Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2005

Contents

Louisville, Kentucky

A comprehensive, well-written article on an important city. A labor of love, created by several residents. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 04:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • As the nominator, I of course support. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 04:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. – Updated. Lots of interesting information. Several sections have been recently combined or reorganized, improving writing. Dr. Cash 20:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak object. At first glance, the trivia section is not usually kept for FAs. Try to incorporate this into other sections, or seriously consider deleting the contents. Harro5 04:51, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm. We could do that, but I personally like the trivia section. Could I get a second (and third) opinion as to whether the trivia section is appropriate? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:18, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • OK. Sorry, but I don't like trivia sections too much and, well—how to put this—I hate this one. There are a couple of very vague items : it's "perhaps" the most Catholic city in the South—that can't be really hard to confirm or disprove, and if proved, it's much too important for "Trivia", it needs to be expanded and put somewhere appropriate—and "Happy Birthday" is "reported to have been written" by people from Louisville—it should be possible to find out if the report is true. And secret ballot and chewing gum were invented in Louisville? The articles linked to in those very claims say they were invented respectively in Australia, and in Ancient Greece. Also, a completely different guy than your Lousvillean filed the first patent for modern chewing gum in 1869. Source the bourbon claim inline, please. The disco balls and the movies are fine. Yeah, try to incorporate those and the bourbon in the article, that's what I'd do. (Please don't mention the Interstate Highway thing, anywhere, ever.) Bishonen | talk 21:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay, the crowd has spoken. The trivia section is gone. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 22:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Several sections do not appear comprehensive or are non-existent. The Economy section is merely a list (I get no sense of what the overall economy in Louisville is). Other sections that are missing are Infrastructure (utilities, hospitals, etc) and Culture (surely for a city of Louisville's size there must be some notable museums and events). Another thing that concerns me is that this article did not go through peer review first (but that is my own prejudice and should not be counted toward my objection). Please see featured articles on Seattle, Washington and San Jose, California as examples. Pentawing 18:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Wow, this objection requires a lot of work. The "culture" material is in List of Attractions and Events in Louisville, but we could move it to a Culture section here if you like. As for the others. . . I'll work on them. Hope I can get them up to snuff quickly. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth)
    • The Culture section now includes subsections on Demographics, Annual culture events and fairs, Museums and Art Collections, Media, Performing arts, and Sports. There is also in Infrastructure section with expanded subsections on Government, Schools, Transportation, and Utilities. Dr. Cash 22:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
      • The economy section is now more comprehensive, though I would suggest removing the passage concerning Interstate highways (which is already mentioned in Transportation). As for the Cultural section, an overview of culture in Louisville would suffice (one might ask what makes Louisville culturally unique). Other things that could be added are some information about overall street layout and city landscape (especially architecture). Pentawing 00:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I rephrased the section on interstate highways in the economy section. I still think it should say something here about interstates due to their importance in the transportation industry. The transportation section regarding interstates has been modified slightly as well. Dr. Cash 03:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, now the Infrastructure and Culture sections are in place. For future reference, avoid hyperbole and the use of "you" (the last thing I want to see in an encyclopedia article is a travel brochure). The listing of references in Infrastructure is glaring. Could it be changed to a footnote? Also, the only thing left is cityscape. This includes landscape (is the city primarily industrial or park-like?), overall street layout (a crazy layout like Boston or grid-like?), and architecture (modern, old-style, or a balanced mix of the two?). Address these items, check the wording, and I see an article that is worthy of the main page. Pentawing 03:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      • The listing of references has been removed and replaced with footnotes (Infrastructure:Utilities). I've also added a Cityscape section under the Geography section, with details on the overall layout of the city and details on the architecture. More details on the road system are under the Transportation section. General wording throughout the article has also been checked. Dr. Cash 17:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Looked over the article and did some more copyediting. Right now it seems the article is indeed worthy of FA, though other issues may come up that I haven't thought of yet. Vote changed to Weak support Pentawing 23:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Object- remove trivia section (and incorporate into article, if possible). Also, perhaps a brief paragraph on "Sister Cities"? Finally, a partial list of high schools in the city does not seem appropriate for the article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Trivia section has been removed. Most of this information has been migrated either to the History section, or to Economy or Demographics. Also, with regards to Sister Cities, not certain how much more of a paragraph to add there. Other cities such as New York City and Seattle, Washington, also simply list the sister cities there. Dr. Cash 20:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I still object to the list of high schools, as well as the various other lists in the article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Are you saying we should remove information before you'll support? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 23:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
        • The list of high schools has been moved to a separate page, listed under See Also. The main education section has been revised to include education information without the listing. Dr. Cash 03:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
          • No, I am saying that having a section consisting entirely of a bullet-pointed list does not make sense. Right now, I would have to agree with Pentawing- however, I will still object until the picture issue is resolved. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
            • Copyright issue resolved. The photo has been replaced. See above. Dr. Cash 22:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Makes me actually want to travel to Kentucky... MicahMN | Talk 14:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose – the entire article seems to be in lists. The 1) Geography section is poor, it hardle has enything related to geography other than the location which should be wikified using the {{coor dms}} template. 2) There seems to be a minor problem with the infobox. A table margin is missing. 3) Climate is absent. 4) I would prefer you promote the history section. 5) Remove lists from sports, make it into prose. I'll stop here for now, will critique once again after the above are taken care of. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • A couple of changes in response to your concerns: 1) geography section expanded with info on the Bluegrass region and the {{coor dms}} template is now used; 2) infobox has been fixed - all of the table margins look correct (at least in my browser, Firefox); 3) Climate information has been added to the Geography & Climate section; 4) Not sure what you mean by this? The history section primarily contained in a separate linked article. A brief synopsis appears on the main page; 5) Sports section has been changed. Lists removed and rearranged a bit. Dr. Cash 22:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Many, if not all, of the previous lists in the article have been changed to prose. Dr. Cash 17:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for taking care of my concerns. The 4th point was that the history was too low down in the page. Its corrected now. I've also taken the liberty of correcting the infobox and made a few changes in the history section. Here are some more additional points. 1) Too many subheadings. Avoid usage of so many headings. 2) You can also consider promoting some sub headings such as education, media, utilities and government to top level. 3) Please do not bold the text. Its not recommended in the Manual of Style 4) There are just names in the History section. You should also give their occupation/designation (eg. XYZ, a trapper, founded ABC). Only the colonel is correctly done. 5) It would be nice to have the extreme temperatures in the climate section. See [1] 6) Avoid the usage of inline external links at all costs. Instead of having the external links to say [Youth Performing Arts School], a page on wikipedia can certainly be created and linked to it from here. 7) Page size is a bit too high at 42 kb. Please summarise sections such as transportation and other long sections such as sports and economy. I also find the =pronounciation= section unnecessary. A single sentence with the IPA text in the leadin would be more preferable. The image can be merged with the culture section with a small note there. 8) The Great Gatsby has to be italicised. 9) In the utilities section, the inline references are not formatted correctly. Please see Australia and Geography of India on how to format such inline references correctly. PS I may take a few days before I review again. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
        • Hmm. (1) Other voters have complained about not enough subheadings. For instance, Pentawing argued "Other sections that are missing are 'Infrastructure' (utilities, hospitals, etc) and 'Culture'" I don't think removing subheadings will improve the article. Update: Actually, I saw some headings that could safely go, and removed them. On review, I think I see what you meant, and I think I fixed it.] (2) Perhaps. . . I'd like to get some other opinions though. I think the organization makes it easier to follow. (3) Good point. Done. (4) Okay. Done. (5) True, thanks. Done. (6) Right, I agree. Done. (7) I strongly disagree. Several other voters have complained about not enough information, and we've done a lot of work adding useful information to the article. I don't think it should be removed. Also, in Louisville, pronunciation is a significant issue, and I really like the pronunciation section. (8) Good point. Done. (9) Okay, thanks. Done. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
        • Regarding the page size issues, I have to disagree as well. 42 Kb is actually quite small in the overall scheme of things. With the widespread use of broadband, 42 Kb is virtually insignificant; even for a modem, it's not bad. A long article is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that it's well organized and readable. The Featured Articles of Seattle, Washington and San Jose, California are both 47 Kb and 55 Kb in size, respectively. Also, regarding the pronunciation section -- I think that is necessary as well. Louisville's many pronunciations, as well as its highly unusual pronunciation utilized by many of the natives, are one of the things that make the city stand out. The pronunciation is also highlighted by the Convention & Visitors' Bureau in town as well, and they've advertised it in a pretty unique and creative way. Granted, yes, the section is unconventional and atypical. But a few unconventional and atypical sections in city articles actually add to the interest and uniqueness of any city, making it stand out a bit more. Otherwise, every city article would look the same and things would get boring. Dr. Cash 14:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
At the time of he FAC process the two city articles were well under 40kb. You will agree that the articles undergo a change after they are featured. I distinctly remember the page size for Seattle as I had critiqued it. A larger page size does not necessarily mean that the article is more comprehensive. If you summarise sections, it becomes easier to read and carries more meaningful data. I'm asking for a summary, its much easier to read instead of a long section that mentions head coaches and schools that have won trophies along with the years. I'm sure that that info can be added to a more detailed article such as [[Sports in Louisville]]. Similarly, the list of pubs are certainly not important to this page. Add it in a sub page. Similarly the demographics can be moved to a dedicated article, I'm sure anybody who reads the article on the town are definately going to skip data such as ...female householder with no husband present... unless he/she is specifically interested in such info. Relevent topics in the demographics include population, density, race, religion, income and sex ratio. The rest can be moved to the dedicated article for those interested in details. It shouldn't take more than a day to write a summary.
The section on the pronounciation is vague: The variability of the local pronunciation of Louisville's name can perhaps be laid at the feet of the city's location on the border between the North and South of the United States. Louisville's diverse population has traditionally represented elements of both Northern and Southern culture. This can be surmised into one line, plus its more to do with culture. Now, it is mentioned that there are many pronounciations to the name. The picture alongside mentions five. Since it is thumbed, the yellow text is not clearly visible. Why don't you mention all five pronounciations in the text? It is definately more helpful instead of vague sentences which rely on the picture for an explaination.
The culture section has a whiff of a travelguide/non-encyclopedic type text: This is an old... , ...core themes that he has taken to heart..., Attendance is approximately..., features some of the finest bourbon... (this may qualify as a POV or Weasel term).
Q: What's a resident of the city called? Can be mentioned in the page?
Q: In the climate, what do you mean by seasonal? Wouldn't continental be a more apt term?
Thanks for taking care of some of my concerns, It definately looks much better now. I know appreciate the hard work put in so far, but I would prefer a summary which would make it much better to read, and stay on track. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:54, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sam Stearman has been kind enough to release the Louisville skyline image under the GFDL. (See here for details.) Yay! (Dr. Cash, your picture is fine, but this one is even better, so I replaced yours in the article.) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:13, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds great! The one thing I like about that photo is the picture of the bridge to the left. :-) Dr. Cash 16:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I think perhaps this is a good city for people to learn about, and maybe the article is very well written. 內布拉斯加 01:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I abstained as I feel it's a conflict of interest for significant contributors to a candidate to vote on it. Also, at the time of its nomination, I didn't think the article was ready. That all said, I'm honestly surprised at how much this article (and related articles) have recently seen so much progress. I am honored that my city's article is one of the rare breed of articles to be proclaimed "featured". I am deeply happy for my city and feel very very proud of the work we all did and continue to do. A big "Cheers!" all the way around! — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 18:48, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Angkor Wat

I'd like to feature the temple, but featuring the article would be a decent second-best. Self-nom, with help on Peer Review from nixie and WegianWarrior. Mark1 04:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Well-written, well-illustrated, well-referenced. Excellent. --DanielNuyu 05:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. A pleasure to read, in addition to everything allready mentioned.WegianWarrior 05:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This looks remarkably well done -- I'm impressed. Clearly a product of extensive research and careful writing. Great pictures, as well! Jwrosenzweig 08:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Impressive. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Very well referenced, and extremely well-detailed, and with (related) images to boot (but not too many as to go over the top). You have put a lot of work into this article; it would be a shame to see this one be bypassed for Feature Article Status (and especially front-page feature). --JB Adder | Talk 10:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, great work. Saswann 17:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I left a comment on the talk page regarding a minor issue (an unclear sentence), but I'm confident this can be resolved in a matter of minutes. Either way, Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:02, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
  • Support, although seeing the two spellings of this name left with the question: How does one properly pronounce "Angkor Wat"? -- llywrch 02:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The w is definitely pronounced as a w rather than a v; the "vat" spelling is basically the French one, but I included it because for reasons best known to themselves, the Cambodian government's APSARA authority uses it. Mark1 03:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support.pamri 06:25, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I was impressed by this article on peer review, I'm glad to see it's got wide support here since its an excellent article.--nixie 05:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This article definately fits the criteria for a featured article. It is well laid out, it's easy to read, and overall it's well written. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 06:00, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A terrific article and a most enjoyable read. My praise to its authors.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Tasmanian Devil

Comprehensive article on a unique and interesting animal, meets all the FAC criteria. --nixie 06:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Question: What does the license on Image:Devil facial turmor disease.jpg and Image:DFTD dec04.jpg mean? It seems to prohibit modification of the images, re-use of the images in the creation of other works, and commercial use of the images. As such, it would be an insufficiently free license for Wikipedia. --Carnildo 07:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It allows modification, all it really asks for is that subsequent commercial (either in part or whole) use states the original copyright owners interest in the image. Thats a pretty free licence in my opinion. --nixie 07:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: Below, I listed a bunch of stylistic concerns with the article. What's the general procedure with Feature Article Candidates? I could have made several of my suggested changes myself, but once someone lists something here, is the general policy "hands off" until the FA candidacy is resolved?BrianSmithson 18:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • No clue what the policy is, but considering this is an open source encyclopedia, there is nothing stopping you from making some of these corrections yourself if thats your asking about. --ZeWrestler Talk 19:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Brian, I'm also unsure what official policy decrees, or if there is any "official" policy on this. I believe that any and all articles remain accessible for editing, and have frequently seen articles edited while being considered as FA, however I think general etiquette is that major changes are discussed first. Many of the changes you suggested could have been made at your discretion as they are not changing the style, content or meaning of the article. For example I changed "Devil" to "devil". Improvements to grammar, consistancy, spelling, etc should always be welcomed at any stage of the article's life cycle, but more substantial changes such as the use of upper case/lower case in the article title, certainly you were correct in raising here. Rossrs 03:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: Yet more great work from nixie! --Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: This article is very comprehensive. It outlines so much about a unique creature that before reading it, I thought was just a cartoon character (see The Tasmanian Devil. --ZeWrestler Talk 12:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article. BrianSmithson 13:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC) Oppose: The name and article title should be "Tasmanian devil". See answers.com and Britannica. My old Grolier does it the same way. "The Devil" is a proper noun, "Tasmania" is a proper noun, "devil" in this case is not.BrianSmithson 12:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Although I've always thought it was "Tasmanian Devil" (capitalised) and have always written it so (and probably always will), it turns out Brian is correct. OED also writes it as "Tasmanian devil".--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've struck this objection out as inactionable, despite what you may believe, there is actually a strong conscensus amongst editors working on mammals to use caps for their names, see the recent and long discussion on ToL, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) which suggests caps for common names. The article is internally consistent, so I don't believe that this is actually an issue. --nixie 13:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That's fine with me. I prefer it capitalised. Neither style is employed universally in the real world, so as long as Wikipedia is consistent, there should be no problem.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't strike out other people's objetions, especially if you are the person who listed the article for FAC in the first place.
I still strongly oppose the naming used in the article, but following your links, I see that there is no single policy in force at Wikipedia for common names. For what it's worth, a review of every dictionary and encyclopedia I could find at the bookstore today shows that they do not capitalize these names. At the moment, I'm willing to shelve that particular objection.
My opposition still stands, however. The meat of the article is good, but there are some stylistic problems. These are:
#Consistency of nomenclature. If we're going to use "Tasmanian Devil", let's do so consistently. As it is now, the article uses "Tasmanian devil" at least once, "Devil" once, and "devil" several times.
  • I had already changed the single use of "Devil" to "devil", however I think the use of the word "devil" is perfectly correct, as it is the word commonly used for this animal, particularly in Australia. Have a look at this website from Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife - this is common use. [2]. My suggestion would be to make reference in the lead paragraph. Something like "Tasmanian Devil.........., commonly known as devils...." would explain the use of the word, so that in the remainder of the article it is acceptable to retain the use of the single word "devil". Rossrs 03:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have added an explanation that the animal is smiply referred to as a devil, the article should be consistent otherwise. --nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • There were a few more "Tasmanian devils" and "Devils" sans "Tasmanian", so I've fixed them.BrianSmithson 13:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
#Other animal names. Why aren't other animal names capitalized like "Tasmanian Devil"? Examples in the article include: quolls, thylacine, wombat, kangaroos, wallaby, and dingoes. Perhaps there's some wrinkle of the peculiar Wikipedia proposed policy that I'm missing.
  • Thylacine is the only one that should also be capitalised, the other groups mentioned do not refer to a single species but a group of species. --nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Somewhat related: I spelled out that Thylacine = Tasmanian Wolf (shudder at the naming . . .  :) when it appears. I'd never heard the former, so hopefully this will help a few other readers, as well.BrianSmithson 13:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
#Numbers. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The TD article uses numerals and written-out numbers; the MoS says to pick one "guideline" and stick to it. I'd suggest that the numbers 1-20 be spelled out, while 21 and up be represented as a numeral. As the article is, we have, for example, "6 kg", "6 years" "6 weeks" and "six native Australian animals". As long as a consistent policy is applied to the article, though, I'll be happy.
  • The numbers are all listed in numerical fmt now.--nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
#"Devil Facial Tumor Disease". Is there a Wikipedia policy for disease names? Again, I looked up several mammalian diseases in various dictionaries and encyclopedias, and the concensus in these is that diseases are not capitalized. For example, "foot-and-mouth disease", "bovine spongiform encephalopathy" "rabies". Checking these articles on Wikipedia, I see that "Rabies" uses capitalization, while the others don't. Back to the TD article, "canine transmissible venereal tumor" is not capitalized. I'd prefer we follow the majority of published reference works (as I do for the animal name, but that's another matter).
  • There aren't many published works on the disease yet, the ones I have use lowercase, so I've made the moves and adjusted the article.--nixie 09:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
#"The latest revision of the devil's taxonomy resulted in a change of species name to Sarcophilus laniarius in the 1980s . . ." Is there no specific date for when this change was made? "The 1980s" is vague.
  • Fixed. --nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
#"An analysis, conducted by researchers of the University of Sydney, of mammalian bite force corrected for body size showed that the Tasmanian Devil has the strongest bite of any living mammal." This sentence is confusing to me. Perhaps: "A University of Sydney analysis of mammalian bite force corrected for body size shows that the Tasmanian Devil has the strongest bite of any living mammal." UoS could possibly be moved elsewhere; it just didn't read well as an appositive where it was. I'm also recommending present tense, as this research is presumably still valid and the TD still presumably has the strongest mammalian bite. See "Style Points for Scientific Writing".
  • Fixed--nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
#Similarly, "The average life expectancy of a Tasmanian Devil in the wild has been estimated as 6 years, though it may live longer in captivity." Is the average life expectancy still thought to be six years? Then we should use present tense.
  • Fixed.--nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
#"Tasmanian Devils also have one set of teeth that grow slowly throughout their life." "Set" is singular, so "grows" is appropriate. Also, "Tasmanian Devils" is plural, but "life" is singular. Suggested rewrite: "A Tasmanian Devil also has one set of teeth that grows slowly throughout its life."
  • Done. --nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
#Use of future tense. In a number of cases, the article uses the future tense when present tense would suffice. In general, present tense is more immediate and thus makes for stronger prose. Following are some examples from the article with my suggested rewrites following: "Unhealthy devil will often have a thin tail" ("Unhealthy devils often have thin tails.") "Although the Devil favours wombat, it will eat all small native mammals . . . " ("Although the Devil favours wombat, it eats all small native mammals . . . ") ". . . the female has only four nipples, and no more than four young will survive." (". . . the female has only four nipples, and [or use "so"] no more than four young [can] survive.") There are a few more cases in the article, but you get the idea.
  • Done.--nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I changed a couple more instances. If you don't like them, I won't object if you change them back. I do prefer present to future when talking about animal behavior, though. BrianSmithson 13:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
#Passive voice: "Twenty physical postures, including their characteristic vicious yawn, and 11 different vocal sounds have been identified when feeding devils communicate, usually establishing dominance by sound and physical posturing, although fighting does occur." Suggested rewrite: "Scientists [or Biologists, or Researchers, etc.] have identified twenty physical postures . . ." "Cultures from the cancerous tissue have been used to study the condition." Suggested rewrite: "Researchers have used cultures from the cancerous tissue to study the condition."
  • Done--nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
#Mutant mouse: "There is also a mutant mouse named the Tasmanian Devil that is defective . . . ." This whole section threw me off. Is this mutant mouse some sort of cartoon character, or are we talking about a real creature? If a real creature, was it named for the Looney Tunes character? If so, make this explicit.
  • See reply to Spangineer--nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I reworded a bit. I'm sure you'll give it one more revision after the researchers email you back. BrianSmithson 13:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • One final concern: Currently, the article uses both "State" and "states" when talking about those political entities in Australia. I don't know what common practice is in Australia, so I didn't change these, but shouldn't they be either both capitalized or both in lower case? BrianSmithson 13:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've made its use consistent. Practice varies in Australia. Some capitalise it at any mention, especially in academia, and some use lower case in any circumstance, following the trend favoured by newspapers (News Corp ones, at least). Others, still, used mixed capitalisation. For this article I have chosen to capitalise "State(s)".--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I know I'm being picky. But these changes should be easy to make, and if anyone objects to any of them, I am open to arguments. Overall, it's a good article. BrianSmithson 18:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • BrianSmithson, you should have participated in this articles Peer Review. --ZeWrestler Talk 19:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - agree that it meets all criteria, to a high degree. Rossrs 15:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment (albeit rather trivial) - do endnote superscripts go before or after puncutuation? Personally I'd prefer after, but either way, they need to be consistent. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • After. I've fixed it. Bishonen | talk 02:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, what's this about a mutant mouse also called the Tasmanian Devil? Is there an article on it? Is it relevant for this article? It was only found in 2002 (according to the reference), so I'm unsure how it relates to the mammal, since it appears to have been named after the cartoon character. I don't think that one sentence is enough info for this—I'd say expand or delete. Great work though, looks well researched and thanks for the inline citations. I'll vote neutral until my concerns are addressed. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • The article about the mouse mutant is referenced, I mentioned it in this article since it is a common hit on a google, scholar.google or pubmed search and someone might be curious about why this mouse is called Tasmanian devil, the section should be more clear now. The article doesn't actually mention why they chose to call the mouse Tasmanian devil, but I assumed it was named after the cartoon version since the behaviours are smiliar and becuase geneticists name lots of genes and mutants after cartoon characters, I'll email them and find out for sure--nixie 09:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah, much better. And that's interesting that geneticists name things after cartoon characters; as they say, who'da thunk? =). Anyway, support. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:06, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work, as usual. Dave (talk) 15:10, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support- comprehensive article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article, and suitably brief treatment of that irritating cartoon thing. Flowerparty talk 00:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. excellent material, well written and researched. - Taxman Talk 22:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support w/comments: "Devil" vs. "devil" is still used inconsistently through the article. "The Tasmanian Devil" and "Taz" are not, technically, two names for the same cartoon character ("Taz" is, I believe, and updated version of the original). It's a wording nit, but I would not say that appetite is the only thing the character and the animal have in common (for example both have two eyes, etc. etc.). Assuming these things are fixed (primarily the first), I will support.--User:Jgm(i think this is who made the last comment, he didn't sign it, so based on the histry, Jgm made this post --ZeWrestler Talk 18:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)).
"The Tasmanian Devil" and "Taz" are two names for the same character. Or at least I've never seen them considered two different characters until your comments here. You're right that "Taz" is a more recent appellation for the character, and you're right that the character has been updated in recent years; all the Warners characters have. I don't think it's worth the fuss to consider earlier and later versions of Bugs Bunny or Porky Pig to be completely different entities. (Short version: That part of the article doesn't need to be changed ;) BrianSmithson 18:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Further note: The use of "devil"/"Devil" is consistent. Currently, "Devil" is capitalized when preceded by "Tasmanian" (except when discussing the mutant mouse). It is not capitalized when used alone, except when it is the first word in a sentence. I'm not sure what you saw as inconsistency. BrianSmithson 18:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Elias Ashmole

Self-nomination. A fascinating guy (in my opinion) and quite an operator. This article spent several weeks on peer review, where a lot of useful suggestions were incorporated. PRiis 20:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Conditional objection. Although this article is of good length (short enough) and associated with pictures, I'm a bit unsatisfied to see an article about a dead collector without any of his collections shown by pictures. Deryck C. 09:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added a link to some example items from the Tradescant collection. I'm not aware of any copyright free images that I can add to the article itself, though. PRiis 21:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. Support. Well, I've put in the frontispiece of Fasciculus Chemicus, which is already in the article Fasciculus Chemicus, and taken another image, a two-dimensional representation of a really old book cover, from a website, according to the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. principle. The website in question claims copyright on it, but as far as I understand it, they can't rightfully do that. At any rate, Wikipedia is full of such images, tagged {{PD-art}} or {{PD-old}}, and I haven't heard of them being challenged or deleted. Anyway, see what you think, maybe the article doesn't need both those. This is a fine and very interesting article, which I want to support, but I still think the lead section needs to be a bit fuller. Bishonen | talk 20:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The new pictures are great--they definitely fall under Bridgeman, so there's no problem there. I've added a second paragraph to the lead, to better highlight his mystical interests and the way they're sort of a rear-guard action. PRiis 22:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Nothing about his uncanny knack for marrying money, huh? Just kidding, I like the expanded lead very much. Support. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent biography, nice work. --nixie 15:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I found it informative, but then what do I know? -- llywrch 23:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support If more images are wanted, Oxford University has a collection of digitized images of medieval manscripts including some from Asmole's collection (They have shelfmarks of MS Asmole...). Sadly, they haven't digitized the catalog for his collection yet. Dsmdgold 03:39, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Porgy and Bess

This article was a stub in December, but after a lot of work, mostly by User:BaronLarf and a bit by me, the article is now FA material. Please note the effort that has gone into removing the red links as well. The article was on PR twice, and nobody seemed to have any problems. If you do, please provide them below. --Alexs letterbox 05:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the copyrights, everything in the LOC sin't PD, and the fair use images need to have a full rationale for fair use explained on the image page.--nixie 10:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I have changed the tag to fair use for the top image, and provided a reason on its page. I added reasons for fair use on the images from the Glyndebourne Production. --Alexs letterbox 08:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Seems like good work to me--support. but I'd like to know a little more about the plot before plunging into the discussion of productions and leitmotifs. Could you add a basic one-paragraph summary of what the opera is about somewhere above the production info? It would help elucidate some of the discussion of racism and controversy that occurs there. Meelar (talk) 15:09, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I have added a short summary in the lead, others may want to move it elsewhere. --Alexs letterbox 08:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I had removed the summary without knowing it had been requested here; I just put one back into the lead now after becoming aware of the FAC. --BaronLarf 01:44, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Conditional oppositionNeutral. Too little images are provided, and the copyrights of the recordings are also questioned. Deryck C. 09:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
The ogg files that are associated with the excerpts are small, and amount to less than 0.1% of the work. However, as community consensus is limited to non-existent on Fair Use recordings, I will remove the Listen links from the article (for the time being). There are already four pictures in the article, but I have added two more in other areas. --Alexs letterbox 07:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Getting many images is difficult, since the opera was only written in 1935 and photographs from recent productions are subject to copyright. I don't believe that lack of images should bar an article from being a FA; this article does have 6 of them at this point. --BaronLarf 01:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Improvements are shown, but the amount of images is still quite inadequate. I've withdrew my opposition and turned neutral, but more efforts on pictures are really necessary to gain my support vote. Deryck C. 16:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Are you stating that the pictures are too little or that there are too few of them? --BaronLarf 18:51, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Assuming the objection is to the number and not to the size, there are currently 10 images in the article. I think that there has been a great effort to get better images for the article, while trying to stay within the confines of fair use. Any other suggestions on how else to go about this would be welcome. Cheers. --BaronLarf 13:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I particuarly like the historical material. Also, let's not fetishize images. In fact, I could do without the CD cover. -- Viajero | Talk 13:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I also liked the historical material. One concern is that I read the article bottom-up. I think that the production's material is not relevant as the plot or the muscial description, or even the racial repercusion. But once I got there, I got stuck and read it twice :-) Good work. --Jdiazch 20:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
According to our wikiproject, a discussion of history usually occurs before a plot synopsis. But I agree with you here, since the history discussion is so long. I've rearranged the order. --BaronLarf 21:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; it reads well and is thorough, on a quick pass. I'll look at more closely later. I have a couple minor quibbles though: Can we have tempo indications on the musical examples, and can we change "Maestro" on the last musical example to whatever it really is (I'm guessing "maestoso"); that last example could use some cautionary naturals in the second complete bar as well. Good job everyone who worked on this! Antandrus (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, I will not add tempo indications to the musical examples. All my textbooks (Enjoyment of Music, Kamien; Complete Guide to Opera, András Batta; and Groves) do not put these in, maybe this should be discussed at the corresponding WikiProject. I have fixed the last example, see image page for details. --Alexs letterbox 07:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Alexs letterbox changed the example to state "Maestoso," as well as added cautionary naturals. --BaronLarf 17:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: is the drug dealer named "Sportin' Life" or "Sporting Life"? Both are used, but I feel this should be consistent. Meelar (talk) 15:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I've changed it all to "Sportin' Life" --BaronLarf 17:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support My tweaks to the article were few and trivial. A splendid job. --Wetman 19:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Gas metal arc welding

Self nom, second in a who-knows-how-long series on welding-related topics. This went through peer review a few weeks ago, and all the suggestions have been implemented, I believe. Anything else? --Spangineer (háblame) 02:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Looks good. --Carnildo 04:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Its really well done. Spangineer has taken a lot of trouble to do this page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:29, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looking forward to see a techinical article on FA. This one is really good as the explanations are comprehensive. Unsigned comment by Deryck Chan at 09:07, July 20, 2005. --Spangineer (háblame) 23:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Please change inline citations into endnotes so they are visible without going into edit mode. Neutralitytalk 00:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Even though there are 25 of them? Lots of FACs make it without any inline citations (visible or otherwise), so I'm not sure why adding a long section of notes is necessary. If you insist and others don't mind, I can make the change, however. Or perhaps turning only the most important inline citations into endnotes would be acceptable? --Spangineer (háblame) 10:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support I almost wish I hadn't read the above objection, but it appears valid. Why would one hide the citations/footnotes in the "edit" mode to begin with? If I can figure out how to switch'm, I'll try to do a few.Sfahey 19:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Basically, because there are 25 of them and the current footnote system that allows for automatic numbering and mentioning page numbers requires alot of space. See the reference section of the Bill Clinton article and then imagine it another 50% longer. The current citation format has been used in numerous featured articles, including Welding, BC Rail, Civil Air Patrol, and Geology of the Grand Canyon area. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • There. I did a couple the way I've done'm on other FA's. I'll stop here for now, since there are other formats that work. This article is otherwise a "slam-dunk". Sfahey 19:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Notes in that format will require manual renumbering throughout the article if one is added to the top of the article. I don't consider that acceptable. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I also had a problem with the inote citations in this article as citations are an important part of the text and users shouldn't have to go into edit mode to see them. To remedy the problem, I created a script to convert from the inote convention to the ref/note convention. The script is called a inote.pl and it is in the public domain. Cedars 04:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, seems like inline notes are taboo these days. For consistency's sake, I hope you guys will join me in arguing that all FAs need inline citations, now that you've insisted that they be visible in an article that already had them. I've renamed the notes that Cedars's tool generated so that they are slightly more useful and not numerical, and moved some of the references to a further reading section since they aren't explicitly referenced. Anything else? --Spangineer (háblame) 05:00, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I will definitely support a move to make all FAs use visible citations. I've also updated the script to make use of the second argument of the inote tag. If such an argument is provided the script will now use that argument instead of automatic numbering. Thanks for respecting our viewpoint, even though you may not have agreed with it. Cedars 05:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't mean to be edgy, and it doesn't matter that much to me either way. The article isn't that long, so another fairly long section won't hurt much. It just seems to me like it's splitting hairs to give an article that already has inline references this much attention (over formatting) when most of the other current FACs don't have any inline references, visible or otherwise. But I appreciate the interest in improving this article. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Robert Lawson (architect)

Mostly a self nom. I had never heard of this man until following the featuring of Benjamin Mountfort and Francis Petre, Grutness told me he was in fact more famous than either as a New Zealand architect. Some research proved Grutness "probably" correct. Donovan and Grutness (slightly nearer to the sites than me) have taken some brilliant fotos especially for the page. I think, it is the most in-depth, or at least the best illustrated essay on the subject freely available. Giano | talk 21:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually it seems to cover Lawson more comprehensively and succinctly than any of the books I've found about New Zealand architecture. More good work from Giano (with some additions and tidying from myself, User:Francs2000, User:Hoary and Donovan). I'm voting in favour (then again, I would). Grutness...wha? 00:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I've just re-read my nomination, I didn't mean to leave out the crew who have helped out with copy-editing and making sense, especially Grutness with local knowledge and information. My English grammar, and word order were on a school report once accurately described as "convoluted and confused". So thanks Guys. Giano | talk 20:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. As James said, it's another great addition to the story of New Zealand architecture. I fulfilled a few photo requests, otherwise, I didn't contribute to the article (if that matters when counting my vote). (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 11:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, although shouldn't references come after notes?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
You're probably right, I'll move them. Thanks for the vote Giano | talk 11:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks vor the support. The reason I chose (architect) was because quite a few page linked there wrongly - so it's only a matter of time, and also our Robert Lawson's nephew Robert Lawson (cricketer) who was (you've guessed) an amazing cricketer is on his way Giano | talk 20:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, exemplary and attractive work as always from Giano. Bishonen | talk 20:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Congress of the United States

Self-nomination. Emsworth 17:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Support It could do more to trace the power and instiutional development of Congress by engaging in the recent American political development literature on the subject (e.g., Fenno, Fiorina, Sinclair et al.-- authors at top of just about any course syllabus on the politics of Congress), but this is not essential, since the article is still awaiting a branch like History of the Congress of the United States. 172 | Talk 18:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but as per 172, this could use some expansion of, e.g., the role of Congress in relation to the presidency, or the day-to-day operations of Congress (role of staff, constituent service, etc.) But overall, well-written and informative--it's what I'd expect to see in a good Brittanica article. Meelar (talk) 20:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. This article is in desparate need for more pictures. Only 3 pictures in a 31kb article is definitely inadequate. Deryck C. 09:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added another picture, and I personally think that 4 or even 3 is sufficient. What more should be shown? Meelar (talk) 14:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good solid work. I'm pleased to see a bibliography from solid sources. PedanticallySpeaking 15:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral – great work, but I'd really like to see inline references. It doesn't help me much to have a bunch of references listed when I want to verify a specific claim of the article—I'd have to look through all of them until I found what I was looking for. I realize it would be time-consuming to add them after the fact, but it would greatly improve the quality and verifiability of the article. --Spangineer (háblame) 23:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support-This article has come a long way in the last few weeks. I have added to the history section to mkae it more in-depth, especially about how the idea for COngress in the form that it currently is came to exist, and other people have made great strides in inproving the rest of the article (ie. Adding Prose). I now feel confident that it fully covers the basics of Congress, and the article covering the house and senate are also featured article which cover more in-depth the functions of each house.

--Gpyoung talk 00:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, but as 172 mentioned, could be branched off into "sub-articles". Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Space opera in Scientology doctrine

Another masterpiece of understatement from ChrisO (who wrote about half of Xenu). It's a fairly obscure subject ... but Xenu, which one FAC objection thought would be "too obscure", is now enormously popular in the blogosphere [3] [4] and is quoted in most of the recent press about Tom Cruise's proselytising behaviour (unattributed, but the phrasings are pretty distinctive). I think this has potential for enormous popularity. So it's a good thing it's well-written and has its references, isn't it. It went through peer review just recently, which helped a lot. I now open it to you to tell us what shrubberies (nice ones, mind you) it needs to be a feature. We've just started WikiProject Scientology too, by the way, so expect more of these - David Gerard 22:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent, comprehensive, well-referenced, the mechanical gorilla is a high point. Sadly, there is only one really good illustration—the DC-8—but that problem is inherent in the subject, no doubt. Great stuff! Bishonen | talk 23:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, would do well with better illustrations, but it is indeed comprehensive and well referenced. Phoenix2 23:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The image Image:Fangio moss monza.jpg is claimed as fair use, but I don't think it can be used in the article under fair use. --Carnildo 17:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It was probably fair use in the original article it was uploaded for, but yeah, it's been removed now. Images were a particularly difficult one for this article (though the gorilla is a good photo, and the Himalayas shot is spectacular - click on the image and check it out!) - suggestions are most welcomed - David Gerard 12:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work. The only thing I can say is really? You've really got all those sources and they really say all that? It all more or less falls in the category of the Fishman affidavits stuff I have read, so I believe you, but this stuff is still really hard to believe that people would really buy into it. Specifically the intro could use some citations, especially for this "It forms a major element of the beliefs of Scientology" and the next sentence. That may be really obvious to you, but it seems a central point in the article. Keep up the good work. - Taxman Talk 18:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • ChrisO has added a new section describing how Scientology has hammered home the space opera aspect of its doctrine in its publicity materials - David Gerard 12:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree with Taxman. Anville 02:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Support, although the article itself is good, sections are of good size, there are too few pictures coming with the article. Deryck C. 09:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Suggestions are most welcomed! - David Gerard 12:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Commons has a decent selection of images. For example, Image:Formula one.jpg, suitably modified to remove the logos, could be used to replace Image:Fangio moss monza.jpg. --Carnildo 20:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Ideally it'd need a racing pic from the '50s or '60s, I think, contemporaneous with Hubbard's lecture describing it. I'll be seeing what I can turn up. But crikey, we do have some very nice auto racing images on Commons ... - David Gerard 14:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Suport, for all the reasons listed above. WegianWarrior 09:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Suport. pamri 03:50, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • comment Could audio pronunciations be added? lots of issues | leave me a message 23:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Umm, audio pronunciations of what exactly? -- ChrisO 00:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Some of Hubbard's neologisms, presumably (e.g. "Arslycus"). There are sites with some Hubbard audio on them; I'll see if any can be found - David Gerard 21:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • weak object. Some of this is good stuff, but some of the sections (e.g. most of the "goals") are so short that they should be combined, expanded, or removed altogether. Right now, some of them have virtually no useful information. Incidentally, it should be explained what a "goal" is. Dave (talk) 15:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't recommend combining the goals and incidents - the article effectively provides a catalogue of the principal such events that Hubbard describes. However, I agree with your point about explaining what the goals are, and I've done this now. -- ChrisO 20:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Could you add a descriptions of the confusion the goals allegedly cause? For example, if I'm supposed ""To End", "To be Dead", "To be Asleep", "To be Solid", "To be Sexual" and so on," what problems would that cause in me today? Why is it important to "clear" all of these? If this is added, I think I'll be ready to support. Dave (talk) 14:00, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Italian Renaissance

Originally a spin off from the Renaissance COTW, I have recently expanded and rewritten the origins and development sections. I have done little with the culture sections, which are outside my area of expertise, but they have been worked on by people who know the material. Antandrus especially deserves praise for his recent overhaul of the music section. This went through peer review last month and the concerns raised there have been addressed, except for the call for more external links, as after some hunting I couldn't find much worth linking to. - SimonP 15:38, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support 172 | Talk 15:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Phils 16:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. This thorough and interesting article does not use footnotes. A bibliography alone is not sufficiant -- claims need to be referenced individually. Also, there remain some stylistic issues, such as some choppy phrasing, and a lack of commas where appropriate.
In short, three things need to happen in order for this article to attain featured status: (1) An editor with a keen eye needs to go thoroughly over the article, focusing on style and grammar (I did this for two sections); (2) The article needs footnotes -- for instance, when it is claimed that a city imported wool from Spain, there need to be a reference. Featured articles must be completely varifiable. (3) Finally, other editors with a good working knowledge of the Italian Renaissance need to evaluate the content, rather than simply be content with the fact that the article is thorough, seemingly comprehensive and well-organized.
I have worked on the style a fair bit, but not below the "development" section. This is an excellent article suffering from some stylistic problems, and while they aren't too difficult to fix, they're keeping it from it from attaining featured status. As soon as the style of the latter half of the article is addressed (I did the first half), I'll withdraw my objection. --Zantastik talk 11:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
This article has great potential, and if these issues are addressed, I will enthusiastically support it. --Zantastik talk 15:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I respect your objections, but I seriously take issue at your assumption that my vote was based on apparent comprehensiveness and good structure. I always take time to review the articles before I vote. Phils 17:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, for now, per Zantastik, numbers 2 and 3. While there are a few stylistic and grammatical issues, they are minor and I think the article is well-written as a whole. The lack of footnotes and sparse references, however, is much more troubling. Featured articles must be thoroughly verifiable; we shouldn't lower this standard simply because the article is long and well-written. - Jersyko talk 16:00, July 17, 2005 (UTC) I withdraw my objection. - Jersyko talk 00:38, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I personally do not feel that footnotes are needed for this article. It is a very general overview, and all of the facts here can be verified in any of the general texts listed in the references and specific theories are already given in text references. I also think it is wrong to assume that previous voters are basing their comments simply on style. 172, for instance, is one of the few professional historians who contribute to Wikipedia. - SimonP 16:06, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I've added a few footnotes, there is not much I can do about #3, however. - SimonP 17:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
As SimonP has stated, footnotes are not a requirement for FA in very general survey overviews such as this one. Some of my own FAs have included many footnotes when necessary, such as George F. Kennan. But just last week I was working on History of Poland (1945-1989), which was featured without any footnotes. 172 | Talk 17:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually the criteria make no such distinction. They say in part "and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations". That doesn't require footnotes specifically, but does need some kind of inline cites. That articles make it through without does not mean they shouldn't have them. So maybe this isn't a controversial subject and doesn't need 233 citations, but appropriate is not 0, 2 or 3 either. I suggest prioritizing by the top 10 or so most important or most central facts to this article, and cite those to the best source available. What's obvious and common knowledge to you is not to me. - Taxman Talk 18:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, surely should mention the Crusades and the impact of contact with Islamic culture. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added a couple sentences on the subject. - SimonP 18:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't usually weigh in on FAC, so I'm not totally sure if what I'm about to say works, but… once others' specific objections are answered, count my vote toward the quorum for support. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment While I maintain my three objections, I'd like to apologize to Phils and 172, for assuming that the fact that they did not comment extensively meant that they did not take their votes seriously. I was wrong, and I'd like to encourage both of them to keep up the good work here --Zantastik talk 18:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The image Image:StPetersDome.jpg appears to be a copyvio. It's tagged as {{PD}}, but the image was copied from [5], and the copyright information on that site states "The Web Gallery of Art is copyrighted as a database. Images and documents downloaded from this database can only be used for educational and personal purposes. Distribution of the images in any form is prohibited without the authorization of their legal owner." --Carnildo 21:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I continue to address some stylistic and grammatical issues present in this otherwise excellent article. The grammatical errors (primarily, missing commas) and the stylistic issues are not grave, but they all need to be addressed before the article achieves featured status. The addition of footnotes is very much welcomed; even though what 172 has said is correct, adding a few more wouldn't hurt -- raising standards isn't a bad thing, though I won't raise objections if this is not done. I invite others to look over this article for minor grammatical and stylistic issues -- having several editors going over this article with an eye for these issues is a good way to catch what I've missed myself. Note that many of my edits here have been from an anonymous IP. At any rate, I'll keep plugging away at this. --Zantastik talk 23:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Object, but I anticipate supporting. 1) I will object over the lack of enough citations for a few reasons. They are important, and the type of subject does not make them less important. Even moreso, there are lots of statements in the article that are not at all obvious to a generally educated person, nor even assuredly correct. I'll just pick out an example that I saw right away. "The Medieval Warm Period was ending and the Little Ice Age saw agricultural output decline significantly leading to repeated famines...". Several points: the sentence seems to imply causality from the LIA to declining ag output. Is that well established? Isn't the LIA considered to be in full swing later than the period referred to anyway? There are more like that, and I can produce a list if you like, but the article's editors can see them as well as I can, I'd think. 2) The focus of the article seems in contrast to the facts of the time. Isn't it fairly well established that the Renaissance really only effected the small proportion of wealthy and educated people? The lead with "a period of great cultural change and achievement from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century." seems to imply the whole of society was radically changed. It may have been, but this is where my lack of knowledge comes in. That first sentence is then in contrast with the last few sentences of the lead, but there doesn't seem to be a bridge reconciling them. Further, the end of the lead mentions that most of society was little effected, but then the entire article focuses on that small portion of society that was. Maybe this is the standard way of thinking about the Renaissance, but it hardly seems comprehensive. I'm open to being proved wrong, but I think the article needs at least a decent section explaining what effects if any were felt by the majority of the population, or evidence for the fact that they were not effected. - Taxman Talk 19:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added a bunch of extra references, and cleared up the wording of the LIA section. The Renaissance did only affect a very small minority of the population. For the peasantry and the urban poor life was pretty much unchanged from the Middle Ages. It is thus proper, and standard, to focus on the elite. You are correct that this focus should be explained, and that there should be some mention of the rest of the people. I have thus added a ==wider population== section. - SimonP 15:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • Very nice fixes, thank you. That new section seems to be enough to me. The only problem I see left is that the lead is still left contradictroy, where the first paragraph says there was wide change, making it sound like everyone was affected, while the third paragraphs disagrees with that. They need to be made consistent. Oh, and I left a note commenting that the LIA wording still seems to imply a causal relationship, but doesn't clearly establish or refute that. That needs to be fixed. - Taxman Talk 17:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • I've made some alterations to the intro. The change was great, but I made clear that great does not here mean wide. As to the second issue the general consensus is that the change in climate was a central cause of the famines and plague of the fourteenth century. The exact quote from De Lamar is that "these calamities were triggered by a remarkable climatic change that lowered the average temperature several degrees." I've made the causal link clearer in the text of the article. - SimonP 15:42, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
          • Ok, looks great. Since the rest of it does too, I'm quite convinced the article is feature worthy. - Taxman Talk 19:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Algerian Civil War

This is a self-nomination; however, I have researched this quite extensively for some time, to the point of having to trim the article somewhat, and have finally managed to scrape together enough pictures. The topic, despite its great importance, get little media attention, and I think this page covers it in greater depth and detail than any online English-language description I have come across. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. No copyright on one portrait, and an unknown copyright on the other. Fix these and I'll have a good look and vote. Thanks. Harro5 July 9, 2005 00:56 (UTC)
  • Well spotted - I had missed that. Both are from the Algerian government (the presidency's official site); however, I'm not 100% certain of Algeria's position on copyright of state-produced materials. If I can't find that out, I propose to remove them from the article. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)
  • Article 9 of Algeria's ORDONNANCE RELATIVE AUX DROITS D'AUTEUR ET AUX DROITS VOISINS states that: "Works of the State made licitly accessible to the public may be freely used for non-profit purposes, subject to respect for the integrity of the work and indication of its source. By "works of the State", in this article, are meant works produced and published by the various organs of the State, local communities, or public establishments of an administrative character." (original in French.) Ie, non-commercial-only - which apparently means we aren't supposed to use them. Darn. They have both been removed from the article. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Great work making such a comprehensive and NPOV article on a subject that got far too little attention in the English language press; however, the lead is too short, and one generally shouldn't have contentless sections like ==Timeline==. The maps are very good, but it also does need more pictures, preferably some of the conflict itself. I doubt we can get any PD or GFDL images, but it might be possible to add some fair use ones under the "unique historical images which we cannot reproduce by other means" criteria. - SimonP July 9, 2005 02:00 (UTC)
  • OK, I think I've addressed your first two objections. The lack of pictures of the conflict itself is a perennial if not unresolvable problem here, and any help you can give would be extremely welcome. Does this fair use criterion apply to press images? - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
    • Support. My first two objections have been fully addressed so I am moving to support. As to images I'm far from an expert in American fair use law, but I do know that Wikipedia practice is to claim fair use for certain press images. This has been controversial in the past (see Image talk:TrangBang.jpg for a lengthy debate), but pages like History of post-Soviet Russia and Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 have become FAs and use such images. - SimonP July 9, 2005 03:55 (UTC)
  • Support. The text is excellent. It would be great if you could find more pictures though (I know it's difficult); as it stands, it's not an inviting read. — mark ✎ 20:43, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, well written piece on an ongoing conflict. The pics that are there are sufficient. --nixie 14:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Very close to supporting. I just need to read all of it through properly and see if there's copyediting needed. Everything I've seen so far seems well written and comprehensive. I hope we'll be seeing more FACs on African history and culture after this. /Peter Isotalo 22:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Conditional support. The warbox needs to go. It's obviously best suited for more traditional all-out nation vs nation conflicts, not complex and low-intensity civil wars. /Peter Isotalo 17:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
      • The featured article criteria say that it has to adhere to the standards of the relavant wikiproject. As such, a warbox is called for. →Raul654 16:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Very sparse use of references. More research and citation seems necessary. Also, the lead is very hard to follow and basically takes a reading of the whole thing to even figure out the result. Part of the problem is the second sentence runs straight into a a narrative of the events from the start. Please restructure it in more of a news style, or at least tell me all the most important things in the first paragraph before going into details. Sorry to bring this objection so late, but I felt it needed to be said. - Taxman Talk 19:56, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    Hmm, after writing that I see youve said you've researched it a lot, but I see only two references, plus some notes to what all appear to be news articles or low quality sources. I could be wrong, part of the problem is how they are formatted perhaps. But if you've researched a lot, add all those sources and cite what parts of the article are supported by what sources. - Taxman Talk 19:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Three rather extensive English-language books, actually (one of them was under the external links section because it happens to be available online) plus a large number of sources (mostly in French) on individual events or people with insufficient general relevance to place in the references section. As for the news articles, I'm not sure what the problem is. The government hasn't released its internal notes, nor have the guerrillas published any helpful memoirs; the primary sources for this conflict are press releases and human rights organizations' interviews, and that's what all of the books referenced do cite (indeed, most of the press cites were via the books referenced.) Why do you consider these "low-quality sources"? (Apart from two of the links, the bloody useless "War Nerd Column" and the useful but uneven timeline by an activist website.) You also suggest more citation; I'm not sure how this could be achieved. Linking each paragraph to the appropriate chapters of the relevant books seems superfluous; I've been going on the assumption that only quotes and potentially controversial claims need such low-level citation.
  • Ok, with another book in the references I'm a bit more comfortable. Just try to make them all consistent with the formatting in Wikipedia:Cite sources. I believe if it is available online, only the title should be linked, not the rest of the citation information. Also the other notes do not contain the full citation information such as date, author, publisher, and they are not all in consistent order, so I can't tell which is which. If those are the best sources available, then I'm ok with it, just fix the formatting. As to citation, the more the better always. How do we know any of the material is accurate, except that you tell us? Wikipedia:Verifiability is important to help in that. I'm not saying every word needs to be cited, but the top 15-20 or so most central and or most controversial facts in the article should ideally be cited directly to the source they came from. - Taxman Talk 16:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I cannot entirely agree on the citing issue. To cite a claim to a particular source gives the impression that it is an individual author's conclusions, which is appropriate for original or controversial claims but misleading for matters of common knowledge; also, I don't currently have access to many of the materials I used in writing this, so getting individual page numbers (or chapter references) would be rather difficult for the time being. - Mustafaa 20:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If the cited point is a fact, citing it to one source the fact was found in, is not misleading, it's standard practice. If it is opinion, citing the source it came from is even more critical of course. If it is a generally accepted fact, then it shouldn't be hard to find a source that refers to it as a generally accepted fact. Remember, what is common knowledge to you may be entirely novel and perhaps not believable to me. So picking out the most important facts/points in the article and citing those is important, to be able to verify the material. You've got a few cited points, so I won't scream too loud about this one, though I believe only several citations in an article is barely passing the minimum for what we should allow as a FA. As to not having your sources handy, that is a pain, but no one said good research was convenient, only important. That said, the more prominent problem is the lack of conistent formatting of the sources with all the citation information available and in the same order. - Taxman Talk 14:28, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point about the citation style - now fixed, apart from a couple of meta-citations which I'll need to confirm later. Otherwise, though, I note that WP:CITE makes much the same point I had in mind more concisely: "it is often preferable to have a few general references to authoritative overviews of a subject, such as textbooks and review articles, rather than a large number of specific citations for individual facts." - Mustafaa 22:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That statement has been added in the last week in the middle of essentially a revert war, with no consensus for it on the talk page. Hardly a sound position, and it is at odds with the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Besides, even if I agreed with that quoted statement, I would not consider 20 citations in a long article a large number. - Taxman Talk 15:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
As for the opening 4 paragraphs, what do you recommend? - Mu