Contents 1 Tamil language 2 Bicycle 3 Buddhist art 4 Steve Dalkowski 5 James K. Polk 6 Canadian Pacific Railway 7 Ammolite 8 Timpani 9 BZFlag 10 Great Lakes Storm of 1913 11 Names of God in Judaism 12 League of Nations 13 Michel Foucault 13.1 Reply to Taxman 14 Nafaanra language 15 War of the Spanish Succession 16 Space Race 17 Sikkim 18 A. E. J. Collins 19 Test matches in the 19th century (to 1883) 20 Anne Frank 21 Get Back 22 Lord's Resistance Army 23 Octopus card 24 Book of Kells 25 Windows XP 26 History of Russia 27 John Day (printer) 28 Death Valley National Park 29 History of post-Soviet Russia 30 Krag-Jørgensen 31 Evolution 32 Big Bang 33 X Window System 34 Robert Oppenheimer 35 Battle of Warsaw (1920) 36 Commonwealth of Nations 37 Graffiti 37.1 Comments

Tamil language

This is almost a self-nomination. I did a major rewrite, content addition and formatting according to the standard template for language articles. Had earlier put it for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tamil language/archive1. Had converted the alphabet chart into image format to avoid browser incompatibility on Bishonen's suggestion there. I feel that the article is mature enough and is of featured-quality. -- Sundar 06:56, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

• comments: a map would be desirable. the "Dialects" section is a list without commentary. We would at least want a map to show their distribution. I'm not sure about the tablea-as-images: I cannot render Tamil Unicode, but I would use something like the table on Tamil alphabet, with a small image of each letter on top of the Unicode glyph). "Writing system" looks a bit orphaned, at the bottom there, it should probably come before "Phonology". A short section about Tamil literature would also be nice. The detailed explanation of the example sentence is very nice. dab (ᛏ) 07:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've requested for help with maps from User:Nichalp. "Writing system" moved above. Pjacobi has offered to work on the tables over the weekend.-- Sundar 05:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Vadakkan has rectified most issues pointed out. -- Sundar 12:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Object.

1) No references. This is a basic requirement of a featured article. Please do not nominate articles that do not meet them.

• • Will add references. -- Sundar 05:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Done by User:Vadakkan. -- Sundar 12:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

2) There are many sections with only a few sentences or a single paragraph, or merely a summation. This indicates that either more can (and should) be said about the topic, or that the structure of the article should be revised.

• • User:Vadakkan has merged/copyedited many sections to remedy this. -- Sundar 05:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Done by User:Vadakkan. -- Sundar 12:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

3) Some (at least one) sound samples of spoken Tamil are needed.

• • Will add soon. -- Sundar 05:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Done by User:Vadakkan. -- Brhaspati 01:03, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

4) Some of the section jump from topic to topic, notably the Grammar section. Text flow needs to be improved in these sections.

• • It has improved after Vadakkan's edit, but the grammar section still needs improvement. -- Sundar 05:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Done - the grammar section has been totally rewritten and now flows quite well. Ditto the section on phonology. -- Arvind 17:40, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

5) I think mentioning Tamil as a language spoken in for example the Netherlands is ridiculous. I looked it up, and there are an estimated 2000 Tamils (7000 acc to ethnologue) living in the Netherlands (on a population of 16 million). Even if all of them speak Tamil, that's not a significant number. Jeronimo 08:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Done. That part is removed in the box and rephrased in the geographic distribution. -- Sundar 05:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

My objections seem to have been resolved. Support. Jeronimo 08:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks to both of you for the comments. I'll try to rectify soon. -- Sundar 08:28, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Support Awesome article... Conditional Support When the references are added, then this is a support vote. If not, it's a neutral vote. Squash 09:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Will do that soon. -- Sundar 11:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Someone shall acquire relevant papers from this list or shall try to get authoritative books from the library on this subject and reference them. -- Sundar 11:54, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Done by User:Vadakkan. -- Sundar 12:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Layman's conditional support, I fear there's still a lot to do, starting with the literature references. I have the article on my watchlist since I'm on Wikipedia but unfortunately without much ability to enhance it myself. Some thoughts:
  • The "spoken in" table entry just went nuts in a lot a language articles, there should a serious clarification, where to draw the limit. And some volunteers watching all these boxes. Fortunately nobody added Tamil to Category:Languages of Netherlands (yet).
    • I've no problem in removing non-obvious entries from there. Feel free to remove them. -- Sundar 11:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Done. -- Sundar 12:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I hope (and wait for the experts' judgements) the dates in the history section are in accordance with current scholarly opinion, as they were often targets of edit ambushes in the past of the article.
    • Newer evidences are coming to surface as latest as today. Please refer to this news item. -- Sundar 11:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Done - the section has been checked, and a reference to a source has been inserted. -- Arvind 17:40, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a plus that the alphabet tables are converted to graphics and include IPA pronounciation, but:
    • IPA should be written with brackets, not slashes
    • The IPA column should be given the header "sound", the current "sound column" better replacved with romanization columns
    • Both ASCII based and scientific romanization should be given
      • I'll wait for some time till someone else does this as I'm somewhat busy with work. If noone does that, I'll try to do that myself. -- Sundar 11:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Done. -- Arvind 17:40, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't we have the ability to upload and link audio clips? That would be most cool for language with a rather different phonem inventory than most readers are used to.
    • I know of audio clip sources for Tamil, but have to see the license conditions. -- Sundar 11:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • I was more thinking along the line of you speaking the example phrases and recording that. --Pjacobi 12:26, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
        • Oh. Me, of all the people, with my horrible voice. Let me try to get it done from one of my friends. First of all, I need a Windows machine with the whole setup. Also, it appears that I may not be able to contribute to the article in a big way for the next couple of weeks. So, if nobody else helps with the objections, I may be withdrawing the nomination. :-( Meanwhile, I've requested comments from Prof.Hart through mail. -- Sundar 12:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Pjacobi 10:28, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

• Support. The references had been used properly, just had not been added to the article. Sound samples would be great to. The more the better. Especially that alphabet song :) Object. No references. As a courtesy to other editor's time, please make sure the article you nominate meets all of the featured article criteria before nominating it. - Taxman 14:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I apologise for not doing so. I thought a brute force method of receiving quick objections and rectifying the errors in one go might work as the article didn't get much attention in Wikipedia:Peer review/Tamil language/archive1. Now, a few contributors like Pjacobi, Vadakkan etc have started working on the article. Let us see if we can bring it to FA status or else I'll withdraw the nomination. -- Sundar 15:34, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, now you know. Please follow that advice in the future. This looks like it will pass FA if not this time, then the next. Peer review is improving, as more editors are commenting, and more people are implementing the suggestions. It will take time, but it is becoming a more valuable process. Now as to references, as has been pointed out to me by multiple people, adding references solely in response to a request for them carries the risk that they were not properly used as references and they are just being added to check off another requirement. I have asked Vadakkan to confirm their proper use. - Taxman 15:08, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added a tongue twister as a sample of how the language sounds. I'd be very happy if someone with a better voice than mine can sing the first few alphabet verses from the atticudi (or just recite/chant it). Arvind 19:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment — On an 800x600 resolution the horizontal scrollbar is extremely irritating. Consider moving the offending table to another page. Nichalp 19:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Should I presume that you meant the table in the Examples section? If so, what can we put there as a summary? By the way, can you help with creating a map showing the Tamil-speaking areas around the world? (I know your expertise in maps ;) -- Sundar 04:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Btw, I've reduced the font size of the table. Feel free to format it further to make it even more smaller. Once the phoneme charts are modified, made smaller and inline with the paragraph text, the article should be shorter. -- Sundar 06:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • After putting a lot of thought into it, I don't think the table can be compressed further. What you can do instead, is put up a simple example, a very basic example on the page and move the table contents to a new page. This would clean up the current mess. Nichalp 18:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • User:Kaal compressed the table horizontally by combining three columns into one. This issue seems to be fixed for now. -- Brhaspati 01:07, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

• Most of the concerns have been addressed. -- Sundar 12:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • All have now been addressed, as far as I can see. -- Arvind 17:40, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. All the concerns have been addressed. This article is now awesome. -- Kishore 03:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• - Thanks for the wonderful edits by Vadakkan which were well supported by Brhaspathi, Kaal, Nichalp and others. Now the article has reached featured-quality. -- Sundar 04:48, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. This article is fantastic, but I have one doubt in this. The character "akh" is called as Aayidha Ezhuththu not aayudha ezhuththu, I believe. The image of the shield is put in the Tamil books for school children to visualize and remember it better, but we seem to associate the shield as weapon and call it as Aayudha Ezhuththu. It is also called saarbezhuththu, since it cannot be used separately. Correct me if wrong, and if I'm right correct the article. -- Santhoshguru 07:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • AFIK, it is called aayutha ezhuthu, may be, I'm wrong. The association with a shield may be because of what you say. If you find any references or any info regarding the name do add that. I agree on the saarbezhuthu part. We should add it to the article. -- Sundar 08:36, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it would be appropriate to list all the different saarbezhuthukkal of which only(?) 'akh' has a visual representation. I think characters undergoing elision are also called saarbezhuthukkal. In fact, ezhuthu in Tamil may not correspond entirely with a character, lexeme or phoneme. -- Sundar 08:45, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Take a look at my edit to the section which, I think, fixes the problem. I don't think we need to discuss all the saarbezhuthukkal in this article - although we perhaps could do that in the article on the Tamil alphabet. -- Arvind 13:01, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • Your latest edits are fine. And I do agree that such detail as saarbezhuthukkal belongs in Tamil alphabet and not in this article. -- Sundar 14:55, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • The change is good. But still I have one small issue in that, article says "The āytham is also called ahenam or āyutha ezhuthu ". I think it must sound something like this "The āytham is also called ahenam or ஆய்த எழுத்து, but people pronounce it wrongly as āyutha ezhuthu due to the association of shield with it". May be the structure of the sentence is bad, but I think you people can get what I want to say. -- Santhoshguru 09:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • It's not really a mispronunciation - ஆயுத எழுத்து has become one of the names which people use for the letter, thanks to the association with the shield. I've reworded the section a little bit more - see if you agree with the present. And this is really a very small niggle which doesn't have much to do with the article's FAC, so we probably should move this discussion to the talk page rather than continuing it here. -- Arvind 13:59, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree with you, this really is a small niggle. Lets move forward. -- Santhoshguru 15:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bicycle

Although I've done just minor copyedits on this article this year, this qualifies as a self-nom, as I put it up last year, when it narrowly missed out. Several people have suggested that it be put up again. I believe all the objections raised then, and on a long since past nomination, have been resolved, except for one from a person who wanted a person along with the bike in the top photo. FWIW, we put out a request for more photos, and got several with people, but none which show the detail seen in the current lead photo. Sfahey 02:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Article is well written, referenced, and has great pictures. The objection that the lead picture needs a person in it is frivolous anyway I think. - Taxman 14:35, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Interestingly, I think I recall that that "objector" was actually very knowledgeable on bicycles, and had excellent input on the previously shaky "bicycle physics" section before that bizarre vote. Sfahey 03:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Good. However, in my browsers (Safari v125.12 and Firefox 1.0), the "MTB parts" picture overlaps with that under "Legal requirements". Phils 15:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Image:BikePartsEnglishAndSpanish.jpg should be replaced. It is likely a copyvio, and even if it's not, it is of too low quality (too much JPG blur, and text shouldn't be in the image). Fredrik | talk 16:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that I have a solid (copy vio.) reason, to go along with its being too big, inappropriately bilingual, and kind of ugly, it's gone. A replacement, along the lines of the "reflector" diagram, would be great. BTW, can anyone fix it so you can get to the "edit" version of this page from the wp:fac page. It now mis-links. Thanks. Sfahey 03:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Now the link works again. Go figure.
• Support. A nice detailed overview of the bicycle. --Jcmaco 22:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support but I think with the bicycle being such an important part of modern Chinese culture, there should be a photo of its use there. I recall having seen a photo of Tinnamen Square with hundreds, if not thousands of bicycles taken in 1980s or 1990s which was quite impressive. Revth 04:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As with my previous objections to this article, this article needs at least a section on bicycle racing (giving an overview and referring to a specilized article). Furthermore, the "Types of bicycle" section should be made to prose, I think. Many of the bikes mentioned here deserved a little more text, while several more obscure bikes need not be mentioned here and could be removed from the list. A separate list article can be made with all the bikes. 82.161.112.78 08:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You are certainly correct on the "bicycle racing" suggestion, and this has been rectified just as you suggested. Regarding the "Types of bicycles" section, I considered those changes last year, but elected to keep this as a sort of "appendix", because MANY had contributed to it in this form, and it contained just enough "whimsy" (exercise bike, unicycle) to make it interesting. Also, if it were put in text form, it would eventually become dreadfully unreadable, considering the number of writers chipping in. I did shrink "clown bike" and some other sections, and hope the article now merits your (apparently knowledgeable) support. Sfahey 18:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll withdraw my objection, but I'll not give my support, as I still think the "types" section can be improved. Jeronimo 12:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's a great article! One of the best I've seen, sincerely. --Neigel von Teighen 18:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Because I love bikes ;-) (Also contributed to this article so am doubly biased) --Sf 10:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Buddhist art

A scholarly and well-illustrated approach to a broad artistic and religious subject spanning many centuries and cultures.--Pharos 04:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The references in the article are somewhat strange. Apart from the format being non-standard, I suspect two of the references are incomplete. For example, the first (“National Museum Arts asiatiques- Guimet” (Editions de la Reunion des musees nationaux, Paris, 2001).) is actually the name of a French museum[1]. Does the article refer to a museum catalog? a yearly publication issued by the museum? Another reference does not indicate authors (“The Times Atlas of Archeology” (Times Books Limited, London, 1991)). Phils 17:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Done PHG 12:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Excellent. I withdraw my comment and support. Phils 15:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• support I thought this was an excellent article. I liked its format, telling the story of Buddhist art through historical sections and national sections. Examples are also chosen tastefully.Dinopup 01:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This article is very close. Just a few minor things. 1) The lead section should be longer, and give a better summary of the article. 2) The "Southern art" gets a long and useful introduction (but please remove the italic there), while the "Northern art" doesn't. 3) It would be useful to annotate the external links so it is more clear what the pages they link to describe. Jeronimo 08:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Done PHG 12:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Great, support. Jeronimo 21:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I will try to add a list of artists who contributed to its history and write couple of articles along the way. Revth 04:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. A lot of what is there is very good, but 1) It needs some copyediting. I have eliminated the ones I felt I could, but the article still suffers from poor flow of the text in places due to one and two sentence paragraphs. Those highlight areas that either need to be expanded or merged nicely into other paragraphs. The ones I did fix need a bit of improvement still too. 2) many statements are presented as facts when they should instead be attributed to a source. For ex "Korean Buddhist art has been characterized by sobriety, a rightness of tone and a certain sense of abstraction." I could disagree and say x, but that is not the point. Wikipedia articles should not make claims like that, primary or secondary sources should instead be cited. With those fixed I would definitely support. - Taxman 22:58, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Replaced the Korea comment by an equivalent quote. Thank you for your improvements on the flow. PHG 22:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Steve Dalkowski

Resubmitting this article. It was previously nominated but failed and has since gone through an extensive peer review which hopefully addressed all issues! Zerbey 05:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support All the issues have been resolved, the trivia section is gone, properly referenced, very informative article! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support looks good now that we've got a halfway decent photo. Way to go Zerbey ;)  ALKIVAR™ 05:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, looks much better now. JYolkowski 18:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I would be surprised to find that he was born in Connecticut in 1938 and yet his actual date of birth was not recorded. Is this the case, or is it just omission by neglect? Everyking 21:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Working on that. Zerbey 22:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, neutral for now, support once it's added. Everyking 22:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • It's added. Zerbey 03:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Fun article, and perhaps the best first paragraph I've read in Wikipedia. One thing that should maybe be addressed: the article says that his manager discovered he had an IQ of 60 by administering a test and that this result made him realize that Dalkowski needed simpler instructions. I think an IQ of 60 means he's really retarded; wouldn't that have been obvious without a test? Actually, a lot of the article sounds like folklore, and could be improved with more solid refs, but there's enough refs to convince me that it's at least mostly true. Zashaw 00:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Re: IQ, the figure comes from multiple sources. An IQ of 60 is moderate retardation, see Mental retardation for more. Zerbey 00:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Wait: the picture says it's not to be distributed to 3rd parties. Doesn't this conflict with the GFDL, which should allow anything in Wikipedia to be copied? Sorry in advance if I'm being ignorant... Zashaw 00:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• We have permission, see the talk page. Zerbey 00:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Sadly however he's right, this image does go against the GFDL, and Wikipedias policy of allowing distribution. Although its a great image, this will eventually be deleted. To Quote from [Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags]:

    General non-free licenses

    Do not upload images for which one of the tags in this section applies.

    • {{copyrighted}} - permission is given for use on Wikipedia only, and does not include third parties.

  • You can claim fair use on this, since its related to him. Which does allow it to be kept, however Fair Use images are on shaky ground longterm also. Your best bet is to get them to release this to GFDL or CC-by-SA. Likely they will listen as this requires attribution of original source for reproduction. However a noncommercial restriction goes against Wiki's idea and written rule.  ALKIVAR™ 00:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Sadly, I don't see the BHOFL releasing it to the GFDL (not for free), I am still on the search for a free picture however. Zerbey 17:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if this helps, but it might be relevant to them that the GFDL seems pretty restrictive; it seems like it'd be difficult for someone to use Wikipedia content for a commerical purpose (like an ad related to baseball, or an exhibit in a competing museum or whatever), given the requirements that it be editable, and that other people can use the content. I'm no lawyer, though. Zashaw 22:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • They've made it clear that they will not release the picture, already had an e-mail conversation about this. Our hope lies in finding some other person with a free picture. Zerbey 22:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support Giano 07:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well done. Object. The lead section should be a better summary of the article. Currently it only mentions the speed and lack of control and a film about him. Something about his life and life after baseball would be important. Also, isn't calling Randy Johnson a future hall of famer a little POV? I think it is unless that is absolutely unamimous opinion. If it is, so be it. Otherwise article seems fine, though avoiding the three one or two sentence paragraphs it now has would help the article flow. - Taxman 15:41, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• All fixed, Randy Johnson will almost definitely be a hall of famer one day (especially if he helps us win the series this year!) but he isn't yet.

• Well he is considered a great in the game, so if you can find a simple source supporting that claim, the reference to him would be better if it kept at least something directly explaining he is considered a great player for those that don't already know. But, yes I think it is better without saying he is something he is not for sure. - Taxman 16:08, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. This has much improved since the previous nomination, nice work. Jeronimo 21:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Hm. Reluctant objection. Gee, there is a lot of prevarication here with regards to pitching speed. In various places we have "experts estimate", "may have", "likely to be exaggeration", "observers agree" etc. etc. but the only real data presented supports none of the estimated numbers given, and none of the "experts" are named or their relationship to the guy explained. I'd really like to see this tightened up some more, and some attention given to the difference between what is known and what is folkloric. Also shouldn't the US variants on words be used in an article on baseball? Jgm 00:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. It is pointed out in the article ("How fast did Dalkowski throw") that there is no direct evidence of him being able to pitch 100mph+ beyond the anecdotal, some quotes are given. Continuing research is going on to find out more anecodotal evidence, so it is in progress :)
2. I wrote a lot of this article, I'm British (yep, a British baseball fan) and received a British education so please forgive me if there's some British-English stuff in there. User:Michael Snow did a good job of converting the article to US standards but that was a while ago so more may have crept in. Please provide specific concerns and they will be addressed. Is this really that big of a deal, though??? Zerbey 01:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

James K. Polk

Self nomination. -- Emsworth 21:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Well done! Support. Minor quibble: you might want to give a quick definition of "dark horse" in the introduction--the term might not be familiar to all readers. Meelar (talk) 21:49, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is really a well done page, although I'm not a professional dictionarian Wim van Dorst 22:39, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
• I'm impressed. I fixed a couple date issues by fully wikifying them, even though the years were linked previously – it allows the user preferences to take effect when they are fully linked. One tiny detail - why the See Also link to U.S. presidential election, 1844 when it's also linked in the title of one of the sections? Anyway, support. --Spangineer ∞ 22:40, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Peb1991 02:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but the first line of the article is "{{Infobox President/{{{dead}}}|date of death=June 15, 1849|place of death=Nashville, Tennessee}}" (in Firefox/WinXP). However, I can't see the error in the source text. Jeronimo 07:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. 11th president of the US? Never knew the guy, but the article looks sound. Agree with above minor quibbles. Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Got to this article first via link from a list I've been working on and was considering nominating it myself. Filiocht 09:40, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - "the factions soon agreed, he's just the man we need" ... [2] I'm not sure the TMBG song (on Factory Showroom, incidentally) is really "educational" though. Are you doing James Ensor, "Belgium's famous painter", next? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent article! --SFoskett 18:17, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A well written article worthy of nomination. --GRider\^talk 23:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Renomination --Otheus 15:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wall Stree Journal editorial board's book list for 15:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC) includes a biography of James K. Polk. I thought I'd update the article, and indeed, fixed a few things.

Canadian Pacific Railway

Self-nomination, as well as my first FAC. It's been on Peer Review for a few weeks and I think it's ready for FAC now. JYolkowski 21:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Ta bu shi da yu 10:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I commented on this during peer review already so have nothing further to add. --JuntungWu 16:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Could do with a good shot of a modern locomotive in the current red livery. The CPR locomotive is relatively iconic in towns across Canada, and were this to make the front page box I could only see the corporate logo serving as a halfway-useful accompanying image. -The Tom 19:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • To clarify, are you more interested in having a picture of a modern locomotive added, or in having a picture of a modern locomotive added so that the image can be used on the Main Page if/when the article is there? The reason that I ask is that I don't have any photos of CPR locomotives in my personal photo collection (and it would be somewhat inconvenient to get one right now) and I can't find any suitable PD/GFDL images on the Internet. I probably could find an image at http://www.trainweb.com/ or find something to claim as fair use at CPR's corporate website but neither would be suitable as Main Page images. Also, I'm getting ahead of myself here, but personally I think the photo at Craigellachie would make a better Main Page image. JYolkowski 22:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Since I'm modeling the former Milwaukee Road's LaCrosse Division (which was purchased by Soo Line and is now CP's mainline across Wisconsin), I've made a few trips to the line to take some research photos. I know I took some photos of CP trains on my last trip. I'll see if I can find something suitable this week... slambo 15:16, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • Cool! Thanks in advance, JYolkowski 22:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I do have a couple photos that would work, but don't have electronic copies of them. I'm a bit busy this weekend displaying my models at the Mad City Model Railroad Show, but if I can get to a scanner, I'll upload a couple. slambo 14:58, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Seems ready to me. Support. Edeans 02:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support This is a great article!--User:naryathegreat(t) 18:51, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Spinboy 21:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support --DanielNuyu 07:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Virutally all of the remaining red links have been eliminated, remainder will be gone within hours. This is a rich and fascinating history, well documented - especially JYolkowski's efforts. Definitely feature article worthy.Fawcett5 05:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Ammolite

Found this through a "what links here". Well-written, comprehensive and interesting. Rmhermen 15:46, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

• A sleeper. Support -- ALoan (Talk) 16:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Impressive. Support. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 16:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, with the proviso I know nothing about this so I don't know if it is missing anything. One thing I saw was inconsistent British and American spelling. Shouldn't it be consistent one way or the other? Or does Canada use the British spelling. Ex's: uncompromised and Aluminium, mixed with fossilized and pyritized, etc. - Taxman 19:48, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I can say in confidence that the article contains more information than any gemmological treatise, if one excludes the book produced by Korite International (which I suspect is not scholarly). I don't have the book, so I cannot use nor judge its content. But as you can see from the references I included, I've tried to collect all published data. As for the spelling discrepancies, that's my fault: I (a Canadian) was working with DanielCD's original material when I expanded the article, and tried to preserve his spellings. The one exception is aluminium, which is spelt the British way because that's its official IUPAC spelling (see Aluminium#Spelling). If you see any British spellings, please Americanize them. :) -- Hadal 03:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain for the moment - There are photos of the raw material and there's mention of processing it into finished products (such as jewelry) in the article I'd like to see some photos of the mineral either during (maybe some of the machinery or someone working with it) or after processing (like a stone set in an item of jewelry). I don't think this is enough for an objection, but it's holding my vote right now. slambo 20:33, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Since there is only one commercial supplier of the material, it'd be kind of tricky to get images of the processes—especially since they may consider some of it (e.g. the impregnation process) to be a trade secret. I might take up lapidary some day, but until then I can only offer what I have. I don't have any ammolite jewellery on hand, but as soon as I do I'll take a photo for the article. That won't likely happen soon or within this nomination period, and I regret that. I'll try asking Korite for an image; perhaps they'll oblige, since they seem keen on promoting their product through any avenue. -- Hadal 03:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I confess to writing most of this article, so I'm not sure if I'm allowed to support it (but if so, I do). I would however like to thank Rmhermen for nominating it, DanielCD for his solid start to the article, and for everyone's supportive feedback. I've expanded the article even further since the nomination, including more details on extraction (which will hopefully compensate for a lack of images concerning the process). Cheers, -- Hadal 06:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. slambo above raises a good point, although I don't believe images should be a reason for an article not to be featured (except in the case of grossly inappropriate or complete lack of images). Phils 08:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Hadal has done a great job again. Just a couple of comments. First the ironstone mentioned leads to an ill-defined article, maybe goethite or limonite concretions would be better - I'm not familiar with the geology of the area though. Second, if there is only one commercial supplier, then this is free advertizing - especially if featured. I assume Hadal and DanielCD aren't connected to this company ;-) -Vsmith 05:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I found a mention of "ironstone (siderite)" so perhaps that is the mineral? Rmhermen 01:59, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • After again looking over every source I used, I've replaced "ironstone" with siderite as that seems to be the only ironstone-type mineral (besides pyrite) mentioned. As for the "free advertising" angle: perhaps it is, but I'm in no way involved with the company. And honestly, a complete article on ammolite must mention Korite and its operations prominently. I did ask Korite if they'd donate images for the article, but as of writing they've not responded.-- Hadal 04:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This article, like all of his others are a parragon of encyclopaedic entry. Methylsoy 05:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, a-stone-ashing article! Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Timpani

Well written article that demonstrates the merits of Wikipedia: it goes beyond the traditional encyclopedia article by providing information for readers with different levels of musical knowledge. Comprehensive without being overly technical. – flamurai (t) 20:17, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

• A joy to read. Support slambo 21:40, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Excellent Strong Support EggplantWizard 21:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support: Fantastic Giano 22:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The introduction refers to their use outside of the orchestra: "Today, they are used in many types of musical ensembles including concert, marching, and even rock bands." However, except for the early history, the body of the article is entirely devoted to an orchestral context. With respect to marching bands, needs to address how timpani fit in, since they're generally large and stationary; most marching bands use other drums instead. Examples of notable timpani use in rock would be helpful to provide that angle. --Michael Snow 23:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm glad you raised that objection. This was something I meant to include, but never got around to it, and eventually forgot about. I just included a section including information about timpani in marching bands and popular music. – flamurai (t) 01:28, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • And I'm glad it's there now, because this is an excellent article that I definitely wanted to support, it just needed that last bit to make it more complete. Support now. --Michael Snow 06:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. An excellent article that deserves to be featured. Carrp | Talk 01:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support Good work. For that new section, though, I've got an additional factoid if you want to use it: Ringo Starr played the timpani on a Beatles record: "Every Little Thing" off of Beatles for Sale. Might be worth mentioning, seeing as how the Beatles are so influential.Ryan Anderson 17:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I will definitely include that fact. – flamurai (t) 05:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This article needs one or more sound samples. (Note: I'll review the rest of the article later on, but I thought this was a rather important issue). Jeronimo 08:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I See samples have been added. I have just one question - are there any particularly famous timpanists? The article doesn't mention any, but there web link to a page about famous timpanists. Jeronimo 08:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Depends on what your definition of famous is. There really aren't any famous timpanists because it's not really a solo instrument. The only one that would be known to non-percussionists is probably Vic Firth, and that's only because of his drumstick company. – flamurai (t) 08:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Needs information on the sound and acoustics of the timpani. Ideally this would tie in with the performance techniques, explaining why the various techniques produces their various qualities of sound. Hyacinth 16:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've identified some journal articles dealing with the acoustics of timpani. Now I have to find a library that carries them. It's definitely a subject I think deserves some exposition. I myself am interested in what makes timpani produce a definite pitch, while cylindrical drums do not. – flamurai (t) 21:46, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great article, pleasure to read. Raising the bar for other music instruments' articles.--Zappaz 03:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support  ALKIVAR™ 12:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article. →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 15:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Jeronimo - sound files are really a must-have to call this comprehensive. →Raul654 16:04, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I added a few fair use sound clips to the page. If I think of more that illustrate other things mentioned in the article, I will add them. – flamurai (t) 22:52, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Now the article has clips and can do nothing but support. Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support excellent article! Tuf-Kat 22:55, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

BZFlag

I am nominating this article because it informs every aspect of the game, has a good amount of photos, tells a lot of references, and is well-written grammar and spelling wise. It does not leave readers still wondering about the game, and tells more than enough just to inform them about the current state of the game, or simply the game itself. It was on Peer Review for a week and turned up only one comment. This is a self-nomination as I wrote the majority of what is there. --Lan56 05:06, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Support I support on the condition the spelling mistakes are fixed (e.g. Theif, Rogue) Did you even read my message on peer review?. Excellent article. I used to play the game myself, but I quit because it was too addicting... Squash 11:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I just now read it, and have corrected a lot of the grammar, and the word "Thief" as well as many other spelling mistakes, however, the game uses the name "Rogue" exactly like that. I respect your comments, despite how I am a bit late towards seeing them. Thank you for pointing it out. --Lan56 00:39, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Good job! Squash 02:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great article. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:09, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Support →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 22:16, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Support I love articles like this! I thought I'd never heard of it before, but then when I saw the pictures it looked kinda familar. Support, anyway. Everyking 08:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support Ta bu shi da yu 08:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Good article, but not quite there yet. The "what it is" section could really do with a rename, and being placed above the history section. I'd also like to see a bit better coverage of the gameplay - it's hard to really wrap my head around what exactly this is. The translations section takes up more space than it needs to because of the bullet-style, rather than prose, list. It has a few overly small sections at the end, which could perhaps be merged somewhere else. Finally, larger pictures would be nice, and putting at least one of the gameplay-related ones at the top, rather than having the two title-images side by side - I had to dig to see what the game actually looks like. Ambi 09:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments, Ambi. I added several more photos, added and changed things in the former "What it is" section (which I renamed), and combined the small, bottom sections. I did not know what to do in regards to the Translations section, as if I were to put all the languages into a paragraph, it may look messy and unorganized, and it doesn't have enough for a table, therefore I just left it the way it is. I also rearranged the title pictures and replaced their spot with a screenshot. As for larger pictures, I took those screenshots as big as my monitor. I didn't scale them down, therfore I cannot make them any bigger. Or do you mean the thumbnail? As for the actual full-size image, they are as big as my monitor can take pictures of. Thank you very much for the tips, please tell me any improvements to make, should there be any in the future. --Lan56 10:10, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for making the effort. I haven't re-checked the article, because I just don't have the time to go through it properly, but I've crossed it out - I don't have the time for FAC matters at all at the moment. Ambi 13:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain article is fine and full of good information but I don't think the writing and writing structure is great or remarkable, no offense though. The article focuses a lot on gameplay and the coverage of the project and development is too limited. I don't think it needs much more volume of material, but something about the development structure, pace, number of active developers, is there a lead developer, etc need to be covered. - Taxman 22:16, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • I added a lot about development, per your suggestion, but the development strategy and attributes (from the way things are run to, especially, the amount of developers) is constantly changing, therefore I did not go heavily on things I know will change too often to keep a static article. --Lan56 05:23, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • That sounds quite reasonable to me. Now the list of flags, versions, and map objects seem out of place and trivia. They may be fine for a separate article to link to, but I think they need to be removed from this main article at least. - Taxman 22:59, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • I understand what you are saying, but I disagree on moving the flags, map objects, and versions table. I feel they are what makes up a significant portion of the article and make it seem complete, and are on topic entirely. It would seem difficult to create a new article and place all the above-stated tables there, and make a complete article out of it without just listing the tables, like storage space. This is simply my opinion, and I will respect any further objections/comments/etc... that you may have. --Lan56 03:31, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'll still say the list of map objects is too detailed to be necessary. It is not bad information of course, but distracts enough from the flow of the overal article that its inclusion in the article costs more than its value. If you move it to list of BZFlag map objects, and link to it, there is no loss of information in the article, but the readability is improved. You don't have to feel like that subarticle needs to be fleshed out into a full article. It is just there to support the main article, which is perfectly acceptable. Though it doesn't seem important enough to continue objecting. - Taxman 20:15, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, though much of the structure and detail is good. Needs a lot of editing/proofreading. The text isn't close to being great writing yet, and is distinctly confusing in places and ungrammatical in others, full of repetition and odd word choice.

  Ex: This release took a new turn compared to older versions as a cheater inspired Schoneman and his friend (co-developer) to add "super-flags" -- a cheater? who is this friend? (Schoneman is the only person listed as a developer in the article) plus a mixed metaphor.

• • The list of translations, and of team colors, should be inline in a single sentence. The table of versions by date along the side is definitely TMI, and the date-linking there isn't terribly useful (deep links to that month of that year might be better).
  • It would also be nice to see more comparisons of the game to similar games, and similar Open Source projects. +sj + 07:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I clarified many things, including your example from the History section. I will look over parts several times, and correct any future things I see. I also have grammar checked it using Microsoft Works (Windows XP), but I know I can't rely on this entirely, but it did correct a great deal. I also inlined the translations and team colors. I did link to the months in the versions table rather than the specific dates, but I extremely disagree in regards to removing it (as you mention it is too much information). I feel it is both a brilliant reference, and too much information is better than too little. I agree about comparing it to similar games, this would be a great thing, unfortunately, I do not know of any such games that I am familiar with enough (or even know a single thing about) to give a useful, educated section about it. I hate to say this, but I must hope that someone can cover this part. I sincerly apologize. --Lan56 05:26, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great article. Bart133 (t) 22:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Great Lakes Storm of 1913

I started this article a week ago and have been working on it quite a bit. It was on the main page in the "Did you know" section as well. A couple people have told me that it should be featured, and this page gets more traffic than Peer Review. So here goes... --brian0918™ 23:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support:

1. Pmeisel 23:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. 68.81.231.127 19:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. Carnildo 20:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Jeronimo 22:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. mav 19:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. Taxman 16:30, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Object:

Comments:

• supportPmeisel 23:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Most of the images still aren't correctly tagged. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, specifically the entries on {{PD-US}}, {{PD-USGov-Interior-USGS}}, and {{PD-flag}}. It's also worth adding a short explaination of why the tag is justified on the image description page, especially in the complicated cases (where you made alterations to map made by someone else, or where that flag came from). 68.81.231.127 00:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I think I've fixed the image tags. The flag was created by me. If there's still a problem, let me know specifically what's wrong. --brian0918™ 01:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks good. I also did a copyedit, standardizing units, smoothing a little wording here and there, and so forth. There might still be too many pics in the foundering section... it might be worth keeping the best and spinning out a separate image gallery. 68.81.231.127 19:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the help!! I was also thinking of doing an image gallery, as I generally like images in articles (especially historical ones). Should it just be a link in the "See also" section to a gallery on wikimedia commons? --brian0918™ 19:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I 'm not sure, though using the Commons is always a great idea. And it looks like a couple of minor questions I added later got deleted: What was the duration of the economic impact mentioned in the first paragraph? (a cite would be good, since it's an unsupported generalization) What's an arctic outbreak? Is there a difference between a carrier and a bulk carrier? The weather bureau... are all references to the USDA weather bureau? During the prelude, is the reference to the US weather bureau and coast guard, or both countries? 68.81.231.127 20:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • I've added a gallery and will be adding several more pics. As for your questions: not sure of the economic duration, I'll read up on it; I think "arctic outbreak" is just a generic term for a cold front moving into a region, such as what occurs as the season changes to winter; all occurrences of "carrier" have been changed to "bulk carrier", as "carrier" also refers to the shipowner; all USDA weather bureaus are weather bureaus, but not all weather bureaus are USDA weather bureaus -- in this case, however, all references are to USDA weather bureaus :) ; I don't understand your question about the prelude. --brian0918™ 21:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • The CG ref is under Nov 7 (not the prelude :)... is it USCG or CCG, or both? (Very minor.) 68.81.231.127 18:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
              • In the text that I read this from, it just says "Coast Guard stations and weather bureau offices in ports along Lake Superior...", so I'm assuming it's both. --brian0918™ 18:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now. The images at the end of the "On the lakes" section overlap and interfere with the drawing of the table in Mozilla 1.7.2, and my attempts at fixing it apparently broke it in Internet Explorer. See Image:GreatLakesLayoutProblem.jpg for what it looks like to me. --Carnildo 00:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It looks fine on Mozilla 1.7.5: screenshot. Maybe you need to clear your cache? --brian0918™ 01:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've tested it in as many browsers as I can get my hands on. All tests are at 1024x768
    1. Opera 7.5 for Linux, "Classic" skin: The five images are in two rows above the table: 3 on the top line, 2 on the bottom line.
    2. Opera 7.5 for Linux, "Monobook" skin: The five images are in a column beside the table.
    3. Mozilla 1.7.2 for Linux, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row overlapping the top of the table, the fifth is beside the table. See screenshot.
    4. Mozilla 1.7.2 for Linux, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside the table.
    5. Mozilla 1.7.5 for Linux, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside the table.
    6. Mozilla 1.7.5 for Linux, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row overlapping the top of the table, the fifth is beside the table. See screenshot.
    7. Internet Explorer 6, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside the table.
    8. Opera 7.0 for Windows, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row above the table; the fifth is to the right of the table.
    9. Firefox 1.0 for Linux, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside the table.
    10. Firefox 1.0 for Linux, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row overlapping the top of the table, the fifth is beside the table. See screenshot.
    11. Konquerer 3.3, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside the table.
    12. Konquerer 3.3, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row overlapping the top of the table, the fifth is beside the table. See screenshot.
    13. Internet Explorer 5.2 for Mac, "Monobook" The five images are in a column beside the table.
    14. Internet Explorer 5.2, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row above the table; the fifth is to the right of the table.
    15. Safari 1.2, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside the table.
    16. Safari 1.2, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row overlapping the top of the table, the fifth is beside the table. See screenshot.
  • At 800x600
    1. Internet Explorer 5, "Monobook": The five images are in a column above the table.
    2. Internet Explorer 5, "Classic": The five images are in two rows above the table, 3 in the top row, 2 in the bottom. There is whitespace as large as one of the rows between the preceding paragraph and the images.
    3. Opera 6 for Windows, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside and overlapping the table.
    4. Opera 6 for Windows, "Classic": The five images are in a row above and overlapping the table, and are displayed in reverse order.
    5. Netscape 4.5, "Monobook": The five images are displayed in a left-aligned column above the table, with the images overlapping their captions. The layout is completely borked.
    6. Netscape 4.5, "Classic": Unknown. I couldn't find the "login" link.
  • At 82x26
    1. Lynx, "Monobook": The five images are displayed as linked "alt" text in a column above the table. The table is shown as a list
    2. Links, "Monobook: The five images are displayed as linked "alt" text in a column above the table. The table is shown as a table.
  • The problem browsers so far are Mozilla, Firefox, Konquerer, and Safari with the "Classic" skin. Any other browsers I should test in?
  • Carnildo 07:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the help, but does this problem really need to be fixed for all browsers? No page is going to look right on every browser, and definitely not on outdated versions of the browser. If I was going to arrange it another way, I would probably try and put them in a couple rows above the table, with a br above them and a br below them. If that didn't work, well then the minority browsers would just have to be ignored, as I doubt they display much of wikipedia correctly. There's nothing wrong with my code on wikipedia; it's just a problem with how those browsers interpret the code. --brian0918™ 15:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The concern comes from the specific browsers that have trouble: the most common browser on Mac, the most common browser on Linux, and the second most common browser in Windows.
    • I've removed the table, replacing it with a short list, and have rearranged the pictures. This problem should be fixed now. --brian0918™ 17:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The current version looks good in Monobook and ok in Classic. --Carnildo 20:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• support. Write some more for us. alteripse 04:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Looks good, needs some minor adjustments. 1) Could you tell the non-US reader in the lead section where the Great Lakes basin is? 2) I'm not sure we need this many external links; several seem to be redundant. 3) A large portion is taken by the table of shipwrecks, which, frankly is not all that interesting to the article. I think a condensed version of the table (maybe only giving total figures) would be good enough for the article, moving the full table to a separate article. Jeronimo 11:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 1) Replaced "Great Lakes basin region" with "Great Lakes basin region of mid-eastern North America". 2) I've removed some of the links, but I think the ones currently listed are all important. 3) I think the shipwrecks are more important than you claim, as that is where the lives were lost. Most texts on the storm focus almost exclusively on the shipwrecks. But, I understand the problem and I'll replace the table with a list of ships and lives lost, and move the table to its own article with a link to it in "See also". Sound alright? --brian0918™ 16:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've moved the table to its own article, replaced it with a much shorter list, and rearranged the pictures. --brian0918™ 17:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Lookin' good. Support. Jeronimo 22:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Very good work. Could you write some more storm articles please? :) --mav 19:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good, and I don't see anything else wrong with it. Question: This article looks very well written and referenced, and is quite interesting, so I would like to support. My great grandparents lived in Calumet, MI at the time and most likely were affected at a minimum by the weather. However, after reading the article I couldn't help but wonder why we have this article, and why this storm (which the article says sunk 19 ships) is more important than the 1905 storm that destroyed 111. If it destroyed that many ships is it possible that less people were killed in it than the 1913 storm? If so, can you offer some citation for this storm being the "deadliest natural disaster to ever hit the lakes"? Anything from one of your sources would be good. Is this storm more prominent just because of more snow and covering a larger geographic area than the 1905 storm? Thanks - Taxman 16:30, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • The 1905 storm only killed about 70. Ships don't have to be manned to be sitting at port waiting to be destroyed, and people could have stranded the majority. Every reference I've read (books, newspapers, official forecasters) considers the 1913 storm to be the worst (deadliest, most damaging)to hit the region, as well as the worst maritime disaster to hit the continent (using the traditional definition of "maritime" as dealing with marine shipping). --brian0918™ 17:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, sounds good, you've done your research. Though it would be ideal to cite something as central as that directly to the most reliable sources on it. You can put a superscript note next to the fact and then list the specific reference that backs up the fact. Not a requirement, but would really help with the reliability and trustworthyness of the article. - Taxman 15:41, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • The full title of White Hurricane is: White Hurricane: A Great Lakes November Gale and America's Deadliest Maritime Disaster. --brian0918™ 15:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah, yes well thats pretty clear. I added a direct citation to that book for that fact. You can do more along those lines if you like. - 22:29, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, 19 ships were destroyed, but only 12 of those were sunk. --brian0918™ 17:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm not so sure about the 111 number anymore. It came from the "storm breeding ground" reference, but if you read this newspaper article, it makes it sound like there were much fewer deaths and ships destroyed. --brian0918™ 18:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I've removed that information. --brian0918™ 22:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Names of God in Judaism

This is my first attempt to fac an article. I have worked on it for several months and I think it is in great shape. Many have contributed to it. It has had substantial research, refs and bibliography, some compelling photos of ancient scrolls and manuscripts, and some fascinating information. --Zappaz 16:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Jeronimo 22:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is one of my favorite articles. However, I think it could be enhanced by the addition of some ogg files with the hebrew pronounciation →Raul654 23:22, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. An article of pleasing quality. Phils 00:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support as long as the sentence The name Shelomoh (from shalom, Solomon, שלומו) refers to the God of Peace, and the Rabbis assert that the Song of Solomon is a dramatization of the love of God: Shalom to His people Israel is thus thought to be the meaning behind the name Shulamite. is clarified. I lose the train of thought between the colon and is thus. Otherwise, the article is a pleasure. - BanyanTree 02:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment appreciated. I'll work on it. --Zappaz

• Support. All the Wikipedia:Peer review/Names of God in Judaism/archive1 feedback was incorporated, and it's a very interesting article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I second the point about ogg files made by Raul654. --Solar 17:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support CGorman 23:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, now that it is clear many more than two references were used. Question, since the word bibliography is ambiguous, were any of those sources used to add material to the article or fact check it? If so, they could be included in the references section. If not, it is less ambiguous just to call that section "further reading" to make it clear they were not used to add material, but are also available for more information for the interested reader. Also, there are a number of inline references in the text, but those sources either don't seem to be listed in the references section, or I can't understand the notation in your inline citations, or both. You could collect the inline citations in a "Notes" section in an endnotes format if you want. With that cleared up this is a great article and I would also support the call for the addition of ogg sound files. - Taxman 15:54, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I have use the standard distinction used in research papers: References contain only those works cited within the text. So, I use the term References to cover works cited, and Bibliography to refer to works read as general background. The Bibliography is a list of references, whether cited or not. It includes texts I made use of in the research for the article, not only texts referred in the article itself, but my own additional background reading, and any other articles or books I think the reader might need as background reading. I was under the impression that this is the standard to be used in WP as well.

• Thats certainly an ideal definition of bibliography, but I don't believe it is the standard. The dictionary definition says it could be just "A list of writings relating to a given subject.". That is the ambiguity I was referring to. If you did actually use all of those sources for background information, it seems current Wikipedia policy is to call them references. Works mentioned or cited in the article could be additionally denoted in other ways if needed, but I don't think that distinction is nearly as important as whether the resources were read or used properly by the editor or not. - Taxman 20:05, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• As to the inline citations, I will comb the article to find these and refer them properly.
• Regarding the ogg sound files, I admit it is beyond my ability ... Is there an editor amongst us with that ability? That will be most welcome.

--Zappaz 17:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I would be happy to give you technical assistance. I can't do the recording myself because I don't speak hebrew, but I could lead you through the process to the point where I could take over. →Raul654 17:57, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) (You will need a microphone, though)

League of Nations

A previous Collaboration of the week and a previous FAC (archived nomination from a month ago, immediately after it was the COTW). Looks pretty good to me. I can't honestly call it a self-nom, although I have recently restructured, copyedited, formatted, etc. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Last time it was almost ready, I think all previous objections (including mine) have now been adressed. Looks ready for big time for me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This looks good, but there's still some work to be done. 1) The lead section is relatively short given the length of the article. Adding another paragraph would give room for giving a better summary of the entire article. As a minor point here: why are the French and German names mentioned? Do they have any particular value? 2) The league's failure are discused in detail, but it is not discussed how these failure were addressed when the UN was established. As the UN is more or less the successor to the LoN, I think it is relevant to this article. 3) The "Successes" and "Failures" sections should be more specific. For example, the "Greece and Bulgaria" section has no time reference - it could have happened yesterday. Similar problems for the other successes (the failures have more lines and context). 4) The "Other failures" section needs to be expanded. Many historically significant events are discussed here only with one or two sentences, while others get entire sections. Even the section itself writes that one of these events is "most remembered in history". 5) A more chronological ordering of the failures and successes could give a better image of how the failure of the League developed. 6) The "General failures" and "Specific failures" sections have a lot of overlapping text. Maybe they should be merged, or it the separation should become clearer. 7) The article needs a copyedit - I found several weird things (e.g. "Greece and Bulgaria share a border." is a weird way to start a section; "Representatation"). 8) There is quite a bit of speculation in the article. "Perhaps the key point was that the United States never joined.", "Perhaps the most important weakness", "would have been far more wary of crossing it" etc. 9) The conclusion that the failure of LoN was (in part) responsible for the outbreak of WWII is a bold one. More is needed on this. Is this a view shared by many (all, nearly all) historians? What is meant with "responsible"? How exactly was it responsible? Jeronimo 18:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the helpful comments. (1) I have augmented the lead; which French and German names? (2) Isn't the addressing of the League's failures a subject for the article on the United Nations? Arguably, structures such as the Security Council and the vetoes of permanent members, have brought their own problems. (3) Good point; (4) Are you saying that each failure (Chaco War; Spanish Civil War; Italy's invasion of Abyssinia; German re-militarisation of the Rhineland, occupation of the Sudetenland, and invasion of Austria; Winter War) needs its own section? (5) I thought it was useful to present Successes and Failures separately - the League is often thought of as a total failure, so I thought presenting Successes on their own was useful: however, the failures break down into two main groups (early ones and later ones) - perhaps it would be better to do early failures, then successes, then later failures? (6) I see what you mean and have attempted to correct the separation (they were one section until yesterday). (7) Fixed those - any more? (8) I've removed the "perhaps"s - any more? (9) "These failings were, in part, responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War." - do you really think this is a overly-bold conclusion? Are you saying that the failures of the League had no causal influence on World War II? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Some replies; I'll have to look at your fixes. 1) "The League of Nations (French: Société des Nations, German: Völkerbund)" 2) Maybe so, but I think it could get just a bit more here; the description of the demise is only 5 lines. 4) Not a section per se, but they should get more attention than they do now, especially if they are so important (which the article itself notes). 5) I was thinking about a chronological ordering within the successes/failures; this would be especially useful for the failures. 7) Not that I know of, but it might be a good idea to through the article once or twice to comb these out. 8) Again, not that I know of, but the removal of the perhapses was not what I was after; speculation is OK as long as you can attribute it: scholar X thinks this, nearly all observers say, etc. 9) I'm not so sure the failure was responsible for the outbreak of WWII. I think the failures meant WWII was not stopped from happening, but being a cause, I don't really see it that way. However, if this is a common view, this can certainly be in the article, if only it is discussed in more detail, and not presented as a undisputable fact but an opinion (and by who it is held). Jeronimo 07:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks again - I appreciate your comments. I have addressed a few more points. I'll think about the others. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Reviewing my issues. 1) Resolved. 2) Sufficient. 3) Several successes are still undated. 4) Resolved. 5) Resolved. 6) This is better now. 7) Has improved. 8) The last example statement is still in the article. 9) Although the statement in the article was been weakened, I still think it is an opinion, not an (undisputed) fact. So it should be attributed properly. Given the improvements, I change my vote to "minor object", as the article looks pretty good overall. Jeronimo 07:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Many thanks. (3) I have added dates; (8) I have refactored this statement; (9) I think we will have to agree to differ. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support Good article. I note there's a consistency problem with -ise versus -ize. I think in most instances -ise is used, so it might be sensible to standardise on this version, jguk 20:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wholehearted support. I must apologise if the perhapses were mine (they probably were). In response to Jeronimo, I think the French and German names (first sentence) are relvant, as they are the official names in those countries. There is a significant chance that such terms would be searched for if found in a French or German text. I would fully defend my conclusion about WWII – if you can find me evidence to the contrary I'll back down, but I seriously doubt it. Smoddy (t) (e) (c) 22:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 01:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support I especially appreciated, and learned a lot from, the "Successes" section. Like ALoan said, many people simply dismiss the League for its failures without discussing any of the good it accomplished.Ryan Anderson 02:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• 'Comment: Needs a map of what countries the league consisted of at the top of the article. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:07, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
• Object until we have a map of the League's nations. Neutrality^talk 15:06, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • When? It started with 44 members; 28 stayed throughout, and 35 came or went (League of Nations members) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Not to mention the United States, whose President spurred its creation and yet failed to join. :-) James F. (talk) 17:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Thinking about it again, a map showing permanent members in one colour, and temporary members in another, possibly with labels showing the periods of membership, wuold be a good idea. Anyone like to volunteer? The information is at League of Nations and League of Nations members. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Something along the lines of [3]? I'm not so sure how easy it would be to replicate this. If there were a template map file to edit... Am I dreaming? Smoddy (t) (e) (c) 21:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 17:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Informative but in need of a copyedit and grounded language.
  1. The language is unnecessarily wordy, such as The League, in attempting to act as a neutral party for all, driving diplomacy, made itself hugely indecisive. and This, to a great degree, took much of the League's potential clout away.
  2. The entries under "Other bodies" should be in complete sentences.
  3. Every entry of "Successes" needs to have a date for important events.
  4. Swedish culture and traditions were preserved in "Åland Islands" might imply that the Finns were planning some sort of ethnic assimilation, rather than wanting the land for strategic purposes.
  5. Lines like "The League worked to combat the international trade in opium and sexual slavery" are put under "Successes" but, as far as I know, successes are measured in results, not attempts. Quantify the results to remove the "Well, they meant well" subtext.
  6. The paragraph describing the departure of the fascist states needs to be separate sentences rather than joined with semicolons.
  7. After reading the article, despite learning a lot about specific incidents, I still didn't have a clear view of the broad arc of the League's development and demise. Was there a lot of effective action in the beginning and then a slow collapse? Was it crippled from the beginning and every success thus a heroic achievement? Perhaps this overview could replace the current structure of the second and third lead paragraphs, which are currently in the A and B happened, and then C happened format, as opposed to a more interesting The League did A and B, but was unable to halt C because of D, leading to E.

- BanyanTree 18:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Well, I've had another go, but another pair of eyes would be good, so please feel free to copyedit if you think it needs it.
    1. I've dealt with those ones: are there others?
    2. The "Other bodies" are now complete sentences.
    3. I've added dates.
    4. Deleted the reference to Swedish culture
    5. I don't agree - in many cases, attempting to do something is just as important as whether it works or not. Someone else will have to add quantified results.
    6. The departure of the fascist states is now in separate sentences.
    7. Broad arc: high hopes; initial successes; some initial failures and later major failures, all caused by structural weaknesses; replacement by the UN. Yes, it was crippled from the beginning by its structure - "General weaknesses" says so. You don't like the specifics in the lead? Would it be better as:

"The League lacked an armed force of its own and so depended on the Great Powers to enforce its resolutions, which they were often very reluctant to do. After a number of notable successes and some early failures, the League ultimately proved incapable of preventing aggression by the fascist powers in 1930s. The onset of the Second World War made it clear that the League had failed in its purpose – to avoid any future world war.

The United Nations effectively replaced the League after World War II and inherited a number of agencies and organisations founded by the League."

--ALoan (Talk) 16:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I would probably write something closer to your suggestion above than what is currently the lead, but my issue with the lead is that there are so many details that it obscures the broad sweep of the story, which is the point of a lead. In a well written article (and this is one), I trust that if the writer gives me a brief overview at the beginning, s/he will later explain in the text body the items mentioned. In any case, this and my concerns about "success" are relatively minor. The article shows an in-depth knowledge of the subject, is well-written, and I learned a lot from it. I change to support. - — BanyanTree 07:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for you comments and copyedits - I have adopted this proposal for the lead. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Doidimais Brasil 00:09, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Michel Foucault

Self nomination. Myself and others have been refining this page for about a year, and I think it's ready - but am more than willing to alter it if it needs further refinement. --XmarkX 02:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now, but would love to see it make the cut. Support.
  1. The intro "positions" him ("often described as a postmodernist and a poststructuralist, though during the 1960s his work was often labelled as structuralist", etc.) but doesn't really summarize either the style or substance of his work or indicate what was original about it. Addressed.
  2. There is no mention of how his notion of "episteme" is either similar to or different from Thomas Kuhn's notion of "paradigm". Withdrawn, I won't push it.
  3. I, Pierre Riviere... should at least be mentioned. reluctantly withdrawn.
  4. Would you agree that most of his works deserve articles of their own? I notice that they are not even redlinked. Lacking that, I would expect to see The Order of Things discussed at somewhat greater length. Done. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:16, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

• I appreciate these comments but broadly disagree:
  1. I really don't see how this can be done without simplifying hs career to be totally misleading. What we have done here is tried to preserve his enigmatic nature. OK
     • I may continue to object, then. As it is, the intro would not give someone who is unfamiliar with his work any clue why they should care.

       Hey, I have conceded on this one too and added a blurb to the intro--XmarkX 07:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

       I added one more sentence to that, pointing out his emphasis on synchronic over diachronic (although I'm avoiding those technical terms). With that, I think we're there. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:52, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

       I understand what you're getting at here - I inadvertantly implied that Foucault's tells us how discourses change, rather than looking at the transformations themselves. I think what we have there now is a bit inelegant, so I'm going to tidy it a bit, but thanks.--XmarkX 19:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  2. The episteme/paradigm stuff has been written about, but is not of crucial importance.
     • This is for English-language readers, who are far more likely to be familiar with Kuhn's work than Foucault. Still, I won't push this issue.
  3. I, Pierre Riviere is not important, as it was only edited by Foucault, not written by him.
     • But more accessible than much of his own work, and clearly an application of his thought, a good route in for people who are not already deeply embedded in reading contemporary French philosophy (which is to say, for the average Wikipedia reader). I don't think it deserves more than a mention in the article, but I do think it deserves that mention and, like the other works (next item) a link,even if a red-link for now. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:47, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

       Look, I still don't understand this: I, Pierre Riviere was a piece written by Pierre Riviere, and prepared for publication not by Foucault alone but by an entire seminar group. It is not representative of anything about Foucault - it is an histroical document that Foucault thought should be more widely available, that's all.--XmarkX 04:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

       I don't seem to currently own a copy, so I can't check right now, but I recall that Riviere's text is about 10% of the book. There is lengthy discussion about the competing medical and legal discourses, the medical wishing to rule him mad and therefore under their jurisdiction, the legal sane and therefore under theirs; in particular, there is a classic application of Foucauldian thinking in how each literally ignores (or perhaps doesn't notice) inconvenient facts, such as the legal side trying to limit the definition of madness to very specific categories and the medical side ignoring those of his actions that show an understanding of consequences. (I read this about 20 years ago, so it is imaginable that I am not recalling correctly, but I'll be very surprised if that's the case. Does someone have a copy at hand?) -- Jmabel | Talk 08:00, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

       I don't have a copy either, but looking at the table of contents on Amazon, it seems that the memoir is about a sixth of the book, but most of the book is made up of historical documents (the 'dossier'), and the remainder made up of 7 articles, only one of which is by Foucault, and that article is only 12 pages long. Hah! :) --XmarkX 10:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

       I still think it deserves a mention with a link, but will not make this an objection to featuring the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:37, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

  4. This is a really good point - it think it would be good to excise the bried descriptions of individual works to their own entries. Can/should I do this now though?--XmarkX 00:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
     • Well, you can certainly link them now, to acknowledge the need. --Jmabel | Talk 01:47, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

       Done --XmarkX 04:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support, looks good to me. Everyking 07:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, based on my rather limited knowledge of Foucault, though it would be nice if Jmabel's first point could be dealt with in a succinct and readily understandable way. RadicalSubversiv E 02:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• OK, have added a short blurb - see if you are satisfied.--XmarkX 04:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Great. RadicalSubversiv E 04:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support, would love to see this as a feature. CriminalSaint
• Support. Minor criticism, though, about the references: trying to give context about references is good, but claims like "this is the most detailed biography" do not have their place in any bibliography/reference section. Phils 11:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, is the problem with that that it's non-NPOV, or that comments about references shouldn't be included in that section?--XmarkX 13:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Point of fact is that there is no consensus on whether reference sections should be annotated or not. My feeling is that it is good if the comments are NPOV. That is just really hard to do since some references simply are of higher quality than others. To be really NPOV you would need to cite the comments to sources, then cite those, etc. Its turtles all the way down after that. - Taxman 22:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

• The thing is, the comment that Macey's biography is the most detailed is totally NPOV - it is three times as long as either of the others and just contains far more information.--