Image:Jacksons-victory.jpg is of significantly higher resolution than needed. Fair use images should be as small as possible: for an album cover, my recommendation is no larger than 480 pixels in any dimension.
    2. The images Image:Jacksons-an-american-dream.jpg and Image:Jackson-5-cartoon.jpg are claimed under fair use, but do not have explanations for why their use is allowed under fair use. See Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for an explanation of what needs to be included in the explanation, and Sunset Boulevard (film) and related image description pages for a particularly good example of using fair use images in an article.
    3. The image Image:Jackson-5-concert.jpg does not seem to illustrate any particular part of the article. Since it's claimed under fair use, it should probably be removed.
    --Carnildo 06:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The images in question have been given rationle for their use in the article (including Image:Jackson5-concert) on their image description pages, and the resolutions of said images have been lowered correctly. --FuriousFreddy 14:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an excellent article, definitly worth FA status.--Richy 10:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I was worried about the bit about the elder brothers and the father being "said" to have slept with groupies while Michael watched etc, not being attributed to anyone. Just seems like a pretty extreme allegation to include without attribution. So have added links to the transcripts of the programs and cited that it was said by J. Randy Taraborrelli. Other than that, very nicely done. Rossrs 13:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I footnoted it to the show (they have transcripts of it online? Great.) --FuriousFreddy 14:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
      • They do. I never cease to be amazed at what's available. I just added the links after your footnote. I wish I'd seen the show now, it makes for pretty amazing reading! Rossrs 15:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. Enjoyed reading it.--Alabamaboy 13:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well done. pamri 06:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: At one point I was planning to add a EasyTimeline here, but the coding isn't working for me. Anyone want to take a shot? I really think a timeline would be useful in this article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support excellent Tuf-Kat 23:39, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

History of Arizona

I've worked tirelessly on this article since August 2, trying to bring it up to the same status as History of South Carolina, and I think it's finally there. With luck, this'll be my second state history FA. Toothpaste 21:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Better than most FACs I've seen. Support. -- A Link to the Past 22:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Object - The two first sections should be broken up into subsections Fine now Fornadan (t) 22:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support except for one thing - the intro mentions a "Father Kino" without saying who he is. It would be like starting out President of the United States with "Mr. Bush is the current president". Maybe it's just me. Otherwise, another mindboggingly awesome article from Toothpaste. --Golbez 22:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I fixed both of your complaints. Soon I'll be one FA away from the aclaimed FA medal!Toothpaste 22:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
If Cat makes it, I'll be 0 FAs away from the acclaimed FA medal. :D -- A Link to the Past 22:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object--the "recent events" section is very skimpy, as, indeed, is everything since the American acquisition of the territory. I count 11 screens of text dealing with pre-1846 Arizona, and 1.5 screens of text afterwards. Specifically, there's no mention of it's role as a retirement destination; there's no mention of its current rapid population growth; there's no mention of its current economic structure. In short, move some of the stuff from "European colonization" into a sub-article; use the space you gain to beef up the more modern history, especially the 20th-century stuff. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 02:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC) There's enough there for me to support, although I'd like to see more on demographic changes. Nevertheless, a solid article. Meelar (talk) 13:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Object -- agree with Meelar, recent events (the last 100 years) is really short. Otherwise good work. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC) =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:19, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong object. The contemporary history is so plainly inadequate that this nomination should require no lengthy discussion before rejection. Monicasdude 14:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC) -- Even stronger objection At least two sections of the article are patent copyright violations; most of the recent history text is cut-and-pasted from a copyrighted website maintained by the state of Arizona, without credit or permission. Monicasdude 02:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Troll much? -- A Link to the Past 18:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nice deleting. You're for civility, and you're blatantly bashing the idea that it could be FA'd. And the eight year old is who now? -- A Link to the Past 00:08, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have fixed the offending sections and the new article can be seen at History_of_Arizona/Temp. Support when copyvio issues are done. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
        • The copyvio issue was resolved at [2]. The admin decided that the copyvio notice was not valid. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object; a great article, but the recent events has to be expanded a lot. ral315 18:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Support as reworded and expanded. Great job. ral315 23:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I think it's great. Andre (talk) 20:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The last 100 years is not all that short. It seems short because Arizona Territory and The Great Depression and the World Wars in Arizona are spun off into their own articles. The last 50 years is not long by any means, but I don't know what interesting material should be placed there that is not already in the existing six paragraphs of "Recent events." --Peter Kirby 00:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, more specifically, I would suggest adding information about the modern economic structure of Arizona; about the demographics of the state in recent times; about the rise of immigration (there isn't any introduction of the issue before the mention of the state of emergency): there's a lot of material that could be covered. Meelar (talk) 16:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the obvious omission is the King holiday controversy, which is simply papered over by the government-approved text text. The article presents the adoption of the King holiday as some sort of laudable initiative by the state's voters, when it actually was the result of an economic boycott, including the NFL's moving a scheduled Super Bowl out of the state. Arizone was the 49th of 50 states to establish the holiday, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing so. The article jsut whitewashes the institutional racism and ultra-right-wing influences invovled. I also find it quite odd that the article softpedals the Meachum impeachment and subordinates it to the state's first female governor's taking office. Impeached governors are quite rare, far more so than female governors in the US. Monicasdude 19:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Did I meet your objections? Toothpaste 20:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Not really. You've gone some distance toward resolving the problems with the specific areas that I identified -- although I think that adopting the state of Arizona's PR depts' POV regarding voter approval of the King holiday is a serious error -- but not toward the more general problem, which others have pointed out in different terms, that presenting a small set of discrete events isn't an effective or appropriate way of presenting recent history. It ought to be a reasonably coherent narrative, not a set of mostly disconnected "milestones." Monicasdude 15:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Toothpaste has worked very hard on this article. Its the perfect length and the headers are perfect and the images are fine. I <3 it. Redwolf24 03:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, too many short paragrahs, where two short paragraphs discuss the same event they should be merged into one; the Early Spanish Expeditions and Missionization of the Pimería Alta sections are candidates for this and since this part of the article is identical to European colonization of Arizona it could potentially be further summarised. Since recent events covers 60 years it could be expanded as already mentioned, and the short pargraphs expanded, the summary of the The Great Depression and the World Wars in Arizona could also be extended. I can see this is a summary article, but you're in a difficult position since the articles it summaries aren't done yet, you might want to flesh out the daughters and then you'll have a better picture of how much to include from each daughter in this article.--nixie 07:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I expanded the Great Depression and the World Wars section and summarized the European colonization section. Toothpaste 15:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
The balance of the text is much better now. I have removed my objection.--nixie 23:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong object. Only two references cited, only one of which appears scholarly, and no references to make any claims verifiable. Buffyg 20:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Added four website references. Are they good enough? Toothpaste 21:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
For scholarly references, this remains lean. I see only one general scholarly work on the subject, and it has not been cited specifically at any point. I would prefer to see evidence that a variety of scholarly accounts have been consulted, allowing controversies in the historiography to be identified. Also, the four notes that have been added seem lean. Verifiability should be given greater attention. I would, for example, note that the Anschluss article, the only FA to which I have substantially contributed, has 22 notes and cites 6 scholarly or primary sources — and we've still had disagreements since FA promotion about verifiability of some of the claims. I think this points to the need for a good deal more research. Buffyg 22:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore I think chalking up Goldwater's defeat to the JFK assassination is a substantial mischaraterisation of the 1964 presidential election. LBJ's campaign didn't just win a sympathy vote in promising fidelity to Kennedy's legacy, it persuaded quite a few people that Goldwater was not competent for the presidency (e.g. the famous "Daisy Girl" commercial) and too far to the right (his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and much of the New Deal). This makes me substantially concerned about the quality of research behind matters about which I know less. Buffyg 22:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Ahem... References are all that is needed according to the criteria as long as they contain the bulk of the information in the artilce. Footnotes and citations are at best a bonus. Do not compare articles based on amount of footnotes, since a lot of articles, whether they're good or not, tend to go absolutely bonkers in using footnotes. It's pretty easy to tell that it's people who've never written an academic paper in their life and have little previous experience with them. Use {{inote}}s when referencing uncontroversial and uncomplicated statements to avoid needless cluttering of the text. There is absolutely nothing in the criteria that demands notes, only that it be "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations", and "inline citations" is not a synonym for footnote to begin with. / Peter Isotalo 14:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Clarification accepted, but I begin to suspect that with this clarification alone, we may loose the plot. A single scholarly source is not sufficient research, particularly should that work approach tertiary literature (i.e. is a synthesis of the secondary literature), as can be the case with generalist texts on a large subject. Full stop. There needs to be some adherence to a "teach the conflicts" approach, expanded to "teach and attribute". I'll grant that there are plenty of ways to establish citation — my point here is that citation has been generally neglected, whether by inline notes, footnotes, or more mundane textual devices like "According to Karmosin," or "Buffyg argues in Some Book...". Buffyg 16:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support all the way. Toothpaste's obvious hard work and effort have paid off. All "touches", big or small, have made this article into something that's actually an interesting and comfortable read. Rob Church Talk | Desk 00:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Montréal-Mirabel International Airport

Myself and some others have worked hard on this article to bring it up to standard. It's been researched, illustrated, referenced and rewritten and reorganized. I think it's one of the best airport articles on Wikipedia. Self-nom. AlbertR 21:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak object. Solid content, yet there are grammatical and spelling errors all over the place (I did some copyediting but a second set of eyes is necessary). Also, what was the reason for Premier Bourassa's objection to placing the airport near the Ontario border? Finally, I am taking it that the dollar amount is in Canadian dollars rather than U.S. dollars. Please make this more explicit. Pentawing 02:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I changed the dollar amounts to specify Canadian currency. I think we need another editor to look at the copyedit issues (I tried peer review, but no-one commented on it except Maclean25). As for Mr. Bourassa, I have never seen any expaination as to why he objected to the airport's location (though I am inclined to suspect that suspect that the French/English enmity at the time played a part). AlbertR 02:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, all that is needed is for someone to look over the article and say that it is alright before I change my vote. Pentawing 05:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I've gone over the writing with a pretty close eye and fixed a number of odd phrasings and what-have-you (no offense intended to original author, of course). It should be fine now. Meelar (talk) 15:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
          • Looked over it once more. Seems alright, and hopefully there are no further problems. Support. Pentawing 02:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Sounds good, looks great. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great example for other airport articles to follow. --maclean25 02:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it would do just fine.. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good. JYolkowski // talk 22:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support fairly good example of a featured airport article, but I don't think that it is one of the "best" FA's. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    • What can be done to make it better, then? Alr 01:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Great job! PRueda29 16:03 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Spyware

I stumbled across this article recently, and found it to be one of the best written and most indepth articles we have on a computer subject here on Wikipedia. A true accomplishment! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 07:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Conditional Objection. Will support if more screenshots are added. Deryck C. 07:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Doesn't a "conditional objection" mean that you will object if he does fix your objection? :-D / Peter Isotalo 10:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
The license of the Ben Edelman screenshots is true as far as it goes: Edelman did indeed create these screenshots, and license them to us under the GFDL. He didn't upload them here; rather, I contacted him by email and asked his permission to reuse these images from his Web site, which he granted. It seems trivially true that they are derivative of the programs depicted; I would presume that Edelman believed their use both on his own Web site and on Wikipedia to be legal. Do we need to note this independently of simply referring to him as the image creator?
I've marked up the image Image:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG (which I produced) with a fair use rationale. --FOo 13:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I also updated some of the copyright information. Would you take another look, Carnildo? Páll (Die pienk olifant) 16:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Image:Ad-Aware Professional.png looks good, but I still don't think GFDL can be claimed for Image:Benedelman-spyware-whenu-license-image011.png, and Image:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG needs a fair use rationale. --Carnildo 18:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Image:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG already has one; thanks. The GFDL license on the Edelman images is simply correct; Edelman's work may itself use the programs' appearance in fair use, but we use Edelman's work under GFDL. --FOo 14:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Copyright doesn't work that way. Edelman's GFDL license applies to his creative work, of which that screenshot is a part. It does not apply to that screenshot separate from the rest of the work. --Carnildo 18:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I halfway agree with you. The screenshot is a work created by Edelman. The software depicted is not. The screenshot makes fair use of the software's appearance. Wikipedia makes licensed use of the screenshot, since its creator (Edelman) has offered it to us under specific terms (GFDL).
In any event, I suspect we are both to a certain extent speculating on the nature of copyright in screenshots, since I doubt there's any legal precedent in the matter. Unless you can offer case law or other documentation in favor of your position, I would appreciate if you would withdraw your objection. --FOo 01:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Not much speculation on my part. It's concievable that there's some obscure part of copyright law that lets you change the terms on a work you don't own, but I doubt it. In any case, I've asked for a professional opinion on this. --Carnildo 04:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: As one of the folks who's worked a lot on this article, I'm gratified that someone considers it to be of featured quality. I think it still can use plenty of work, but that's true of many featured articles as well. In particular I'd really appreciate it if someone with particular knowledge of the subject could review the User consent and legality section, particularly with an eye to recent legal cases involving spyware distributors. --FOo 14:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nicely written. It would be a good article to feature with nowadays sudden raised awareness of the spyware epidemic. Great article and relevant to everyone who signs onto Wikipedia...can't say that about most things that are featured.--Elysianfields 06:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this is a well written article, and it could help promote Spyware awareness in our users. About the only thing I don't like about the article are the moderately long image captions. It's not too bad, though, and I strongly suggest that we get this article featured. It could do with a bit of clean up, however. Syrae Faileas 20:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Sure, it's great; however, there is a definite contradiction with Elf Bowling. That article claims that the game was NOT spyware. The spyware article claims that it was. No FA should have that big of a contradiction (or, if it's right, please change the Elf Bowling article to reflect that). --Matt Yeager 08:38, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Its not a contradiction. The article for Elf Bowling says itself that it was originally not spyware, although some people added viruses to it later, making it spyware. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 16:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good writen article, actual theme. --Mateusc 04:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)