Contents 1 Triumph of the Will 2 Sheffield 3 Guqin 4 Gettysburg Address 5 Economy of the Iroquois 6 Malwa 7 Gas tungsten arc welding 8 Saffron 9 Short-beaked Echidna 10 Radhanite 10.1 what the hell? 11 Hurricane Dennis 12 Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia 12.1 Proposal 13 Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) 14 Apple Macintosh 15 Delrina 16 The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask 17 Dinosaur 18 Prostate cancer 19 TGV 20 Prostitution in the People's Republic of China 21 De Lorean DMC-12 22 Fred Phelps 23 White's Tree Frog 24 History of the Australian Capital Territory 25 Dietrich v The Queen 26 Douglas Adams 27 Blues 28 The West Wing (television) 29 Xanadu House 30 Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. 31 Marilyn Manson (band) 32 Ido 33 Voting system 34 Game theory 35 The Waterboys 36 Butter

Triumph of the Will

Self-nomination: Triumph of the Will is one of those rare works that has extremely high name recognition, yet few people have seen it. This article was an attempt to do justice to the film and explain why it is regarded by many as the greatest propaganda film of all time, as well as address the obvious controversy over a film personally commissioned by Adolf Hitler. I took over editing this page in mid-October (My first Wiki edits too!) and believe I've had adequate time for feedback. I put up a peer review some time ago, though the response was unfortunately minimal. I hope you will see fit to support this nomination. If not I would very much appreciate detailed responses so I can keep improving this page. Palm_Dogg 04:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Pretty good article. (Ibaranoff24 04:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC))
• Weak Support. Lead needs expanding to two paragraphs, Trivia list should be converted into prose or merged into another part of the article. There is a mix of in-line HTML links and in-line footnote citations, the rest of the HTML ones need to be converted to use footnotes. The references section currently only has footnotes inside it, so it should be titled 'Notes' or 'Footnotes' and a separate 'References' section should be made listing books or other general references that were used. — Wackymacs 08:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• The lead is now two paragraphs but they aren't very long - the lead should summarize all the context of the article. There are only two References (aside from the footnotes) - this isn't enough for article of this length. Lots of words throughout the article are actually HTML links with masking words such as the Wall Street Journal link in the 'Reception', these should be de-linked and replaced as footnotes. Also, i think the 'Reception' section should be renamed 'Response'. The fair use images also require fair use rationales listing on the image pages why the uploader believes they are covered under a fair use license. — Wackymacs 20:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not too crazy about this article but its pretty good and my major concerns have been addressed so I have changed my vote to weak support. — Wackymacs 02:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. It would probably be worth tracking down some of Leni Riefenstahl's own latter-day comments on the film. I know she was interviewed about it in The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl. I believe she was asked outright about the issue of whether she was sugar-coating Nazism by leaving out the anti-Semitism. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Spport - pretty good, although it would be nice if you could address Jmabel's comment above. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• SupportTentatively Object I have one point. If it's fixed, this can be counted as support. I'll change my vote. The Lion King image should have an explanation of why it's like this film (it's not obvious to me at all)...ie, just like the Lord of the Rings image has. Other than that, fine article.Rlevse 18:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)This issue was fixed and QUICKLY! Rlevse
• Conditional Support Great article, but I wish there was more about the filming of the film. The major issues are the footnotes need to be put in the same order they appear in the main article. I think there are two or three too many images from films inspired by Triumph of the Will, you don't need this much. If an article was wikilinked within the article it shouldn't be in the See Also section. I'm also not thrilled about linking within the article to sites outside wikipedia, but thats not a major issue. Also does this article really need a spolier tag? Its a documentary, there is nothing to spoil. Otherwise good work. MechBrowman 18:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I've just numbered and reordered the footnotes and finished changing the footnotes to the ref_label/note_label template. - The Catfish 20:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't ref_label/note_label great? Kudos to whoever invented those templates. jengod 20:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I just saw this article on the self nominations page for Wikipedia:Good articles. I thought it was good enough to be listed there and was about to add it to the list when I saw the FAC link. Having seen several comments expressing weak support, or saying it's pretty good, I feel like I should remind those commenting that FAs are supposed to be the very best that Wikipedia has to offer, and not just competent, good articles such as this. I feel this article is good, but not among the best we have to offer, so I would far prefer to see it listed on WP:GA than on WP:FA. Worldtraveller 23:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sheffield

Self nom. This is a well referenced article. It has had most of its sections broken off and reduced in size in recent months. It now contains short and concise sections supported with more in depth articles. josh (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A very good article, well written and well referenced. I was going to nominate it myself at some point. - ulayiti (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Clear and concise. Zzzzz 18:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Fits the FA criteria, and my objections have been addressed. Object. This happens to be where I come from and I want to support this article but there are several short sections/subsections that need to be expanded. 'Media and film' and 'Universities' sections are very disappointing - What about a picture of the university buildings? The 'Shopping' section should have a picture of The Moor or the T J Hughes store or Meadowhall. The 'Transport' subsections 'Train and rail', 'Air' and 'Cycling' are all too short - any section should ideally be two or more paragraphs. 'Twin cities' section needs to be converted into prose and merged into the lead or another section. There are also lots of short sentences and orphan words (the article could do with a good copy-edit). The article doesn't seem to talk about the residential side of the city and different areas such as Crookes, Crosspool and Walkey. An 'Education' section would be good mentioning the major schools and education institutions (Norton College, Tapton school, King Edward VII school, etc). There are also lots of red links which makes the article look bad. — Wackymacs 20:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I've dealt with most of your complaints. The rest are a bit more difficult. There is a Districts section (under geography). I have added a mention of Hillsborough (our most famous suburb) but we can't start listing suburbs as there is about 100 of them. Expanded the Universities section into a more general Education section. I've also improved the Twin cities (now international links) section but i'm not sure about merging it as there is no other relevent section and it doesn't suit the intro. The transport section is too big to be left as a single section. Although in general I sections need to be 2 paragraphs or more, I don't think it needs to apply to every section. josh (talk)

07:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Tells me what I want to know/find in an easy yet comprehensive way. Smerk 12:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Fails Criterion 2(a): poorly written. I've copy-edited the lead; please find someone to go over the rest in detail. Tony 13:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - well-written; good information. (Ibaranoff24 22:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC))
• Object; nice work, but there are a few problems that I can see. There are too many subsections in the transport section—if you want a subsection to be just one paragraph, try to make the paragraph fairly long, and don't string 6 short ones together. I don't think that there will be too much information there to merge all six under one heading. The "history" section should be expanded somewhat, and it needs at least one inline citation. The "estimated total of over 2 million trees" statistic and the following geographical data should have a citation. I'd move the information from the "location" section into the "lead" of the Geography section, and eliminate that subsection. Other sections, such as Sport, Music and Education would benefit from an inline citation or two. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - the 'transport' section has now been rewritten. I have also expanded and added citations to the history section. JeremyA 05:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work. I'd still like to see more consistency in the use of inline citations, because ideally, every fact in the article would be tied to a reference. I understand that this is difficult for an article that is built from so many different sources, but there's room for improvement here. I don't see too many outstanding prose problems, so I'm switching to weak support until sections like 'transport', 'education' and the last third of 'history' are properly cited. Sorry to be so picky. Also, I agree with JoaoRicardo regarding the incorporation of the "negative" side of the city—if there are any problems worth mentioning, it'd be good to include them. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 06:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Many weasel terms ("Sheffield is generally recognised as England's greenest city", "By the 14th century Sheffield was noted for the production of knives", "Sheffield has an international reputation for metallurgy and steel-making"), local bias (it mentions "the M1" without explaining what it is), too many short sections and subsections (do we really need a shopping section?). Generally speaking, the article paints Sheffield as the perfect place to live. I'm sure it has some problems, be it violence, pollution, unemployment, whatever. The "bad" things should be mentioned as well. JoaoRicardo^talk 01:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Some comments: "By the 14th century Sheffield was noted for the production of knives"--this is a reference to Chaucer (I have added the citation). "Sheffield has an international reputation for metallurgy and steel-making"--I don't know how this sentence could be changed. A 'reputation' is a fairly difficult thing to prove. However, I have added references to the OED and Encyclopaedia Britannica, both of which state that Sheffield is famous for cutlery and steel manufacture. 'M1' is linked to the article M1 motorway (England), which explains it pretty well. I agree with you on the 'Shopping' section and so I have merged it into 'Industry and economy' JeremyA 02:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy, I see you and others have made some good improvements on the article. It looks better now. My reference to the M1 was on the sentence "The city lies directly next to Rotherham, with the M1 motorway designating much of the border between them.". In the version I had seen, M1 was not wikilinked and it wasn't described as "the M1 motorway", but simply as "the M1". The weasel words I had mentioned have been removed, and there are now references to the pollution (with a quote from George Orwell, very good!) and other problems. The rearranging of the subsections was also nicely done. I still would like to see more reference to city problems, but considering the wealthy of related articles (like Economy of Sheffield) which can discuss these issues in more detail, I believe the article is very good as it stands now. I'm changing to a support vote. Keep up the good work! JoaoRicardo^talk 16:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Support. I do not agree with Tony1 about the writing. I like the article and think it's well done. Rlevse 03:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Response. You don't agree that the writing is not 'compelling, even brilliant', as required? OK, here's an example taken at random (it's the opening of the History section).

The explosive growth of the settlements in the area that became the City of Sheffield in the 19th century was a product of the industrial revolution. However, the area has been occupied since at least the last ice age,[9] and the settlements that grew to form Sheffield are Anglo-Saxon and Danish in origin.[10] At this time the Sheffield area was at the borders of the kingdoms of Mercia and Northumbria,...

• • It's unclear at the start whether the reference is to settlements or the area that became the City of Sheffield.
  • 'However' is a real problem: first, it doesn't contradict the previous sentence; second, is the second clause (after ref 9) also covered by 'however'? It's unclear.
  • Slight confusion between 'the City of Sheffield' and 'Sheffield'—I presume they're the same.
  • 'At this time'—at what time? It could be referring to several points in time.
  • 'at the borders of'—'at' is unidiomatic; and does it mean that Sheffield straddled the entire 'borders' of these two kingdoms?

See what I mean? It's a minefield, and not worthy of FA status unless intensively edited. Tony 12:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support, appears to meet all criteria; the paragraph Tony takes issue with above has been changed. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• It's getting better, but hey, guys, don't stop—one of the first sentences my eyes strayed onto was:

Sheffield is also a major retail centre, although it compares unfavourably with other major cities, it is home to many High Street and department stores as well as designer boutiques.

And there are little gems such as:

£250 million pounds

And:

It has spent most of its history

would be much better as:

Most of its history has been spent

So some further fine tooth combing is now required if the text is to meet the requirement of 'compelling, even brilliant'. A good hour's work, picking up sloppy little things and ways of ironing out the language. Over to you. Tony 07:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Guqin

• Support One of the best, most informative, and best-researched articles I've seen at Wikipedia. Badagnani 18:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Support Important article concerning a little know and little understood important musical instrument of China. Comprehensive introduction to the instrument. Has had unofficial approval and backing from several well and less known qin players in the UK and the USA. --CharlieHuang 00:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, as follows:

• The lead section should be longer—two or three paragraphs is appropriate for an aritcle of this length.
• The section headings should be English-only (I assume that the Chinese in them is merely a translation?)
• The "Basic overview" section is very short; it should either be extended considerably or merged into the lead.
• Much of the article consists of lists. This is not particularly bad in itself; but the list items should be more appropriately wikified. I suspect that many of the schools and sources, for instance, would be good topics for articles of their own.
• Finally, some inline citations should be added.

Most of these are purely technical issues that should be fairly simple to resolve. —Kirill Lokshin 00:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Much of the lists, with exception to the Important Qinpu (separate article in prep) and the Ancient Sources in the article, are rather small lists that are aren't likely to be expanded (though if they are in the future, separate article will be crated on each individual basis). I find the short lists easier to navigate and read than mixed in together with other words. The Important Qinpu section I suppose could be removed (or moved to) since there is already an article on it. --CharlieHuang 11:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Much of the lists issue has been now addressed by creation of separate articles, leaving only two short lists, which I hope is acceptable. --CharlieHuang 12:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• The lists are fine now. Unfortunately, since you removed the lists, you now have several sections that consist only of a few sentences and a {{main}} link. These need to be either expanded or merged into the surrounding text. —Kirill Lokshin 18:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, you solve a problem and another one crops up. I'll try and expand or merge them. --CharlieHuang 23:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reduced it further by merging most of the small ones together. I have to use lesser bold headings to seperate the sections to distingush their difference and to avoid a muddle. --CharlieHuang 00:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Great! Support from me, then. —Kirill Lokshin 02:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support (Ibaranoff24 03:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

• Object. Lead section should be much longer as Kirill mentioned above, and the lists need to be converted into prose. — Wackymacs 08:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• All that has been sorted. --CharlieHuang 17:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment For me and I suspect many other users, the Chinese characters appear as question marks. This may be an issue for a FA but I dont know how you could act on this short of turning the important text into graphics. --Anon

• Removing the Chinese characters will sort of diminish the article's sake of completeness since a lot of terms are Chinese ones. One will have to have them in so that for research purposes, one knows the corresponding character(s) and can look and refer to them. Besides, having it there even though some cannot see them is better than not having them there denying those of which they maybe of use to of them. Though maybe some are disposable. --CharlieHuang 23:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment All I see are boxes where the Chinese characters should be. I agree it could be a problem if this happens to the average user. Smerk 12:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did have problems viewing the characters when I used a rather historically-challenged computer at an office which forbids download and upgrading (making certain documents impossible to view). However, I believe that those who seek knowledge must be willing to put an effort into retriving it. People who have Windows XP can in fact view Chinese characters it if they install the necessary IME (Input method editor) programme (which is already in the software). Older users must download the IME software from the internet and then install it (a quick Google does the trick), and I did think that you can download the language viewing tools in the Windows Update site. And TBH, I have Windows ME and had to install it from download, yet most of the characters in the insert box at the bottom of the edit page sandbox appear as squares to me (but I can see them if I input them into the sandbox). And besides, if you're going to view an article that is essentially about something Chinese, you're gonna expect it to have a few, if not a lot Chinese characters in it. --CharlieHuang 15:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. --Fire Star 18:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support as long as a bilingual poster confirms that the Chinese characters are saying what they claim to say! We don't want to appear on the "and finally..." section of the news now do we? --HasBeen 09:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Anyone confirm that my Chinese (and the Chinese written on my referenced sites) are really Chinese? --CharlieHuang 12:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Have just been to music library and can confirm that my suspicions were unfounded. Support, and please do submit for the front page. --HasBeen 09:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object; I'm not impressed with only using embedded external links as inline citations, especially since none of them are listed as references anyway. Inline citations should point to all the sources used, not just websites. For an article like this, footnotes would be great. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 16:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I've abandoned most of the external links, re-furbished and added to the references, footnoted the lot, etc. Hope that is acceptable. --CharlieHuang 20:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Outstanding article! --Naha|^(talk) 17:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support It looks great! - Cuivienen 23:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment That's pretty cool. Only odd thing is the Charlie Huang photo, well, the caption, really... If the subject is identified, shouldn't there be some clarification as to who it is and why? --Tsavage 03:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's actually me coz, (1) I am a qin player, (2) I am hardly gonna ask my peers for permission to post their photos pn this article without some formal process which may lead to, (3) some unecessary copyrighting issues that are avoided if the photo is of me, and (4) the picture is to illustrate the Playing context section of a typical strumming of the instrument. But I will put a more descriptive caption if it helps. --CharlieHuang 12:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. (And, FWIW, I enjoyed the article!) Here, I'm paying attention to detail, because it is...FAC. What I'm wondering about is (and of course, no disrepect to your qin talents!) whether it seems appropriate to name people in a photo if they are simply illustrating an act... If there's no existing guideline for this, it would seem to make sense that, if someone is named, the context should be clear, for example, whether it is a notable person in the field, or an "amateur" or "professional" or whatever... Otherwise, without explanation, it can be...confusing. --Tsavage 16:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I see your point. Anyways, it has achieved featured article status now! Thanks to everyone who contributed and supported this article! --CharlieHuang 00:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That was a really fine edit to the caption! ;) I'm happy you're pleased with the FA. --Tsavage 00:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address

(self-nom) After completing two cycles of Peer Review and incorporating those improvements into the current version of the Gettysburg Address article, we the (recent major) editors and caretakers of this Wikipedia entry do hereby nominate this article for Featured Article status. Bart 19:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
As the other recent major editor, I second the nomination, and thank Bart for his hard work on the article! Kaisershatner 20:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Thorough and states references and stable. One thing that bugs me though are the bullets with fragments that appear at the bottom of several sections with external links. AndyZ 21:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (Bullets removed) Kaisershatner 15:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- ALoan (Talk) 00:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article. --Revolución (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object, but very fixable -- great article! Image:Gbaddressclip.jpg squishes up the text in an ugly way. Needs a copyedit (I did a little bit) -- look out for lots of passive voice and starting sentences with "there is" or "there are". The "The Gettysburg Address in popular culture" section should be in prose, not bullet points and ought to have some sort of organization beyond a list. Tuf-Kat 05:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I resized the image (there was no need for it to be that big). I'm not going to have time to copyedit in the next few days. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. I further edited the pop culture section inline with your suggestions.Kaisershatner 15:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, support Tuf-Kat 17:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Object until all external links are in the external links section—the "Lincoln urban legends debunked", "Link to readings of the Gettysburg Address" and "PowerPoint version of the Gettysburg Address" need to appear not in the body of the article, but in external links. Very nice otherwise.
  --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  It may help to change the section title from "External references" to "References" and create a separate "External links" section. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  I took care of this, hope that clears up your objection. Kaisershatner 19:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks for the contribution. I moved the humorous PowerPoint link to External links, as you suggested. Bart 21:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  Looks better. Changing vote. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I am especially impressed by the extensive footnoting, which looks more like a professional paper than Wikipedia. <rueful grin> — DLJessup (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object: external link formatting needs some work Masterdebater 17:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what part of the formatting you find objectionable? Kaisershatner 04:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: On December 27, 2005, on the authority of Wikipedia administrator and bureaucrat User:Raul654, this article became a Featured article.

Economy of the Iroquois

(Self-Nom) The article is thorough, completely referenced, well illustrated and well laid out. I think this meets all the criteria for a featured article. The peer review (before a name change) of this article offered several constructive criticism, and I think they have all been addressed. FYI, I have another image to add of a Mohawk steel worker, but I need to get my regular computer with photo-editing.--Bkwillwm 05:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Good article, though I'm not keen on the 'Web' subsection in the References section and I think there should be a picture beside the lead. — Wackymacs 10:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --Kefalonia 13:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment — I want to support, but the fair use status of the casino image is rather sketchy (read the text on the image page carefully), and it doesn't make sense to me to repeat citations of the same page in a book. For example, inline citations 7, 8, and 9 are all the same—why not just have one at the end of that paragraph? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 15:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The casino image comes from here which is a link off of the casino's page labeled as "press room." The site is a promotional news website, and the image comes from the "photo bin" which some links direct to as a media resource. For instance, searching the media resources presents that photo here. The page also has the look of a classic media promotional site (i.e. it has many promotional type shots linked to high-res verisions). Albeit the site could be more explicit, but I think it's pretty clearly a promotional image. Was this you concern? Thanks for pointing out the repeated inline citation problem. I'll address that.--Bkwillwm 18:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material to illustrate the work or product in question... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." To me, that reads that the casino image can only be placed on an article on the casino itself, not on an article covering an indirectly related topic. I'm not sure about this, so I'll defer to others more knowledgable in the area. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use goes into a little more detail and makes me feel the image is acceptable. The article is not directly about the casino, but it is discussed and fair use images are not limited to one article (see fair use page). High-res images are usually not fair use for items such as books and CDs since they may aid piracy. I do not think that the low-res requirement is as important for the image in question. A lower-res version might be prefered though (this comp doesn't have a photo editor, so I can't do it). Most importantly, the photo's use here does not threaten the casino's welfare, if anything, it provides exposure, which is the purpose of publicity photographs. I'm not a fair use expert either. So I'll defer as well, but that's my rationale for including the image.--Bkwillwm 01:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support --Revolución (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, looks very good. The first couple sentence under "Division of labor" are a bit awkward though, and I'd also like a picture in the lead (the "Division of labor" section is a bit cluttered, maybe move one of those up?). Tuf-Kat 05:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Good work. If you {{inote}} for inline citations, you won't require the unwieldy notes section. See India for instance. Anyway, thats just my preference. --Pamri • Talk 03:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Malwa

This article is about a historical and cultural region in India We have been working on this article for quite a while now. Tom Radulovich has had a key role to play in bringing the article to this standard, and I also appreciate the constructive comments of Nichalp. It contains all information on the topic we found on the internet on the subject and all books that we could grab. It is certainly more extensive than articles on the subject on other encyclopedias, and everything is properly referenced. All images are properly tagged. It is gone through a Peer review, and all suggestions (there weren't too many) have been incorporated. deeptrivia (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. deeptrivia (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose -- There are some problems with the image tags, I don't think some should be tagged as {{money}} as the governments are long gone. The map should also have a tag. For India-related articles, metric measures should be given first priority. Please use the non breaking space &nbsp; between a number and its unit. 50&nbsp;m; 45&nbsp;°C etc. Matter in the infobox should be duplicated in the ==Demographics== section (rename the title). Please let me know once this is done. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't sure of the source of one image, so I removed it, replacing it with another one. I made all other changes, like conversion to metric units. deeptrivia (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Conditional Support -- I haven't read the full text to lend full support, so I'll keep it as conditional till I read it. [Note: it may be taken as a support vote in the final tally.] =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Well written article. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - some reservations regarding the length of the article though. The boilerplate approach is well thought-thru. (May I play as a critic of this on your user-talk page deeptrivia before commenting it here?) --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 09:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Although the article is 37 kb compared to the optimal size of 32 kb, a significant space is also occupied by References (including lengthy URLs not visible in normal mode), and tags for creating table, etc. I think the length is reasonable, although I'll be willing to shorten some text if it's possible without losing information. deeptrivia (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Support. Weak Oppose. I feel like more should be said about the economy; that section seems very sparse. - Cuivienen 14:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Since this is a historical region, no longer considered distinct for administrative purposes, little data is available about its current economy. This is the reason the article focuses chiefly on history and culture. The section has everything that we could find on economy of the region. Having said this, I'll definitely try to find more stuff that can be included. deeptrivia (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've also expanded the section now, taking information from official district websites. deeptrivia (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand, I've changed my vote to Weak Support. - Cuivienen 15:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Rama's Arrow 17:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very good work. — Wackymacs 20:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It looks really well written, but nowhere in the article is it made clear why this region is worthy of being discussed as a unit of its own. It's a part of two different states, and the lead lists the districts of each that it contains, but the article nowhere gives a clear and concise reason why it is considered a region and by whom. The lead should definitely have that. Is it important historically as a region, is it primarily geographic because of the plateau mentioned or what? If it is just because of the plateau, is the area exactly contiguous with it, and if not, why? - Taxman ^Talk 21:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Good observation. I've put some material in the lead clarifying this. Malwa was a political entity as late as 1947, although the region is still sometimes talked about as a unit by politicians and political analysts, when they discuss their vote banks (e.g., [1]) Some census data, like this one are also issued based on this classification. In history, of course, it is always mentioned as distinct. The plateau which forms a large part of area of Malwa is named after the region, although the two do not exactly coincide. The people consider themselves as distinct because of their language and culture, and there has also been a demand for a separate state. ([2]). Hopefully this helps. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

PS: The plateau and the region itself extends to some part in SE Rajasthan, while the present administrative border between the states is inherited from the border between the British Rajputana Agency and British Malwa Agency, which were fixed by political (as opposed to geographical or cultural) reasons. deeptrivia (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that explanation helps and that point is clear now, but now the lead feels poorly balanced. It really needs to be an overview of the whole article, but currently it only summarizes a few of the most important topics. It should cover them all in relation to their importance, and still be 3-4 cohesive paragraphs. Also the article now has some short paragraphs that should either be expanded into a full idea or merged with related material. Finally there are some html comment notes that show the need for a bit more research on points in the lead. - Taxman ^Talk 14:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've now added more relevant info from Culture, Economics, Demographics and Tourism sections. Hope that balances it a bit. Currently looking to merge short paragraphs. deeptrivia (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, looking really good. There's just the ecology material at the end of the geography section that needs to be turned into proper prose. I'll Support when that's done. - Taxman ^Talk 14:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it into prose. See if it looks fine. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Provisional support—the prose needs improvements here and there. Apart from that, it's excellent. Tony 03:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written. utcursch | talk 05:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Now these are the types of articles I like - comprehensive, a nice variety of visually-balanced pictures, etc. Just one thing that visually seems a bit off - the References section maybe shouldn't be in such small text, considering that it's not that long. Ronline ✉ 07:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've increased the font size of references to 100%. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Skimmed through it. Good pics and info. Covers everything in good detail. DaGizza ^{Chat (c)} 08:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Could still need some improvements, but all in all it is a very good article. --Kefalonia 13:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - It was a record! Less than 500 edits! If you compare July 20th, 2004, through May 9th, 2005 with December 21st, 2005, you'd agree. Cheers -- Svest 01:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}
• Support. Most of the issues appear to have been addressed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• I've copy-edited the article; please address my numerous inline queries, particularly in the last few sections. In addition, there's a lot of italic; you might consider rationing it. Tony 04:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC) PS The paragraph on music: no instruments mentioned; you talk of the modes, but is the drone always used in these forms, as in traditional Indian music? Please make the traditional/pop distinction clearer; it's unclear whether some of the forms you mention have been influenced by Western pop. Tony 04:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tony! I've made many changes according to your suggestions. Some questions are answered inline. There are no special musical instruments typical of the region, so nothing is mentioned about it. In Lavani, drone is used. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Finally, an India-related article at FAC!! --Pamri • Talk 15:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support: A nice creation indeed! --Bhadani 16:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well sourced. Very nice. Saravask 17:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support per the many reasons above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support though it would be a great addition to have the current political map of India with the Malwa region marked clearly - it could serve as the lead image. Great work by deeptrivia. --Gurubrahma 16:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Gas tungsten arc welding

My third self-nominated welding FAC. I put it on peer review for several days with no comments, but I got feedback from two of Wikipedia's leading welding gurus, User:Triddle and User:TTLightningRod. I've tried to incorporate their suggestions while keeping the article well referenced with plenty of inline citations. And thanks to User:Duk for the great schematic. So, what do you think? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 05:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak Support I saw this article earlier, and it has really improved considerably. Brings alive the memories of a dreadful compulsary undergrad course :) Sorry for not commenting on the peer review page. I guess it can do with a few more pictures, just for the visual impact. Apart from that, it looks comprehensive (there's nothing I know which is not in the article, not that I know much.) Probably you can make a mention of industries where it is most likely to be used: aerospace/automotive, or whatever. Good article overall deeptrivia (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

My concerns are addressed! deeptrivia (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added a section on applications, under "Operation". As for the images, I've got an idea for another diagram, but I've done a fair amount of searching for free images, and haven't found much. I'll look around some more though. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a diagram describing the setup of equipment, and User:TTLightningRod provided an image of a GTAW torch. Do they meet your expectations, or did you have something else in mind? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• The article looks good, but... the horrible self-reference in the bottom template needs to go. There's no reason to mention the existence of a WikiProject directly in the article. —Kirill Lokshin 07:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the word "wikiproject". Was that the only issue? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes; as I said, it's a good article otherwise. Support from me, in that case. —Kirill Lokshin 16:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - I think Spangineer's work on this article is extremely good. Triddle 20:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Ridiculously thorough and precise, high informational content, well written prose. Spangineer deserves major kudos! I did a small amount of copyediting, hope that's OK :) - JustinWick 00:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, this is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" :) The Catfish 05:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Great use of inline citations. More power to the welding! :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I'm supporting this most of all because it is a very comprehensive article for a quite obscure and specialised article. This makes the article even worthier of FA status. Congratulations! Ronline ✉ 07:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Good. Everyking 07:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support -- but I would like to see the svg version of Image:GTAW.png on the page rather than the png version. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• At the moment I don't have access to any image editing software capable of converting the image to svg. If someone else would like to do it, that'd be great; otherwise I'll do it in a couple weeks. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Saffron

Self nomination. Peer review. I've heavily copyedited and researched this article in response to some very productive comments given by generous folks during the peer review. Saravask 02:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Looks very well written and well researched. It is a bit long, but not prohibitively so. - Cuivienen 04:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well written and researched.---(Smerk)
• Comment: Based on a quick glance, this article looks great. I'll read it indepth later before I vote. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support: 54KB is fine for an article completely on subject. If there is a prohibitive length then there should not be. I'm not sure there needs to be 47 footnotes referencing almost every fact - but I suppose they do no harm and this does seem to be the way things are going here now. This is a good informative and comprehensive page, well up to FA standard, and will doubtless soon be on the main page where it deserves to be. Giano | talk 10:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I gave some comments on WP:PR that have been addressed. The font size in the floating tables seems a little small, and it could do with some copyediting here and there (Swiss town of Basil? Are you sure?), but generally excellent. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Is there any reason why the chemicals mentioned in the article are not linked? Do those articles exist at all? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No reason — just forgetfulness. They exist. I just wikilinked to them. Saravask 16:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I also found the wording of the paragraph dealing with the etymology a bit confusing. Do "these terms" refer to the Spanish and Italian words only? Are you implying a connection between the Arabic word and the Latin word? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 17:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. In the Romance languages, the term for saffron is a loan word from the Arabic. For example, see this. This is also what other references state. I tried clarifying that paragraph as well. Saravask 22:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Support now. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support per above.
• Oppose The article needs to be re-formatted. History usually comes first, not in the middle of the article, among other issues. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 17:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's important to define and explain what saffron is before discussing its history, so placing the botany section before the history is IMO entirely appropriate. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Mgml here. - Taxman ^Talk 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mgm as well.--Curtis Clark 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree also. It would be odd for an article about a plant and its products to start with history of cultural usage. --Oldak Quill 08:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. History only need come first for articles where the history comes first chronologically; thus "etymology" is the first section in most articles where the word is of issue, "history" for human inventions and nations and so on, "life" before "legacy" in bios, etc. But for a plant or animal, "history" does not come first in most cases simply because the critter existed prehistorically! -Silence 21:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support, because "wow." Great article. The lead image is a bit dim, however; please yell at me if I forget to do some Photoshop correction to it after I get home this evening. Postdlf 18:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Love the inline citations with footnotes. Agree with Pall that history should go first, but it is really a minor think, easily fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very nicely done. - Taxman ^Talk 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. One amazing article. —Hollow Wilerding 22:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support Excellent article deeptrivia (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support Everything looks great. Very visualy appealing too. Tobyk777 02:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, great work from Saravask. Disagree strongly with the complaits about the position of the history section, the plant was a plant before it had a history of human use, this set up is well established in other recent featured food articles like butter and black pepper.--nixie 08:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I fact-checked every one of the online footnoted references and came up with the following nitpicking comments: the first reference claims it is "by weight the world's most expensive spice" but the book was published in 1969. What are "transient snows"? The "volatile (aroma-yielding)" might upset a chemist reader, probably should pre-empt their edit with "150 volatile and aroma-yielding...". "powerful contributor to saffron's fragrance.[14]" is referenced to page 1 but the info is on page 3...same with the "saffron, dried hay like" quote. Its eupeptic properties are not mentioned in that footnote (37 Park). There is a footnote 48 in "Grading" that should be 47. I totally don't see where that Kashmir-Iran mix in the last footnote (35 Tarvand ) is coming from. --maclean25 09:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I made some fixes to clean up the errors you pointed out. Let me know if there are other issues. Saravask 15:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for your attention on the previous issues. Do you really want more? ok...the LD50 in the "Medicinal" section, is that for humans...or mice, or monkeys, or cute furry bunnies? --maclean25 05:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The Abdullaev 2002 paper states that the LD50 figure was "indicate[d]" by "animal studies", so I put that in. Saravask 16:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support, great article. —Kirill Lokshin 19:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Marvelous work! Congratulations! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great comprehensiveness and research. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Recent work has made a great article better.--Curtis Clark 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The proximate analysis chart is very squished in its formatting; it should be made slightly wider. - Blake's Star 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I widened it to 225px. Saravask 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Support. Looks good, even though I haven't looked at it properly. Uncke Herb 05:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support Even though I haven't read it properly, 61 notes and 32 entries in the reference section is quite impressive.

Oops, I just noticed I didn't sign The Catfish 06:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Give a second look t the captions. You have the same one twice, and the ones about the chemical makeup seem to be cut off. Spend about 5, 10 minutes fixing this and I'll support. On the whole a great article. --HereToHelp (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I elaborated on the image titles. But the chemicals' captions look OK to me. Could it be a problem with your internet browser? Let me know. Saravask 16:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

HeretoHelp, A raw figure of footnotes does not necessarily mean that an article is more referenced. =Nichalp «Talk»=

• Comment {{Medlineplus}} seems to have been created specifically for this article. May I suggest removing it? It is a template for an arbitrary external website and the template implies it is a sister project, which it is not (a similar template for Uncyclopedia was deleted for these reasons).—jiy (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed it. I had copied the code from the Spanish Wikipedia, and didn't know there was a policy against it. Saravask 00:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Well-researched and comprehensive.—jiy (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support Tobyk777 01:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I see the nominator has put a lot of effort into this article. As a lover of botany and food-related articles, I am pleased to find such devotion. I had an impression that images were a bit disorganized, but now it appears to have been mostly fixed. --BorgQueen 15:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Short-beaked Echidna

Another unusual animal from Australia/New Guinea, written by me, reviewed and copyedited by many others. Sadly I haven't been able to find any substantial detail on the species in the cultures of Papua New Guinea or West Irian Jaya, otherwise the article is comprehensive.--nixie 00:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• SupportWell written.---(Smerk)
• Support. Another well-researched and written article. Given the problems of New Guinea, any lack of information concerning those species is certainly forgivable.--cj | talk 06:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I've redirected spiny anteater to Short-beaked Echidna. It was originally redirected to a general Echidna article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- ALoan (Talk) 11:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Sources used for footnotes should be added to reference section as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems like a rather pointless duplication of information - I have a couple of FAs with the refs arranged this way.--nixie 23:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed it is not of the outmost importance, but style is style, and notes do not equal references.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The problem here is a lack of appropriate title, the notes in this article are not explanatory footnotes, they are, as in any scientific paper, references to original primary research. I have adjusted the format of the section a bit to refelct this, but as long as the information is there and in a consistent format then there is no issue.--nixie 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support -- Saravask 02:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support—I've copy-edited the article; please see the inline queries, inserted by me and previous editors. Tony 01:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the once over, I've addressed most of the inline queries (some of them were mine - and won't be resolved until I get a good book of Aboriginal myth).--nixie 07:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment — This article appears nearly excellent to me. Upon closer reading, I only have two nitpicks:

1. " ... where it is the most widespread mammal species ... " (from the second para) — I don't know whether this refers to native or all species distribution. All here means fauna (exotic or native) in Australia. Doesn't Australia have major problems with rabbit infestation and introduced species (rats, etc.) outcompeting native fauna? My suspicion would be that one of those invading exotics would be the most widespread mammalian species, instead of any echnidna. In any event, I think this assertion should be elaborated upon and be linked to a source.
2. Repeated capitalization of short-beaked echidna (i.e., "Short-beaked Echidna"). This is not the practice followed in scientific literature (at least that dealing w/ chronobiology and fungal genetics). Thus, I would not expect to find Neurospora crassa referred to as "Bread Mold" (instead, "bread mold" — although I see "Neurospora" capitalized, which is correct) nor Magnaporthe grisea as "Rice Blast" (instead, I see "rice blast" or "Magnaporthe"). And after having read through hundreds of neurobiology- and neuroethology-related scientific papers, I don't recall coming across such capitalization of the common names given to bird, mammals, etc. But still, the science of this article appears solid to me (a non-expert). Overall, great work. My support vote still stands. Saravask 18:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Fixed your first query, on the second point, Wikipedia convention is to have caps for mammal and bird page names, I have used the same capitalisation consistently throughout the problem- so I don't think its an issue.--nixie 21:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't know about the Wikipedia capitalization convention; I was rather sure you had a good reason for doing that. And thanks for addressing the first point. Saravask 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Radhanite

I initiated this article, so I guess this is a self-nom though many others have made great contributions. I put this up for a peer review some time ago and tried to implement the suggestions as best I could. I think this is ready for featured status. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now:
  • The suggested sources for the name found in the "Etymology" section are not footnoted. It is easy to see that the etymology suggested by Gil should be footnoted to him (with page cite) but the others are not attributed to anyone.
  • I would think that a public domain portrait of Radhanites (or of just one individual) should not be hard to find and would greatly improve this article.
  • "The text of Ibn Khordadbeh's account" should be better integrated into the preceding section.
  • "This system was developed and put into force on unprecedented scale by medieval Jewish merchants such as the Radhanites; if so, they may be counted among the earliest modern bankers" The phrase "on an unprecedented scale" is somewhat vague here. How were letters of credit used before? On what "scale" were they used by Radhanite merchants?
  • "Some scholars believe that the Radhanites may have played a role in the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism. In addition, they may have helped establish Jewish communities at various points along their trade routes, and were probably involved in the early Jewish settlement of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, China and India." Both these sentences need to be cited.
  • First paragraph of "The end of the Radhanite age" needs historical citations.
  • More than just one contemporary account would be nice. It need not be as long as this one, but it would provide a more multi-dimensional portrait.
  • "For the Jews, it marked the end of the golden age of trade and the beginning of a long period of systematic persecution and victimization." This reads like a very overbroad and slanted statement.
  • The map has a lot of ugly artifacts from being saved as a JPG. A GIF or better, a PNG, would not look so unprofessional. Andrew Levine 00:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

To respond to a few of your points:

(1) This article is much more heavily footnoted than today's Featured Article (Canadian_House_of_Commons), which in point of fact has no footnotes at all. The truth of the matter is that virtually no encyclopedia contains in-article footnotes; references at the end of the article are considered sufficient. In Radhanites the facts cited are those that were raised as controversial. My position is that it would add little to the article to footnote virtually every fact as you suggest; the facts are derived from the extensive list of sources at the end.

(2) There is no portrait of a Radhanite. We simply do not have any. Ibn Khordadbeh's manuscripts were not illuminated.

I am in the process of making a few changes that may address some of your other concerns.

--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Made a number of changes, including numerous new cites and a new map. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your (1) above: It is unacceptable for a feature article to say of something which is factually disputed, "Some say X, others say Y." These are weasel words. Every statement of opinion must be attributed to the person whose opinion is represented. Even if you don't footnote it to link it to a specific source, the claim must be attributed to the person making it.

Also, I just noticed that the article is unclear as to whether "Radhanite" was just the term ibn Khordadbeh et. al. used to refer to pan-Eurasian Jewish merchants in general, or if this referred to a specific, unified guild with an organized structure. If the latter, details should be added about the organization within the guild/group. If such information does not appear to have survived, the article should make that clear. Andrew Levine 05:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

With regard to your above comments, I have cited various of the assertions and made clarificatory statements regarding the term Radhanite. The reference to Rhages in the Encyclopedia of World Trade also says "others say", so, weasel words or no, the formulation has been accepted by a peer-reviewed, professionally produced and published encyclopedia.

It seems from reading the article and your explanations that there does not exist enough verifiable first-hand information about Radhanites (or the Radhanites, whichever they may be) to make a featured article. I think that you deserve praise for having almost single-handedly written what is close to the best possible Wikipedia article on this obscure subject, but it just seem that the gaps in the historical record are too large to rectify. Andrew Levine 06:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the only reference with which you still have a problem is the Rhages statement. There are numerous excellent articles on items with far fewer first hand references. Respectfully, I do not think your reason for opposing is a valid one. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that this last objection should stop something from being a featured article. If what is known about a subject is significant, but limited, and the article accurately reflects the state of that knowledge, it should be eligible to be featured. This objection strikes me as comparable to saying we couldn't feature a biographical article on someone whose birth date is unknown. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Something like birthdate is a minor bit of information, a single data point. On the Radhanites, huge gaps exist in our knowledge of them: exactly what were they (general name for Jewish merchants, or organized guild?), how did they describe themselves (no such accounts exist), and who were some notable verified Radhanites (some speculation, but it's based only on broad conjecture; we don't even know one for certain). And I'm not talking about this just being missing from the article here, I'm talking about it being missing from the sum of all extant knowledge of the Radhanites, if what Briangotts has said is correct. That's a pretty big swath of unknown information there, much more than missing a single date. Andrew Levine 15:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support--Untifler 15:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support--Wiglaf 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written and informative article on a frequently-overlooked period. Length shouldn't be a criterion, especially on a subject where there isn't much material in existence. Isomorphic 02:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Factual incorrect in several areas. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, you must give specific reasons why you oppose. You raised several disputed matters of fact in the talk page of the article, all of which were either changed or cited to published works. This has the whif of sour grapes. Barring any specific allegations of factual errors (as opposed to cited facts that this user disputes) I ask that the bureaucrat reviewing this disregard this vote. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So any form of criticism is smashed with accusations of Bad Faith. What a nice Guy you are. Problems here include statements such as "the Radhanites were among the first to establish a unifed transcontinental trade network" - Which is false. There was unified intercontinental trade several Centuries there previous, including trade from Africa to Europe via Egypt and the Middle East, also on Ship from Ethiopia. "this (Credit) system was developed and put into force on unprecedented scale" - False. Precedents exist in China, and probably elsewhere should I bother to look. "Some scholars believe that the Radhanites may have played a role in the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism" While it may well be true, gives a false impression. There is no evidence to support such a conclusion, and their opinion is a minority one and should as such be stated. Gregory of Tours, iv. 12, 35; vi. 5 is used to source the statement "The economy of Europe was profoundly affected by the disappearance of the Radhanites. For example, documentary evidence indicates that many spices in regular use during the early Middle Ages completely disappeared from European tables in the 900s. Jews had previously, in large parts of Western Europe, enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the spice trade" - But the source says no such thing! IV(12) is about a priest who was buiried alive, but escaped, at the behest of a King who wanted his property. There is a brief mention of him being a "Great Friend of the Jews" and that he bought their "wares" (Which could have been spices, but that would be speculation) As for IV(35), all we learn from this is that there was a drunkard once. VI(5) tells us of Priscus, a Jew, and how King Chilperic attempted to convert him to Christianity, but failed. None of these in any way support the claim being made. Not that I'm doubting the accuracy of the statement, but it needs proper Cited sources. Bottom line here, for me anyway, is the Ethno-centric outlook this has. The Radhanites trade with China was not unique, Al-Mas'udi talks of the Chinese destroying merchant Muslim, Christian, Jewish and even Zorostrian ships in 878 in Caton (Guangzhou). Their Monetary system was neither as complex nor as developed as the Chinese. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations of ethnocentricity ring hollow given your own edit history. Nevertheless: the credit system established by Jewish merchants was unprecedented in scale because it transcended all national boundaries. A Jew from France could cash his letter of credit as far away as Kaifeng, and vice versa. Jewish communities were extant in almost every major city in the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and the Silk Road, not to mention the Black Sea and the Pontic steppe. Chinese merchants had an ingenious and sophisticated monetary and credit system but it was largely confined to mainland China during the period we are discussing. There was no Chinese community in Paris, for instance, where a Chinese merchant could expect hospitality and credit. While there were Nestorian Christian colonies in China, there is no evidence that they had substantial contact with Western Christians, and it is indisputable that Muslim traders were barred from trade access in most of Christian Europe during this period. Jewish merchants are the only ones in the relevant period who had access to virtually every major marketplace from Tangier to the Great Wall and from Malabar to Siberia. Others, sophisticated and well-travelled as they may have been, operated far more limited networks.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I am Irish, white and from an Anglo-French background. I have never made any attempt at making Articles regarding Irish White merchants of an Anglo-French Background a featured article, nor any article concerning Irish White people from an Anglo-French Background.. Nor any article at all as it happens but nice to see you start your defence of this article by making a personal attack and an accusation of bad faith. Your reasoning for inclusion of the term "unprecendented" is interesting, and should be explictly stated. Chinese Credit systems were in use outside of the Chinese controlled areas, but not, as far as I am aware, outside of Eastern to Central Asia, So include that it was "unprecedented" because it was fully international, that is a note made in China was tender in France, unlike the Chinese system. There is, at least, as much evidence that Christian Ships traded in China. That is because they are included in the same volume of the Khordadbehs work. Why would the Christians be using Ships to trade less they were travelling to trade abroad, which is my point. As for the limited trading of the Muslims, I would have to disagree. The Radhanites barely touched the Western Parts of North Africa, or the Horn of Africa, two areas were Muslims and Arabs were known to trade with, even pre-dating the Advent of Islam. Seeing exclusion of Middle ages Christian Europe as being "far more limited" is an example of that ethnocentricity I was speaking of. The Radhanites were good traders, but they were not in any way magicly unique. They weren't the only traders in to trade in what they traded in, and thier importance and great acheievements really centres on them trading from the Muslim trading posts to the Christian ones. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

With regard to your first two sentences, very cute. With regard to the third, you are outrageously out of line, as my reply to your vote made no personal attack on you, stating only that it was inspecific in contradiction to FAC policy. When you brought up your problems with the article I addressed them, and in fact made changes in the article in compromise, to which you responded by drumming up a slew of more objections (most of which had been dealt with by citing etc. long ago). With regard to the remainder of your long statement, I have no response, as you have said nothing new. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You say the problems highlighted have been dealt with, but they have not! You are still using Gregory Of Tours' History of the Franks iv. 12, 35; vi. 5 to source the statement "The economy of Europe was profoundly affected by the disappearance of the Radhanites. For example, documentary evidence indicates that many spices in regular use during the early Middle Ages completely disappeared from European tables in the 900s. Jews had previously, in large parts of Western Europe, enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the spice trade", but those verses do not support the claim in any way!! Also, the statement "Historically, Jewish communities used letters of credit to transport large quantities of money without the risk of theft from at least classical times" is backed up with Antiquities 18.6.3, but Antiquities 18.6.3 does not back this up. I don't have access to most other sources used, but the classic ones used, to which we can all read online, have been used incorrectly which does not bode well for the non-classic sources used. Also, the statement "Jewish merchants enjoyed significant privileges" is rather ambiguous. What privileges? Were they privileges for all traders, or just jews? explain. My opposition is valid, and I apologise if you opinion was taken incorrectly, but it seemed rather aggressive. --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Another factual innaccuracy. Whatever source told you that Ibn Khordadbeh wrote al-Kitab al Masalik w’al Mamalik was wrong. I believed it too mind, but I believe Wikipedia! Abu Abdullah al-Bakri actually wrote it. now, why is it that when I do a google search for the last part of the quoted statement "arrive at Balkh, betake themselves from there across the Oxus, and continue their journey toward Yourt, Toghozgbor, and from there to China" I get three pages of Google mirrors from this very same article? I need to know whose translation of Al-Bakris Kitâb al-Masâlik wa'l-Mamâlik you are using. Ibn Khordadbeh does kinda sound like Ibn Cordoba, But I'm not in the habit of putting up original Research. Check out Abraham ben Jacob for more info. The Article on Ibn Khordadbeh I see was almost entirely done by you, and remains entirely unsourced. Please Cite your Sources, this is fairly critical.--Irishpunktom\^talk 18:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, though Wikipedia quotes the English name of the book as the "Book of Highways and of Kingdoms" and you have it as the "Book of Roads and Kingdoms" the general accepted translation appears to be "Book of Routes and Realms" which really, IMO, just seems like a more obtuse way of saying Roads and Kingdoms, but there you go. Here we have the BBC using that name, Boston University too, Here it is on sale and Here it is listed in the Library of Congress. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. Ibn Khordadbeh was indeed the author of a book called Kitâb al-Masâlik wa'l-Mamâlik. I vaguely recall hearing of other works by the same title, and perhaps one of them was the al-Bakri travelogue you mention. But dozens of scholarly works mention and cite ibn Khordadbeh's book. As for the translation, I believe I copied it verbatim from Rabinowitz. I will check and cite as appropriate. For now, I am removing the disputed tag at Ibn Khordadbeh. If you wish to write an article about al-Bakri's book by the same title, I am happy to move the article on the book to an appropriate title (i.e. Title+(ibn Khordadbeh). Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Also, I believe that "Mamalik" translates exactly to kingdoms and derives from the semitic root MLK or king (cf. Heb. "Mamlekhet"). What the BBC and LOC choose to translate it as is their own affair, but "Kingdom" and "Realm" are not necessarily interchangeable. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute that you copied directly from some guys book. Right now, what I would like is to know whose translation you used? ibn Khordadbeh the persian, the famous one, was a translater who may well have translated the Arabic acount into the Persian which could be the cause of this. However, Al-Bakri's Kitâb al-Masâlik wa'l-Mamâlik deals with jewish traders going to China. Now are you saying that there are two books with the same name which in part deal with Radhanites but are completely different? This is too co-incidental, and for that reason I'd like to know whose translation you are using so i cna check it myself. Did Rabinowitz do the translation himself? --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Where did you learn that al-Bakri wrote a book by this title that deals with jewish traders called Radhanites? Might your source not be confusing him with ibn K? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The day you produce a fraction of the scholarship that Rabinowitz did over his career, you can refer to him contemptuously as "some guy". Until then [self-censorship to avoid violating WP:CIV.] Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

To avoid further controversy, I have rewritten the translation of Ibn Khordadbeh's quote, citing to Adler rather than Rabinowitz. I have also given a multiplicity of sources that state outright that Ibn Khordadbeh was the author of the Kitab in question (identifying and describing the Radhanites), not al-Bakri (who may, as I said, have written a book by similar or identical name). Hopefully we can put this issue to rest. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice guy. Maybe, as well as being a translator ibn K also wrote his own work with the same name and content as Al Bakri.. maybe, I still want to know whose tranlsation you are using. As for jewish traders called Radhanites, I don't know why their need be a name applied, as I understand it it just talks of the group of Jewish traders travelling east from frankland. Now, Ibn Khurradadhbih did also write, a book of the same name, but he was never based in Persia, living almost his entire life in Baghdad. A quick check on wikipedia shows that he is only mentioned once, Arabic literature <-there. The problem with using this as a source though is that it flies against your argument and maintains the greatness of the Arab traders, while also claiming that they inherited their understanding of the sea Networks from the nice Indian traders who travelled west, something not mentioned at all in the article. Perhaps this is another eaxmple of the ethnocentricity I mentioned earlier, or perhaps is another example of me trying "to downplay Jewish contributions to history while simultaneously shrugging off or sweeping under the rug Muslim atrocities against Jews". Maybe, just maybe, you feel better attacking me rather than accepting criticism and using it to improve the article. Who knows. --Irishpunktom\^talk 01:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that mus be it.

Of course, I have no idea where you're getting any of your info on Ibn Khordadbeh, who was Director of Posts in Djibal and whose father had been governor of Tabaristan. Maybe he lived in Baghdad but it is simply not true that he never was based in Persia. So those assertions are inaccurate, as is your assertion that ibn Khordadbeh did not write the Kitab. I will assume good faith error on your part.

The balance of your statements, again, are nothing new and not worth response. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib)