Contents 1 Use of poison gas in World War I 2 Bahá'í Faith 3 Btrieve 4 Equal Protection Clause 5 First Crusade 6 Battle of Hampton Roads 7 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 8 Lesch-Nyhan syndrome 9 Gold Standard 10 Pet skunk 11 Christmas 12 Hip hop music 13 Government of Maryland 14 Battle of Inchon 15 John Bull (locomotive) 16 Xenu 17 Tony Blair 18 I Want To Hold Your Hand 19 Planetary nebula 20 Niagara Falls 21 British House of Commons 22 Medal of Honor 23 Reginald Maudling 24 Bernard Williams 25 History of the Yosemite area 26 Laal language 27 Doctor Who 28 Duran Duran 29 Homo floresiensis 30 Modernist poetry in English 31 Supply and demand

Use of poison gas in World War I

For a long time this article was just a handful of tables, now.... The comprehensive efforts by User:Gsl are impressive and IMO deserve recognition. 62.252.64.12 00:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I've been reading a lot of the WWI articles lately, and they're all damn good. Someone seems to be editing them the way I edit Beatles song articles or Emsworth edits British government articles. Johnleemk | Talk 05:28, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. - David Gerard 18:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Ambi 12:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - This article has been very useful in my research for chemical warfare. -- ClockworkSoul 19:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support but someone should go through the table of gases used, which was obviously taken from a contemporary source and uses teminology that is now antiquated. We have an article on Hydrogen Sulphide which is there under its old name of 'Sulphuretted Hydrogen', for example. Dbiv 19:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It appears that they're legitimate red links, and some of those substances are rarely seen today. There's something really perverse in conventions that allow one substance to have ten different names, before we get to variations like sulphur/sulfur. iMeowbot~Mw 08:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oh yeah, and support. The article is consistent with (but much more complete than) books sitting around here that were written at the time. iMeowbot~Mw 08:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Gdr 13:04, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Support. Very well-written. utcursch 06:36, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• "Support". yes well written and informative.

Bahá'í Faith

Hey, I think this article is very comprehensive and well done. I just stumbled upon it. What do you think? (Nominated by Dmcdevit. →Raul654 07:25, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC))

• Support. I have read this article before, and the only reason I didn't nominate it then was because I had just joined Wikipedia and did not yet know about Featured articles. Extremely well-written and comprehensive. RyanGerbil10 08:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Insufficient references. Johnleemk | Talk 08:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support now, good work, though I cannot vouch for the material personally. Object, agree with John Lee, references are critical, and this has none. Also the intro mentions it is the second most widespread of the "independent religions". What makes it more independant than any other religion? - Taxman 12:42, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok that seems all taken care of. Only thing I see left is alot of orphan paragraphs, of just one sentence or so. It makes the text flow poorly in spots. Some more should either be expanded or merged with nearby paragraphs.- Taxman 00:29, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Combined 5 sets of 2 paragraphs into 1 paragraph, where I thought the paragraphs were linked enough. There are still a couple short paragraphs, but I feel they are warrented. - Navidazizi 5:20, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain. Taxman, for the answer to your question, please see the talk page. i think the related articles are still incomplete, not sure if that is reason enough not to include as a featured article though... - --Cyprus2k1 13:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • My point was more that the article needs to make that clear, not the talk page. The talk page is one editor claiming it is independent, not a verifiable source. - Taxman
    • BBC - --Cyprus2k1 17:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Great, that is an improvement. Why not format that BBC source and others that were legitimately used as proper references as in the featured article criteria? Specifically, Wikipedia:Cite sources shows how to properly format external links used as sources. And also, related articles do not affect the ability of this one to be a featured article. This article stands on its own merits. - Taxman 02:24, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
        • I've tried to clean up the references according to your suggestions to check out Wikipedia:Cite sources. - Navidazizi 06:54, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The article looks great and is not polemical like articles on the other religions. PMLF 23:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Abstain. I have added references to the article, including the one for the "second most widespread religion." 01:07, 29 Dec 2004 Navidazizi
  • That is an impressive amount of references to be added. Can you confirm that those sources were used to confirm the material in the article and substantially agree with what is there? - Taxman 21:05, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Of the 13 references, 5 are for citations from the Bahá'í writings used in the article, 1 backs up the socio-economic development projects that the Bahá'ís are involved in, another is in reference to the relationship to the UN, 3 (including the one by the BBC) are for general Bahá'í information, 1 on the history of the Bahá'í Faith, and 2 are ex-Bahá'í websites which are included in reference to the NPOV statements that are in the main text of the article. I think that accounts for most things in the article. -- - Navidazizi 23:06, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
      • Very nice work. Thank you. - Taxman 00:29, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
        • Added a couple more history references, one from a non-Baha'i source (E.G. Browne) -- - Navidazizi 5:20, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. great--ZayZayEM 05:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Btrieve

A Ta bu shi da yu Christmas special :-) As my work uses this in their product (I won't say who they are) I've put together this article on Btrieve. It's fully featured and has undergone peer review. I also asked a few others on IRC to give it the once over and I tried to take their suggestions on board. Any feedback or suggestions on peer review I've tried to resolve or incorporate into the story and I've given it a good copyedit. I've also cut down the size somewhat and had to make a subpage Architecture of Btrieve, so I've used summary form on that section. I'm hoping this is now good enough to be a featured article! However, as always, any further feedback I will attempt to address. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. That's an excellent treatment of a confusing history. iMeowbot~Mw 13:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support An well-written article; nicely organized yet doesn't suffer from overuse of technical jargon for such a technically-oriented subject. Nice diagrams as well. Bumm13 14:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice. This article's come a long way. CXI 14:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, I helped copyedit this and I think it's a great article. Rhobite 19:20, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Ambi 01:37, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Author helped my Internet terrorist organization.
  • Shh!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Author helped my mother become cancer-free. --Node 00:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, very good. Neutrality^talk 17:46, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, there is something missing from the article I can't put my finger on (an X factor) that I would not support being on the main page, but is otherwise good as an FA. -- Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Equal Protection Clause

This is a self-nomination. I believe it is complete, accurate and well-written. More importantly, though, I think it an enormously important subject. Of course, I am more than willing to change whatever reasonably needs to be changed. Hydriotaphia 05:11, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

• I'm sure people will want a 'references' section. I only have nits so far, such as I don't think I should have to read photo captions to learn about Bingham--doesn't have to be lengthy, but his role should probably be introduced, and fleshed out a bit in the actual article (i.e. captions should explain what is depicted, and its relevance, if not self-evident, but shouldn't be expected to add to the article itself). And he doesn't seem to have an article--highly recommend creating one and linking to it. Does seem to have very nicely relevant photos (esp. time-wise), and walks the reader through the relevant cases (both major and minor), and how they built on cases before, and affected cases after, quite smoothly. Oh, "rump" goes to a disamb page--if rump state (or rump Parliament, which seems a bigger stretch) can't be worked to cover this usage, you might want to create a new article (tho, how to avoid it being a dic def, I'm not sure :/ ). These are all probably 'nice to haves', not grounds to oppose. Nice job by the way--just checked the history--pretty good expansion for less than one week's worth of work. Niteowlneils 06:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I think I've dealt with your objections. Please tell me if there's something else that you see as a problem. Thanks for your comments. Hydriotaphia 19:17, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks good. I changed the "See also" header to "References", as that seems to be more accurate (and See also is usually used to refer to other Wikipedia articles). Definitely support (I really should have said that the first time--as I said my comments weren't intended as objections). Niteowlneils 02:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Changing the section title is entirely innapropriate if the works listed were not actually used to confirm or add the material in the article. References are important for a reason and not just to be able to check the box and say you have them. Now if they were properly used, I apologize, but nothing in the above conversation reflects that. - Taxman 05:27, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • I can't say I had all of those sources actually in front of me as I was writing the article, but I have read 10/12 of the sources mentioned, with the 2 others—the Kotz and the Morris books—having been praised highly by others of the sources. I can't speak for Niteowlneils, but I'm guessing he just figured "references" meant references for the readers. That, at least, was what I had supposed, just because if they were meant to be sources, they would be called "sources." It may be, though, that "references" are a sort of term of art on Wikipedia, and "references" means what in other contexts would be called "sources." Taxman, could you direct me to whatever resource can clear this up for all of us? Thanks—and thanks for your comments. If we get this references/sources thing all squared away, do you think you could support this article? Best regards, Hydriotaphia 05:38, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • There needs to be a clear differentiation between those resources that have been used to confirm or supply material in the article (Usually done in a 'References' section, ideally with inline citations; but also done as footnotes to cite specific facts to sources), and those that have not (they can be put in a 'Further reading' or similar). There is no hard and fast consensus as to the names of those, partly because different people perceive them differently and even different academic disciplines use them differently. But what I have given you is what the featured article criteria use. See the top of the page for that link. In any case the important thing is that the differentiation I have noted is clear. - Taxman 06:31, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, I hope I've taken care of your (totally valid) concerns with the footnotes I've added. Tell me what you think. Hydriotaphia 07:50, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
        • Sorry to be difficult, but it still seems unclear if the sources listed were actually consulted. Each note just says "See Example book". We are still in the exact same situation where that seems to refer me to a source for more information without telling me explicitly the fact in this article is taken from that source. For ex, the material and source in note #1 "For details on the rationale for, and ratification of, the Fourteenth Amendment, see..." does not seem to directly support either the sentence the note superscript is attached to - "These laws severely restricted...", or the whole paragraph for that matter. A more typical footnote simply lists the author's last name and other proper source information if the bit was actually taken from that source. - Taxman 23:11, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
          • Yes, all of them were consulted! In legal citations, some of whose form I've chosen to use here, the direction "see" means that the book, article, etc. cited clearly supports the footnoted proposition(s). When I footnoted a sentence, the footnote supports the facts in the paragraph, and often the whole section, footnoted; I did it this way to avoid visual clutter (and lots and lots of ibids.!). But I encourage you to change the wording of the footnotes so that, to your mind, they more clearly show that the sources have been consulted. Thanks again for your comments. Best, Hydriotaphia 18:40, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
            • Nope, thats fine. I simply didn't know "see" has that significance. Great work then. However what about note 1 not really matching up with the sentence/paragraph it is by? Or am I just off base on that? - Taxman 00:14, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Looks well researched, covers everything I can think about the topic. Though I am curious as to the relation between the clause and affirmative action and that debate. Something could stand to be said about that. - Taxman 00:14, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Darn it, Taxman, I hoped no one would notice that there was nothing about affirmative action. :) You're quite right, the article isn't quite complete without something on Af Act. I'm sort of busy right now, but in the next few days I'll try to add something on that important subject. Best. Hydriotaphia 01:02, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, I've added a section on affirmative action, with footnotes. I believe the article is now complete. Hydriotaphia 22:15, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I hope someone will critique the affirmative action section that I've added. I must admit that I strongly favor affirmative action, and hence I fear that the section may not be NPOV. Hydriotaphia 00:39, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I believe I have assuaged my own concerns in this matter. But I am certainly open to suggestions (and edits, of course!). Hydriotaphia 09:09, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I've decided that superscript footnotes are really inappropriate in Wikipedia-land, because they mess with line spacing and hence obscure paragraph structure. So what I'm going to do is keep the footnotes, but make them into regular script. I hope this doesn't anger anyone. Hydriotaphia 19:21, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Support, looks good. --SPUI 02:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Qualified support. Needs articles, at least stubs, about the cases cited, and the collegiate admissions process. I don't have time, at least this week, to write any of the former and am unqualified to write the latter. Aside from that, looks like a featured article to me. Rlquall 02:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Hi, Rlquall, thank you for your qualified support. May I ask, though, what you mean by your reference to the collegiate admisions process? Do you want more links to articles about the process, or more on how the Clause affects that process? (See also the message I left on your talk page.) Best, Hydriotaphia 09:06, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Article looks reasonably complete, although as with any featured article on an important subject, some future tweaking can be expected. Edeans 03:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Strong support. Well done. COGDEN 03:34, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. This should definitely be a featured article in my view. It's well written, well-researched, important and interesting. The only small point I'd add is that, personally, I like to see inline references (I like lots of ibids and op cits), but I know other editors don't like them, and they do break up the text. I can see there's been a discussion about references already, so I won't add to it. I strongly support this nomination. Slim 02:10, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

First Crusade

This is a semi-self nomination - over the past few months, myself, User:Stbalbach, User:Wetman, and many others have been working on this page after an anonymous professor complained about its accuracy. It has grown into a very complete and detailed page with a large set of related articles, and we think it is worthy of being featured. Adam Bishop 09:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support, looks very nice. Good work! --fvw* 09:25, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
• I actually just noticed this earlier today and was rather impressed, particularly by the efficient use of summary style and the nicely detailed subarticles. Support. Everyking 10:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I'd support even more if it had some more pictures or maps. Geoff/Gsl 10:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Minor object. Cruddy lead section. Small instances of unimaginative (i.e. starting each individual crusade section with a mini-paragraph along the lines of "The Princes' Crusade is also known as the Barons' Crusade") and writing perhaps more suited to an essay (i.e. To understand why the crusade was so popular, it is helpful to understand..) Apart from that, excellent article. Ambi 10:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Ambi, I've made some edits that hopefully address what you've mentioned. Thanks for the feedback, it is helpful.--Stbalbach 08:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't find any problems now with the rest of the article, but I'd still like to see an improved lead section. Ambi 07:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Can you elaborate what "improved" means? Stbalbach 12:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support Giano 23:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support Mackensen (talk) 06:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC). More pictures would be nice, but you've all clearly put a lot of time into it.
• Object. A well written article, but such article definetly needs a map attached to be a useful - and thus, featured - article. A picture would be nice but is not necessary, I feel however that a map is crucial here. When a map is added, consider my vote as a support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Done. Stbalbach 14:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Great. I support now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support Nathanlarson32767 18:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Same as Ambi above, and sorry but the improvements so far are not sufficient. The lead section currently implies, as best I can parse the language, that Christians are conquering territory outside Europe "for the first time", a statement that is just flat wrong - the Byzantine Empire certainly made some non-European conquests in its history after officially adopting Christianity. Lots of excellence in the details, though, and the potential for a featured article is there. --Michael Snow 23:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object for the same reasons as Michael Snow. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk] 05:54, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Everyking made edits to address this, please clarify the exact source of objection. --Stbalbach 07:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I quickly scanned the article (I'll look in more detail soon) but the lead section still needs fixing. It can be two paragraphs you know :-) I think that it needs to do more active summarising of the article as there is a lot of detail in the article. Given the size of the article, surely more very brief summary text can go in there? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The lead section is not an article summary. Per the "Guide to writing better articles": The lead section is the section before the first headline. It is shown above the table of contents (for pages with more than three headlines). It should establish significances, large implications and why we should care. The purpose of the lead section is to provide context, significance and large overview and, basically, like peeling an onion, draw the reader in to want to read more. Indeed, this is such a large complex subject, the main body of the article contains a summary, with further detail broken out in sub-articles. Also, this article is broken off the larger Crusades body article, which contains the higher-level views about the Crusades in general. --Stbalbach 02:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Reconsidered what you said, and added additional material to the lead for your review.--Stbalbach 03:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I edited the lead paragraph down a little bit again, I hope that's alright. I'm not sure how big of a summary everyone is expecting...Adam Bishop 00:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Hampton Roads

I think this one is good. --Gamingboy 20:47, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Support This is a good topic of broad interest. I will be glad to help address concerns which may be raised to help improve it. Vaoverland 22:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: I've uploaded a few public domain color paintings for use in the article. Check the talk page for details. Use them where you feel they would be best. One of them would probably look good as a replacement for the first picture in the article. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk] 02:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Needs battlebox. Neutrality/^talk 05:56, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

• I added a battlebox, but it's not complete. Can someone fix/finish it? --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk] 14:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Battlebox is now complete and includes a newly created campaignbox. Done and done. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk] 17:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Support.

Comment: I don't think this is grounds for an objection. Not every article about a battle needs a battlebox. Gdr 01:46, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

Of course it's a valid objection. See featured article criteria: "A featured article should...Comply with the standards set by any relevant WikiProjects." User:Neutrality^talk 03:19, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

But where in Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles does it say that every article about a battle needs a battlebox? Gdr 09:05, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

• Support Sayeth 19:54, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• the article has been spruced up by several contributors, with a public domain map from the Library of Virginia and 2 color paintings (also PD) added. The companion articles on USS Monitor and CSS Virginia (aka Merrimack or Merrimac) have also been improved. Suggestions for improvement folks? Vaoverland 23:14, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I just put the article in the proper category names (and noticed that all the civil war battles are in the wrong categories...) --Brian0918 05:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC
• Support. Jacob1207 01:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Niteowlneils 05:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support: The objections I had earlier have been addressed, and I've wanted to support it all along. Geogre 14:02, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Self-nom. I have worked on this article for the past few months, and I believe it has now reached a stage we may consider it for FA. I intend to develop subarticles from its sections in the future, but for now I think the article is around optimal content lenght. Yes, it is a bit larger then 32kb but I am not sure what could be removed *now*. Anyway I'd love to hear your comments on what can be improved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral: This is very interesting and may well be featured article material; but frankly I lost the plot half way through, I think it needs a good copy edit, preferably by someone with knowledge of the subject, the many Polish, or eastern European terms and names seem to have an erratic application of the definite article. The page does also seem to be quite heavy work, especially trying to remember who the "Kresy", the "Sejm" and the "szlachta" and their assorted friends and enemies are. To be fair, the terms are explained in the article, but perhaps more user friendly terms could be used throughout for the benefit of the less retentive like myself. Perhaps it should be referred to Wikipedia:Peer review rather than here. Giano 18:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could you expand on the erratic application? I'd be happy to fix any inconsistencies and such regarding the names and such. As far as examples you mention: the term Kresy is explained two times (first and second time it is used in the article); same with Sejm and szlachta (I improved the sentence they first are used in, it was: ....with its uniquely powerful Sejm parliament dominated by szlchta nobles..., now is: Its extremly powerful parliament (known as the Sejm) dominated by dominated by nobles (known as the szlachta).... As far as I know, there are no other English translations of those words. Kresy is a geographical name, referning to Sejm as the parliament would be as erroneus as for US Senat or Congress, and szlachta are as distinct from 'nobles' as are for example Russian boyars, again meriting its own word. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• e.g. the term "szlachta" sometimes has a "the", sometimes not; perhaps sometimes a "the" is not required but often it reads as thought it is, this is a very monor quibble,easily sorted. The article is improving all the time. A time on Wikipedia:Peer reviewwould be very beneficial Giano 09:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The English isn't very good. I did what I could to help, fixed some typos and improved some grammar at points, but it needs more work. Not an objection, though. Everyking 23:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I am sorry about the English. It is not my strongest point as I am not a native speaker. I am afraid there is little more I can do about that complain - hopefully you can do more. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I've proofread it - how is it now? - David Gerard 15:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Very interesting subject and article. However, I'm not certain that it is up to FA status yet, on account of the points raised above, with which I concur. I would refer to peer review. Jacob1207 16:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I've done a proofreading - how is it now? - David Gerard 15:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• excellent. support - Xed 00:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Andris 10:56, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support.--Emax 14:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. ('though still anxiously) - Halibutt 08:51, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, but only after a copyedit. I've done a few sections. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - this is good and interesting. I copyedited it, are there others who could check it over? - David Gerard 15:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lesch-Nyhan syndrome

self nom - yes i posted it again and i think its ready, and in addition the article is no more difficult to read than Asperger syndrome which is already a current featured article. --Larsie 20:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. jengod 22:28, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, as before. Geogre 23:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Filiocht 08:31, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Minor objections: 1) the symptoms in the Description section are somewhat repetitive. (i.e, self-mutilation mentioned in several different places). This section could use a careful copyedit for structure and flow -- basically well written, but doesn't seem quite as coherent as the rest of the article. 2) The division into male and female sections may be unnecessary, as some of the discussion under female seems to apply more to Genetics than the description of the disease itself. (I'll leave that judgment call to the experts though). Good work! Catherine\^talk 21:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • ok so i've fixed the repetitive references to self mutilation in that section, and in addition i think that the two seperate sections for male and female are relevant as it does affect both sexes in different ways and so then requires different sections. --Larsie 16:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Did some more copyediting on this myself -- there was still quite a lot of overlap. Catherine\^talk 08:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. This has smoothed out nicely and shows a lot of dedication by Larsie and the power of collaborative editing. Well researched. Good job all. - Taxman 04:32, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. I found a lot that needed copyediting. Someone please revise the second sentence in the last paragraph under "In males". It appears to be either meaningless, incorrect, or both. BTW, if anyone wanted more pictures ... we're better off not seeing them.Sfahey 04:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Good. That has been corrected. However, a subsequent overhaul has confused the sections. The section "In males" begins with a one-sentence paragraph-subsection, and follows with several subsections which refer not just to males but to LNS in general. I believe the article would best be served by eliminating the "In males" heading, since it is already understood to be virtually entirely a disease of males, and calling the "In females" section "LNS in females". Even the "PC Police" would not object to this. I will make this change now. LNS experts: feel free to alter this set-up.Sfahey 15:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment and suggestion. I think the recent edits have reduced the considerable repetition of content, it is now better organized, with a better flow. I particularly like the introduction of the subsections in the description section. Concerning these, however, I have a suggestion. The description section begins by saying "LNS is mainly characterized by three major hallmarks: neurologic dysfunction, cognitive and behavioral disturbances, as well as uric acid overproduction (hyperuricemia)." This is followed by three subsections describing these hallmarks titled: "Overproduction of uric acid", "Nervous system impairment" and "Self-injuring behavior". I would like to see the order the hallmarks are given in the opening sentence and the order of the subsection titles be the same. I would also like a better match between the descriptions for the hallmarks used in both.

Gold Standard

Just yesterday a professor I know have highly commented on this article. I read it today, fixed lead a little, added many ilinks - and now I think it can becoem featured. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note: this should be at the top of the page, but I seem to be unable to put it there. Something is messed up with the page engine I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I fixed it. :-) Anyway, for now, object. Good article, but no references. Support. Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Added my gold standard references, will do the "central banking" referneces and "coinage" references later (which will be shorter). Will do format clean up and alphabetization later. Stirling Newberry 01:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Wiki timing problem resulted in few minutes of delays in saving my references section on that page. Is it better now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: the following text needs fixing:

Typically under a gold standard, the physical transport of gold becomes cumbersome for popular use, and so bank notes (also known as demand notes or paper money). They may be either issued privately or by government) circulate and are convertible into physical gold on demand. Paul August 23:57, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I think it is fixed now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, you've edited the above so that It now reads:

Typically under a gold standard, the physical transport of gold becomes cumbersome for popular use, and so bank notes (also known as demand notes or simply paper money) are extensively used. They may be either issued privately or by government) circulate and are convertible into physical gold on demand.

You've made the first phrase into a sentence, but the second is still a problem. Perhaps it should read something like:

Typically under a gold standard, the physical transport of gold becomes cumbersome for popular use, and so bank notes circulate and are convertible into physical gold on demand. Such notes, also known as demand notes or simply paper money, may be either issued privately or by government.

I've removed the original paragraph and written one on the use of paper money and certificates in a hard money environment. Stirling Newberry 02:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also I have just noticed the talk page makes some suggestions regarding this passage which perhaps should be considered. Paul August 13:59, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I like your version, so I changed the lead to fit yours. Feel free to fix similar things yourself, I may not be around over the next few days :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comment, excellent article but a small quibble. Can we have the references changed to cite your sources format? - 203.35.154.254 03:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Edeans 04:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support Filiocht 12:41, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Support Giano 11:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Not so fast Needs more fine tuning, I think. Good article though.
  • Needs more fine tuning is hardly actionable. Please elaborate. Filiocht 08:39, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Some teeny-weeny minor edits on formatting. Wasn't referring to content.
• Support Kevin Rector 19:14, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Pet skunk

Self-nom. I nominate this article for:

• Well-rounded coverage of skunk care.
• Logical organization and concise, smooth-flowing prose.
• Good use of images to illustrate points.
• Careful citation of sources.
• Explanation of different points of view where there is controversy.

Nathanlarson32767 01:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support I love this. It's interesting and well-written with lots of information I didn't know previously and it kept me reading through to the end. I would maybe suggest a little bit more factual information on how skunks came to be pets, because the article is a little too focused on skunk care, but that's a minor point, and I accept that skunk care is the major issue. I would also be interested to see something about how and when the scent glands are removed, and why that has to be done i.e. something about skunk smells, because there are lots of countries that have no skunks and lots of Wikiedia readers who've never smelled one. I love the photographs too. Another point: is Skunky Delight a commercial product? If so, would it make sense to name a few other commercial products (rivals) if they exist? Slim 01:39, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article, I agree it kept my interest till the very end. Could probably stand to have someone proofread and correct minor errors. Perhaps cleanup a bit of the formatting. But thats mostly minor stuff. Alkivar 07:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. (1) TOC and headers need to be streamlined a lot (some sections are tiny) and changed ("Declawing (not recommended)" and use of links). (2) Hate to say it but it's Americocentric - I know they're native to the US but what about them being taken to other countries? (3) some images seem to cause some ugly layout problems. (4) Lead is too short. Interesting article though. violet/riga (t) 11:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) Support violet/riga (t) 09:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, following Nathanlarson32767's improvements. Object. I concur with all of violetriga's comments. The lead section needs serious expansion, images cause some layout problems, article is Americentric (if they're not kept as pets anywhere else, this needs to be noted), and some organization of sections could use some use (some are very short, making the article somewhat choppy). Also, article focuses almost entirely on caring for skunks. However, I'd like to see more comparing and contrasting them to other pets, like cats and dogs. Article does have a good deal of info however, and I found it pretty interesting. Jacob1207 21:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Skunks don't have a whole lot in common with dogs and cats[1]. It would be like comparing a monkey to one of those animals. Nathanlarson32767 18:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I have fixed the layout problems at the top. OvenFresh☺ 01:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Content has been streamlined and layout problems fixed. Nathanlarson32767 09:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object - the table setting out legality in each US state, and the list of links to the relevant state legislation, is overwhelming: the table could usefully be redone as a double column (so 25 lines, not 50) and/or the links to the state laws could be incorporated into the table, avoiding up to another 50 lines, like this:

| Arkansas || Illegal || Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Code of Regulations 15.18.

It may even be better to spin this out to a separate page (say, Legality of pet skunks in each US state, and summarise that article here. The list of other references is also extensive, which is good, but part of the art of good references is to pick out the best references. The article seems to refer to virtually any news story or web page that refers to pet skunks: were all of these used as references to write the page? Are, in fact, some just external links, or could some be removed? Finally, there are no paper references - are there none? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right, everything listed as a reference corresponds to a footnote in the article. There is one paper reference listed there, "Comprehensive Guide to Raising a Pet Skunk." I agree the table needs work. Thanks for volunteering, Ta bu shi da yu.. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 05:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a good point. I might do that myself! I like the article though. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support, once the table issues are sorted out. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object - links to state stautes should be in the table, not massed at the bottom. And all the images aren't tagged with a copyright template. Are the GFDL, PD, what? [[User:Neutrality|^talk] 07:09, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Christmas

previous FAC

Hip hop music

I nominated this awhile back, and it did not succeed. The only outstanding objection was that the section on hip hip (sic) outside the US was not well-integrated enough. I have addressed this, and the content is now spread to various sections here and there. Tuf-Kat 08:57, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Support, looks good. although I would like to see a bit more wikification to the article (How can you have hip hop without a single link to MC ;). Alkivar 00:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support, I like the improvements. Do love that "hip hip" music, TK....  ;) [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk] 01:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heh, he -- it's twice the hip with none of the hop. Tuf-Kat

Support, did some further wikification. I'd take it as it is, but could we also get some relevant external links? Also, maybe a list (or a link to a list) of significant magazines covering hip-hop? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:33, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Some magazine stuff added to the end, will try and scrounge up some links tomorrow. Tuf-Kat 09:30, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

External links now present. Tuf-Kat

Comment. Isn't "hip hop" not the original term for the genre? I recall it being referred to as rap only and hip hop not coming into use until the late 80's or 90's or something. It's fine to use the current common term most of the time, but the article shouldn't ignore that it wasn't always that way. - Taxman 03:11, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there was really a chronological division in use, precisely. Rapping is an activity which is one of the four aspects of hip hop the cultural movement, and one of two basic aspects of hip hop the style of music. "Rap" and "hip hop" are often used interchangeably, but they're not the same thing -- it is probable that in the late 80s and early 90s, relatively few people knew or cared about the distinction, whereas its become much more well-known now and so people are more aware of the terminology. I'll see if I can make the lead be more clear on this. Tuf-Kat 03:25, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Ok time to school you folks. "hip-hop" is based on 4 elements: MC's / DJ's / Graffiti Artists / Breakdancers. When you hear the term "hip-hop" it refers in actuality to the culture of all 4 elements. The music is and has always been referred to as "rap". Do some research into the subject and you'll see i'm right. As points of reference in film "Scratch" for DJ history, "Style Wars" for Graf history, "The Freshest Kids" for Breakdance History, and I still havent found a really good movie with a history of the MC culture yet. This being said the category is in fact improperly named. HOWEVER, I read the title more as Hip hop (music) which should have information on both MC's and DJ's, and think that Hip hop (culture) should contain the other elements. Alkivar 06:18, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand. Do you disagree with the first paragraph of hip hop music? Or the title? Or neither? Which category is improperly named? Tuf-Kat

The title, it should be Hip-hop (music). The hyphenation is arguable, however i find its use is largely hyphenated. Alkivar 01:40, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't object too strongly to either change, but I think it's not worth the effort to change the standard now. That would make hundreds of links redirected, which would be unfortunate. I always remove the hyphen when I edit an article, just to try and keep everything the same, and I think many others do the same. I agree the hyphenation is arguable, but I tend to think it is usually not hyphenated. Tuf-Kat

• Object. Not bad, but needs some work. 1) Being an article about music, we definitely need sound samples. 2) The "Censorship issues" section includes a "Media" section unrelated to censoring. 3) There are many vague terms and claims throughout the article, particularly when describing non-US hip hop. Especially the term "mainstream" gives me little information. If you make such claims about popularity, try to illustrate it by record sales, number of #1 hits or so. Such claims are also verifiable. I realise this is not possible to do in all cases, but it certainly can be improved. 4) The article is still a bit US-oriented. E.g. "went platinum nine times in the United States alone.", and parts on hip hop outside the US tend to start with "Outside of the United States,". Still, it's much better than before. 5) Senegalese mbalax is mentioned twice in the same way within two paragraphs. 6) I miss a section about styles influenced by hip hop. A bit is mentioned in "Alternative hip hop", but there are (and have been) dance bands with rappers, rock bands with rappers, etc. Jeronimo 08:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • 1 and 2 are addressed. 3) I have added some more objective data regarding US performers. I have long searched for a database that gives non-US chart data, but have never found such a thing. I think Billboard is an exception, and this info is not normally available to industry outsiders. 4) I don't know what's wrong with "went platinum in the United States alone" -- it's precisely accurate given that there is no source on sales data from outside the US. I have also removed some of the "outside of the United States". I don't agree that this is too US-centric -- approximately one fifth of the article specifically deals with non-American hip hop, which seems appropriate to me given that the first half of hip hop's existence was virtually entirely American and that, even now, popular recorded hip hop is mostly American in the vast majority of the world (i.e. outside of France, Germany, Tanzania, etc, American hip hop is the only kind with more than an underground fanbase); what acclaim non-American hip hop has reached has largely been in the last couple years, and thus there is little scholarship or documentation on the subject. 5) I either accidentally fixed this paragraph while doing something else, or can't find it. 6) There is no section on it, precisely, but there is abundant information about hip hop's influence on rock, metal, pop, techno, jazz and soul. I don't think a section devoted to it would be very appropriate, as these things have nothing in common and are better placed in their historical context. Tuf-Kat 18:40, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

1) & 2) are fixed; will look at the rest later. Jeronimo 08:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3) This is already better (and good enough). If you find more keep on adding it. 4) I still feel the article is slightly US-oriented (not US-centric or US-biased), but we apparently disagree here, so just ignore this. 5) "International spread" and "The 1990s". 6) I disagree. A lot of this information may be found here and there, but there needs to be a section that collects everything. There is a section "Roots of hip-hop" - why should there not be a section "influence on other music styles/genres"? I also have a new objection: 7) There is nothing section on hip hop culture, or on how hip hop has influenced (popular) culture. I'm thinking about clothing and language mostly, but there may be other things (such as the currently rather meagre "Media" section, which might be integrated). Jeronimo 12:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

5 addressed. I added a section on "social impact" which contains within it stuff about fashion and slang, as well as the censorship section and a section which details hip hop's effect on other genres. Tuf-Kat 19:04, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Support, thanks for fixing my objections. One final suggestion: perhaps you could move the tiny "Media" section to the new "Social Impact" section. Jeronimo 07:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Hyacinth 00:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Government of Maryland

Self nomination. I believe that this article covers all of the major aspects of Maryland's government and goes into an appropriate amount of depth on the several topics covered. It could provide a helpful model for articles on the governments of other states (or provinces, etc). Jacob1207 01:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. If featured, then please just Maryland. --ThomasK 05:45, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you are objecting against? Please comment on the quality of Government of Maryland, if you want to nominate Maryland go right ahead, but it is of lesser quality for sure. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk] 07:57, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

• I object against the featuring of the aricle Government of Maryland. There should be no goverment featured on the main page. --ThomasK 04:12, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

• We're not voting on whether this article should be showcased on the main page. I guess it can be somewhat confusing, but only certain featured articles are shown on the main page (and the selection is done by others). I suggest you read What is a featured article to see exactly what it is that is to be decided here. Also, see above on this page, which says:

If you oppose a nomination, write "Object" followed by the reason for your objection. All objections must give a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed (featured articles, despite being featured, may be marked so as not to be showcased on the Main Page).

Respectufully, Jacob1207 05:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• If noone has issues with this articles comprehensitivity, I support. Well written & structured.--ZayZayEM 13:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• This is about as complete as you could get. I support, with the disclaimer that I started the article and have done some additional work on it. (Jacob has done the lion's share, and deserves most of the credit.) Isomorphic 23:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Tuf-Kat 03:20, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. No discussion of the state constitution and its amendments. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk] 03:57, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

• The constitution itself is discussed in Maryland Constitution, which is linked to at several points in the article. Government of Maryland does mentions throughout the powers granted to various officials and bodies and the requirements for the offices, all of which come from the constitution (which is implied, even if not explicit in every instance). Additionally, Government of Maryland also mentions: (1) when the constitution was modified to create the Lt. Governor position; (2) when the constitution first created the Board of Public works; (3) when the constitution was amended to create the Court of Special Appeals; and (4) the several times when the constitution was amended to change the way counties function. The third item of which I just added. What other such changes can be made to improve the article? Jacob1207 05:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I think there should be a summary-style section at Government of Maryland, which links to the main article at Maryland Constitution. Like this:
    • ==Constitution==
    • Main article: Maryland Constitution
    • Blah blah blah (a summary) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk] 23:06, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
• I have added such a section (and rewritten the intro section). Please take a look and see if this addresses your concern. Jacob1207 02:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Solid info on a non-whiz-bang topic.--Pharos 06:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Object. The lead is too short: specifically, it needs information on what makes the government of Maryland different from that of other states. At the moment, the lead essentially says "Maryland is like every other state", which is not very informative and hardly encourages people to read on. I'd suggest two possibilities: either mention some of the most notable distinguishing features, or identify a pattern/reason for the differences (e.g. Maryland's legislature has a particularly powerful role, reflecting the historical influence of the agrarian section). As an additional objection, there is no References section. Mark¹ 05:00, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comparing and contrasting the Maryland government with those of other states is an excellent idea. I have made numerous changes in response, and I think they improve the already comprehensive article. However, I do not think that that information is best put into the intro section. There are far too many differences to include usefully in the intro and it seems to me that any sort of statement to the effect of "the Maryland government has similarities to and differences to other state governments" is not at all useful either, due to it being completely obvious (after all, there is no Every state government in the United States article). If there is some way the intro can usefully be expanded (to include anything) without being clumsy, I am all for it. Jacob1207 16:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Concerning the references section: I don't think it is necessary to have a separate "References" section as all of the information in the article (and much, much more) can be found in the various links. The Maryland Manual is a publication put out by the MD gov't every 2 years and was the most important source for the article, which links to it. Of course, if a separate references section would add something of value, I'd be all for adding it. But I don't think it is necessary to have a "References" section just to say it's there if it's not adding anything. Jacob1207 16:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• It is adding something. As noted below. - Taxman 21:18, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

• You might want to start by putting something more explanatory in place of saying that the government "like the rest of the 50 states, is republican in nature". Republican redirects to the very general article Republic, so as a non-US reader, I'm left mystified. Are all the states non-monarchies (I knew that), or are they all non-Democratic (I for sure didn't know that)... ?--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)] 12:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I have redirected the link in question to Republicanism#Republicanism in the United States, which, I think, is much more explanatory about what "republican" means in this context. Jacob1207 16:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support The article seems to be well-written, with lots of logically placed links, and doesn't force the reader into too much detail in any one area. Other than perhaps including ranking comparisons or such, I agree that any detailed comparison to other states' governments would be diverging too much from the topic. Just trying to compare with what I know of Virginia and several other states tells me that such comparisons would be quickly become lengthy and varied. I speculate that there are substantial differences between the governments of all 50 states. Such details are way too much information for a single state article such as this one. Bottom Line: Good writing on a subject of limited interest. Good and prompt response to fac critics and suggestions. I'd love to see the writer(s) do the same quality job on Government of Virginia. <gr> Vaoverland 10:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Object. Not enough and/or ambiguous references. It does need to list explicitly what sources were used as references and which were not. Otherwise it is ambiguous, and there may be one real reference or four, and the reader cannot be sure which one. Wikipedia:Cite sources tells how to cite external links used as references. Additionally are you saying there are no print references for this topic? I find that hard to believe. The article needs more references if possible; 3 or 4 is pretty minimal for a featured article. Whatever is the most reliable information on a topic and is used to add or confirm material in an article can be formatted as a reference. - Taxman 21:18, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have (I think) corrected the problem. I have both added many more references to the page but also reorganized that whole section to indicate which are true references and which are only links for further information. Please take a look at this and see if it addresses your concern. If not, please provide further information on what you think would improve the article in this (or any) regard. Jacob1207 15:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is great, except they are not formatted properly as per the above link. Otherwise the article looks well written, though I admit not being able to finish reading the whole thing. - Taxman 17:12, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Inchon

Self Nomination (Neutrality orginally started the page for Dannys Contest but I added much of the content). I believe the article contains a lot of information about a significant battle in the Korean War. It was refered to peer review and only two coments were made, both of which I adressed. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue] 20:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support: A well written, concise account. Giano 13:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk] 18:23, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. (1) Needs a thorough copyedit. Check spelling (e.g. "Koreann"); some things don't match Wikipedia style conventions, e.g. "0630 hours" for "06:30"; initialisms given but never used; abbreviations not expanded, e.g. "Lt." for "Lieutenant"; mispunctuation (mostly hyphens for dashes) etc etc. (2) Under "combatants" the article lists United Nations and also United States. Wasn't the latter a member of the former? Does the list of nations in the box represent an exhaustive list of troops present? The text could explain. (3) Two weeks is not several weeks. (4) No explanation of the military background to the assault, i.e. South Korean and UN forces trapped at Pusan. (5) Why the October 1 date for the end of the battle? Does the battle of Seoul deserve its own article or do you plan to include it here? (6) There ought to be eyewitness accounts that can be quoted. (7) The lead paragraph ought to note who was involved. (8) Was Kim Il Sung really the North Korean commander in the battle? We have (or should have) a principle of naming the most junior officer who was in tactical command of all the forces in a battle. (I understand that it might be hard to work out who this was in the NKPA, but in that case you might just write "unknown" and leave it to a later researcher to find out). Gdr 15:06, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
  • I'll try to respond to some more of your criticisms later...I have more work than expected. First off, I agree having a someone below Kim Il Sung would be nice but from what I've read Sung was actively part of strategic decision making, so instead of leaving it entriely blank I added him to the list. Second, not many nations were part of the invasion (I added Canada today and mentioned its role) since the ugliest part of the war hadn't begun. Finally, the Battle of Seoul idea was considered in peer review. I posted some discussion on a split but got no feedback. I included that information in the Aftermath heading as to seperate it from the actual invasion. More discussion in the coming days (hoepefully :). [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]
    • Battle of Chosin Reservoir was next, not Seoul. Wolfman 03:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • To Wolfman: Not so. There were four battles of Seoul in the Korean War. Here we're obviously talking about the one in September 1950 that immediately followed the battle of Inchon. To BrokenSegue: (1) I think it makes sense to split the battle of Seoul to a new page. If you feel that the two battles belong together, then the page ought to have a title that indicates the wider scope, perhaps Operation Chromite. (2) You removed the list of nations from the infobox but didn't put them anywhere else. A definitive list needs to go somewhere. (3) Someone removed the useful map showing where the landings took place and replaced it with two maps of Korea. Please restore the map of the landings (if copyright permits) and remove one of the maps of Korea. Gdr 14:41, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
    • it seems a large number of changes have occured in the last 24 hours that removed some content. I didn't remove the list of nations, Neutrality did. I'm going to put the list back in now and I'm pritty sure the image of the battle arrows is not a copyvio so I'll put that back too. As too splitting, I'm against it, I'd rather change the article to Operation Chromite. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]
• Support once thoroughly vetted. -Joseph (Talk) 21:30, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
• Support, but do something about that map of Korea, because it doesn't clearly show me where Incheon is. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support.Object. It is difficult to find information on battle before and battle after. It should be added to the battlebox and to lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm going to make a campaign box which will include the war timeline and put the article into perspective. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]
• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

John Bull (locomotive)

The oldest operable steam locomotive in the world (now approaching 175 years old, it was built in 1831) is still on public display at the Smithsonian Institution. With so few examples of early 19th century railroad technology, this piece of equipment is worthy of note. (self-nom; slambo 20:05, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC))

• Not bad. Can the lead be trimmed? Most lead sections usually aren't longer than two (or at the most) three paragraphs. Support.Johnleemk | Talk 20:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll shorten it a little... slambo 20:45, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC); I've removed some of the extra detail from the intro, leaving it for the article text. slambo 20:56, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Minor object. Quite good, but I have some problems. 1) This train is particularly noteworthy for being the oldest operable locomotive (as you wrote above here as well), yet this is not mentioned in the first paragraph. Doing so would make it immediately clear why this particular locomotive is so important. Only a slight rewrite of the lead would be needed, I think. 2) The article really only has one section (Specs being a table and Timeline being a list), so I would consider dropping the "History" caption and moving all sections up to level two. 3) More important than the previous two, please briefly explain specific terminology where used. For example, it is not at all clear what an 0-4-0 is without reading that article. You could just say "Stephenson built the locomotive originally as an 0-4-0, a locomotive with two axles and four wheels, all of which are driven" or so. Jeronimo 08:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've tried to address your points:

1. I've added verbage to the first paragraph to note that this locomotive is the oldest operable steam locomotive in the world and that the Camden & Amboy was the first railroad built in New Jersey.
2. I've modified section headings as you suggested.
3. I've added brief descriptions of specific terms throughout the article.

Is there anything else that I should update? slambo 12:03, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Support now. Jeronimo 13:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support - well-written, good use of references. Sayeth 18:46, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good. Though the external links used as references could stand to be formatted properly as at Wikipedia:Cite sources. done - Taxman 21:50, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I thought they were correct, but I'll recheck them. The book reference uses Template:Book reference. slambo 21:58, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC) -- Ah, I see what you mean. I'll look through my notes tonight after work and update as appropriate. slambo 22:00, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Updated to follow the practices on Wikipedia:Cite sources. slambo 12:02, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - well written, good use of pics. Would be even better with one more current one. Edeans 04:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I found and added a photo that is permissible under fair use as far as I can interpret the Smithsonian's copyright page, but I'd really like to add a photo of the locomotive as it appears in the museum today (since 1981 was over 20 years ago) that is free of fair use restrictions. slambo 13:54, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC).
    • Followed the link and agree with your interpretation of the Smithsonian's policy. I also understand and agree that a pic of the current display is also desirable. Edeans 04:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Xenu

Self-nomination. I ran it past the checklist ... - David Gerard 23:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support - anything to piss off the whackjobs known as the Scientology Cult. I could come up with more plausible crap to base a cult off than this.

  That's not a very loving attitude ;-p - David Gerard 13:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now for things i'd like to see fixed:

1. needs more images, it mentions covers and sketches, lets get some up there.
   • I may throw in the cover of Dianetics. What sketches? - David Gerard 13:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
     • Sorry sketches is not really the word I meant, I meant perhaps an image to illustrate the Xenu/Xemu discrepancy since its in L Ron's own handwriting. However the cover for Dianetics is a nice addition, and quite useful to correlate with the description of the whole H-bomb volcano section. Alkivar 18:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
       • I was reluctant to put the scanned page of OT III in, even though it's arguably of encyclopaedic fair use and they haven't attempted to sue Dave Touretzky who's had it up as "academic research" for nine years, because that would be tweaking their noses really hard ... but maybe of that one word - David Gerard 12:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
         • I've put the scan of the word "Xenu" in - David Gerard 12:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. minimal coverage of L Ron not even a small paragraph just a 1 sentance sidenote, needs a bit more.
   • What are you thinking of that isn't covered by a link back to his name? - David Gerard 13:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
     • I'm not suggesting a complete bio if thats what your thinking but perhaps more than simply "L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, also wrote a film script about him." in the lead in. Alkivar 18:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
       • I've added a paragraph on how he wrote OT III (drunk and on drugs) - David Gerard 12:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. a split between external links and references to back up the article. Alkivar 07:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
   • That could be difficult - the things listed do in fact serve both purposes. What links would you put in one and what in the other? - David Gerard 13:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
     • Have separated out the reference-only ones. How's that? - David Gerard 14:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
       • MUCH BETTER! Alkivar 18:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support, but I'd like the implications summarized. I know that I can hit the wikilink on body thetans and stuff, but it would be nice to have a sentence or two that sketches out the broader beliefs that put this in context. My only concern is that if this hits the main page, we're going to get even more noisome editing. Geogre 15:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  I've actually invited Scientologist editors to look over this page before, but none have taken me up on the offer. Shouldn't be more contentious on the main page than GNU/Linux naming controversy ... Will see if I can find suitable consensus summaries of the implications to put in and reference - David Gerard 16:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  By 'implications' I assume you meant the point of the whole thing, i.e. that you are covered in the souls of murdered space aliens and they cause all your problems and you have to audit them off. I've summarised that much in the second paragraph of the intro - David Gerard 17:04, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support It's worth it even if we get invaded by an army of Scientology lawyers GeneralPatton 23:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, if only to prove that Wikipedia can present worthy subjects that other encyclopedias won't even mention. --Modemac 00:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, but I would prefer this article not to appear on the front page, to avoid the possibility of having Wikipedia sued by Scientology. (See Scientology vs. the Internet -- it's not impossible.) Risking your own skin to fight Scientology is one thing, but risking Wikipedia is another. It's true that this is "giving in" to Scientology's threats, but in this case I think Wikipedia's financial health is paramount. --Redquark 06:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Scientologists are, of course, welcome to edit this article and add their own perspective. --Modemac 12:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Wow, that is extraordinarily weird, if I may say so. I'll support, even though it's really too short, because the secretive nature of the subject might make further expansion difficult and just because it's so damn interesting. Everyking 09:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Tried to expand it a bit - how Hubbard wrote it. I'm trying to think of other things to say about Xenu that are worth encyclopaedic coverage - David Gerard 12:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, considering how hard it is to write a decent NPOV article from Hubbard's ramblings, this is as close as it will get. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk] 13:52, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
• The recent nomination of Thursday October Christian showed me that there are some articles where so little is known that it is not possible to get to a length appropriate for a featured article, and where expanding the article will become original research. Xenu is just long enough to qualify. I don't think "because it will annoy the scientologists" is a reason for featuring an article, though. With those caveats and qualifications, I support featured article status. Dbiv 17:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's that short! (I don't think Thursday October Christian is too short either, FWIW.) That said, I've been looking around for stuff to expand it with - David Gerard 20:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think a mocking image is appropriately NPOV for the lead image. L. Ron's handwriting sample is priceless though, and arguably a much better image. Otherwise I would support. Seems very well done, and is long enough unless someone can find something important it doesn't cover. - Taxman 18:57, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • I put that image in because it didn't have any other image at the time, and there is no official Scientology depiction of Xenu. The grey alien theme is very common with the critics, even if it has no official basis. I may swap the two around in the article - David Gerard 20:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I buried the image to the bottom of the article and added a more NPOV image to the top of the page. Should make it appear more NPOV overall. Alkivar 03:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Might I suggest that a picture of an exploding volcano (Stromboli perhaps?) be used as the main image - it would be appropriate at least. -- ChrisO 03:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, if we can make the captions full sentences. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I can't see a way to do so that wouldn't be fatuous. They're really not standalone items. What would you suggest? - David Gerard 12:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, they're both full sentences now! - David Gerard 23:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose: Subject too esoteric to be of general interest. Mkweise 06:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid this would be a non-actionable objection, being of general interest is not a FA criteria, not to mention the fact that general interest is all in the eye of the beholder. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk] 09:02, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Objection is not actionable. And besides the quality of content is the only thing that matters to be featured, not the subject matter. - Taxman 13:48, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • According to our policy, objections must state a specific issue/issues that can be addressed and fixed. GeneralPatton 02:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It covers the subject well and has excellent supporting material. The subject itself... man, this is one odd bunch of people... Radagast 14:19, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It's long enough. Filiocht 16:05, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Support. I think this article is very good, and really close to being of featured article quality, and it ought to be featured soon. But it needs some work on style and readability, particularly in the introduction. I also think it needs a little time to age. It has just recently become what looks to be pretty NPOV, but the article could use some input from a Scientologist or two, just to make doubly sure that the article is accurate and adequately explains their point of view, so that when the article is featured, it doesn't get pounced-on.[[User:COGDEN|COGDEN^(talk)] 22:13, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • That isn't really all that actionable. It's had a Scientologist contributor, User:I'm4aNPOV, who was even posting from a CoS office. He didn't stick around, though. If this is to be regarded as actionable, where would you suggest we recruit one from? Also, please state your problems with style and readability with specificity (e.g. on a section or paragraph level), so that they will be actionable. The article has been around a while; this version isn't terribly different from how it's been over the past six months, the main difference being it now has references for everything - David Gerard 22:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • User:I'm4aNPOV only appears to have made one edit, and that was to remove a link. Regarding readability, I went ahead and made some changes myself. I'm not an expert in their area, so my changes should be verified. My main remaining objection regards the mention that Hubbard was on drugs when he wrote OT III. I think this needs an explanation or some sort of apologetics from a Scientologist, because I'm sure they have a POV on this issue that isn't represented. We don't necessarily need an actual Scientologist to help out with this, but there are probably explanations out there on the web that might be included. [[User:COGDEN|COGDEN^(talk)] 01:12, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Nice edits - thank you! I'm trying to track down a better source on the letter with the quote. The quote seems to be accurate. The paragraph doesn't flow perfectly, but every source I checked on its origins says he was drugged to the gills at the time. I'm looking for a credible reference (i.e., preferably not a Usenet post) comparing the "body thetans" story to the crawling insects on the skin feeling of barbiturate withdrawal. CoS representatives have denied the drugs story on a.r.s, but the letter was brought up in court (CoS vs Armstrong) in 1984 and never actually challenged - it seems Hubbard did in fact say just that, in those words. I've posted to a.r.s asking for help on this stuff, and for a Scientologist viewpoint (which may or may not be a CoS viewpoint). User:I'm4aNPOV was quite aware of Xenu, having made some controversial edits to Scientology and discussed such matters on that talk page - David Gerard 02:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm pleased with the article as it currently stands. All my reservations have been resolved; therefore, I am changing my vote, and I hope the article gets featured. [[User:COGDEN|COGDEN^(talk)] 20:19, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, if only for one of the most humorous disclaimers ever. Almafeta 02:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not actually sure the disclaimer will survive NPOV ;-) It's a bit pointed - David Gerard 02:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Straight-faced, surely! If we're to present a NPOV we have to take the Scientologists' concerns seriously, right?  ;-) -- ChrisO 02:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I dont think I ever read the disclaimer before you mentioned it... LOL, I nearly peed myself. Alkivar 02:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I've made some fairly major edits to fix some outstanding issues raised here. -- ChrisO 02:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You've done wonders for it - David Gerard 02:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, so long as that disclaimer is kept. Fantastic. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I can't guarantee that ... it still smells a bit POV to me. The health warning should go with the bit in which Hubbard claims it killed everyone who found it before - David Gerard 09:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Never mind, it's preserved for posterity at BJAODN... -- ChrisO 00:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I fear I've already moved the silly bit of the disclaimer to the relevant paragraph of the body text. I hope you will still consider the article up to standard ;-) - David Gerard 08:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Why are the references done up so weirdly? Shouldn't there be one ==References== section per Wikipedia:Cite sources? Johnleemk | Talk 03:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Ask User:ChrisO - David Gerard 09:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It's a bit clumsy, I admit, but it seemed a better way of doing it (and thanks to whoever hyperlinked the footnotes) than having notations like "(Miller p. 75)" next to a section of text. Is there a better way of making it user-friendly? -- ChrisO 00:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I think we need that mooted new reference syntax - specifically, automatic footnote renumbering - David Gerard 01:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Article would make an interesting contribution to the FA library. Jacob1207 16:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Something you'd never see in another encyclopaedia. And yet it's definetly up to the level. - V 23:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony Blair

Margaret Thatcher and John Major are both featured, and this is just as good or better. The only objection I can see is that he is still Prime Minister, but there are enough people reading and updating the article that it catches up with events as they happen (for example, the resignation of David Blunkett yesterday). I did some light copyediting a while ago, but it is not my article by any means. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support But under "Tony Blair's Second Cabinet, June 2001–present" appears still David Blunkett. He should be removed.--ThomasK 12:09, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Somewhat confusingly, the convention is that the main cabinet list shows the original cabinet members, and the section below ("Changes") records changes to the original list. The final entry to "Changes" records Blunkett's resignation and replacement by Charles Clarke. For example, Robin Cook is also no longer Leader of the House of Commons. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• SupportIain 12:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support (while I declare that I have made major contributions to the article). It often suffers from vandalism, and needs a good copyedit from time to time because people tend to add little bits of information into it, but it's a good comprehensive article with bags of references and has managed to keep NPOV. It's certainly several orders of magnitude better than John Major which is already featured. Dbiv 12:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. Fantastic article, but the organisation is really quite wacky. IMO, it flow a lot easier if the article actually went chronologically. Also, the copyright status of a few of the images needs to be determined. Ambi 14:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Erm, other than "Private life" and "Satirical caricature", doesn't it flow chronologically? I'll ask the image contributors about status. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually the images could do with a check. There are no less than three which depict him arm-in-arm with a President of the USA, which is a bit POV. The two with Bush are good images, though. The image currently by the 'Private Life' section has a POV caption on its page and looks like it has been elongated. I'll look out for some better ones, especially from earlier in his career. Dbiv 14:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I just can't see a good reason for screwing with the chronology and having most of the standard biographical information buried deep in the article. Ambi 05:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • OK - I've moved "private life" up to the first section, which means that "health" falls nicely at the end of the "2001-present" section. Better? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support: Giano 14:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Filiocht 15:08, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Edeans 03:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Article seems biased in favour of Blair. There ought to be something about Alistair Campbell; about Peter Mandelson; about Blair's friendship with Silvio Berlusconi; about Blair's failure to get Britain to join the Euro; more about the feud with Brown and how Blair has found it difficult to maintain his supporters in the cabinet (cf. Mandelson, Blunkett, etc); about Blair's failure to complete the reform of the House of Lords. Etc. Gdr 04:10, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
  • Mmm - re perception of bias - are you saying that it is not critical enough? What other brickbats do you think should be thrown? On your specific points: (i) yes, Campbell certainly should be mentioned; (ii) Mandelson's ministerial career is mentioned: what else should be there?; (iii) why Berlusconi in particular?; (iv) well, we have not joined the euro, but I'm not sure that it a "failure" yet, as they have not really been trying: when the answer to the referendum is "no", that will be a failure; (v) what sort of details would you like to see about the 'feud with Brown': and it's not Tony's fault that his best friends keep tripping over their own feet of clay; (vi) again, I'm not sure that Tony has "failed" to complete reform, simply because it has not been a priority (obviously they have not carried it through quite in the way that they said they would, but then an article on any politician would be twice as long if it mentioned each U-turn and undelivered promise.) Basically, I am a little unsure what you think the article should say (in an NPOV way) about most of your specific objections. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The article should be neither supportive nor critical of Blair: it should be neutral. However, many people are critical of Blair and the article should reflect their position. (iii) An example of how Blair has tried to circumvent the Franco-German axis in the EU by cultivating the support of Spain, Italy etc (iv) Blair wanted to join the Euro but politically it's proved impossible for him to do so: the issue shows an interesting conflict between his principles and his populism. (v) The conflict with Brown shows something about the quality of Blair's support within the Labour party: his strongest supporters are often young and inexperienced and haven't made good ministerial material: this isn't Blair's fault but it is a significiant issue he has had to work with. (vi) Not a big deal. Gdr 15:29, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
      • Sorry - by "not critical enough" I meant "does not include enough NPOV summaries of viewpoints of people critical of Blair". (iii) Has he tried to circumvent the Fanco-German axis? Canny. (iv) Lots of people want to join the euro, but politics is the art of the possible. (v) David Blunkett, "young and inexperienced"?! -- ALoan (Talk) 16:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support: A great article of its kind. - Trick 23:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support with caveat. It is not sufficiently reflected that Gordon Brown is the most powerful Chancellor in history, that the Treasury has dominated dome