Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2005

Contents

Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 1968

Self-nom. A somewhat obscure topic, but an important one to Canadian history. It has been through peer review and all concerns mentioned there have been addressed. - SimonP 23:53, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, I like this article, it's comprehensive. Phoenix2 01:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This article just goes to show that even an obscure topic can have a thoroughly developed article if one takes enough time to write it. An excellent example of what Wikipedia can be. Ben Babcock 05:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work. Phils 12:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good, just make the external links a bit more visible. Amazing work. DrippingInk 15:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article. An important event in Canadian history (no matter how obscure), well explained. --Anderal 02:51, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support:Seems to cover the event well, in an interesting way. Giano | talk 28 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Support -- Cyberjunkie TALK 28 June 2005 12:36 (UTC)
  • Support. I liked on peer review and I like it now. --Scimitar 28 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)

Hubble Space Telescope

The thought of trying to analyse under-exposed STIS spectra still gives me the horrors, but apart from that, I like the Hubble Space Telescope. This article was previously featured, then demoted. I've worked on getting it back to featurable, with help from peer review, and I think it's now time to give it a run past FAC. I realise it's very long (50kb); thoughts on whether it needs to be split most welcome. Worldtraveller 11:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, Yes, it's lengthy but it is comprehensive and has lots of relevant images. As far as I can tell it's impossible to split this up without mangling the brilliant prose (summaries would - intentional or not - leave out important details). - Mgm|(talk) 17:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The References seem to be partly broken for me; some of the links don't work, and the numbers in the text do not match those in the Reference section, which makes them useless if the document is printed. Once this is fixed, I will support (yes, I have thoroughly read the article; Worldtraveller pointed me to it some time ago, and I was about to suggest he nominate it here anyway). Phils 18:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Support. Phils 29 June 2005 19:30 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment - I checked all the links and they all seem to work for me. As for the numbers in the text matching the refs, this is a bit of a tricky one to fix because I've quoted several times from a couple of my references. I can make all the numbers match but then it won't update automatically if things are switched around; or I can remove the numbers from the refs section - then there's no disparity between the superscripts and the reference numbers, but it's still no good for a printed article. Any ideas on how to improve this?
  • Support, long but comprehensive article. One of the best complete summaries of the telescope. Phoenix2 20:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. As I wrote in PR, I'd support it a week ago. One note: you still have room to add several nice images without cluttering the text. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is an amazingly complete and well-organized article, however, I think the lead paragraph needs a bit of work in that there's no defninition -- we assert that the telescope is important without actually stating what it is (eg. something like "[The HST is] the only permanent orbiting telescope ever put into service and . . . "). Assuming this is fixed, I would support FA status. Jgm 04:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Adjusted the lead section, hope I've addressed this now. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Support as per Jgm. However, section 8.3's header should probably be changed from a question to a statement and I agree with Jgm that the introduction needs to be clearer on what the telescope is. Ben Babcock 05:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed the section title as suggested. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but only because of references. The references section should be split off the notes section, and the inline links, for instance [1] should be converted into Template:Ref and Template:Note. Until this is done, I can't support (though the content is great!) - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)#
  • Have to say I'm not sure I agree with making inline external links into refs and notes, as there would be one more click between the reader and the external link. What would the advantages be? Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Whilst I think the article previously had too large a section on future space telescopes, as noted on peer review, now that the whole section has been removed some important information is now missing. For example:
Space telescopes are still essential for observing wavelengths which are absorbed in the atmosphere. In particular, Hubble has been increasingly used for observations of the near-ultraviolet wavelength range, for which no new telescopes are currently planned.
If information about Hubble's current usage due to it's strengths over current and proposed land-based and space telescopes were included I'd be happy to support. Other than that it's a great article, though I think the Conception, design and aims section could easily spawn a daughter article and be trimmed. CheekyMonkey 10:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've added a bit explaining more about Hubble's unique advantages in the section about the final serving mission, hope that covers everything you think it should. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
You say "its successor telescope will not be launched until possibly several years after Hubble's demise". I presume you mean successor as in the next telescope to perform observations of near-ultraviolet wavelengths and not as in the successor to the Hubble (i.e. the James Webb Telescope which the original statement in the future space telescopes section seemed to suggest wouldn't perfom observations at this wavelength). Can you please clarify? CheekyMonkey 29 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)
  • Comment: As noted this article was once featured, and was demoted. Of note is the Wikipedia:Former featured articles page, a concise listing of formerly featured articles, and a page worth noting in regards to the trejectory a FA can take. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 00:53, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but please remove the external link references and replace them with footnote references. - Cedars 29 June 2005 02:21 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! I'm not sure, though, about converting inline external links to footnotes - it would mean readers have to click twice to reach the external link rather than just once, and I can't see what advantage it brings. Will be glad to convert it if it's generally seen as desirable though. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • SupportI can't think there is a lot more to say on this subject about which I formerly knew nothing. I'm not too sure about the current epidemic for footnote everywhere! Giano | talk 29 June 2005 12:24 (UTC)

The Giver

Self-nom (this is the article I hack upon when my insomnia starts biting me). It has been up for FA twice before, once nominated by me and once by SocratesJedi. Anon edits have snipped away the POV bits mentioned the last time. It is now more thoroughly footnoted and referenced than many FAs, and it includes material hard to find elsewhere on the Web (thanks to things like "newspapers"). Anville 06:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Conditional support, there are a mix of rererence styles used throughout the article, please adjust them so they're all using the same system and the numbers in the text match the notes.--nixie 06:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All citations are now done using footnotes instead of inline hyperlinks. Anville 18:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A well written article on an interesting topic. Just one thing I would like to see addressed. The plot summary is rather dry visually. This may have to do with the lack of links, but I think it could be improved. See The Brothers Karamazov for an example of how this could possibly be changed. Also, on the same note, some of the sections are rather long and dull as well. This is often a difficult thing for literature articles, but maybe some pictures could be added? Anyways, these are minor quibbles and I still support whether the article is changed or not. --Omni gamer 06:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I gather in reading this that it is geared towards the middle-school age level, like 12 or so? I don't think that's made sufficiently clear, a mention in the intro or something like that would be nice. Also I'd like to see a little more detail about the controversy. How strong is the content to which some of these parents are objecting? That's not a vote, by the way, but I'd lean towards support if those things were addressed. Everyking 07:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • To amend that last part, upon reading more of the article I think I understand the controversy, but maybe it should be made a little more clear. Everyking 07:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A very well-written article. Some pictures would be nice, but this is a literary article, so that's less of a possibility; with that in mind, I think it's definately featured-article status. Almafeta 16:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • <Jun-Dai 17:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)> The opening section should contain information on the relevance of the topic. What impact has The Giver had on society, and why should anyone care about it? Is this book widely read? Did it spark a literary revolution? or a revolution in the US or any other educational system? Did it cause riots? Is it still selling a good number of copies after 12 years, or has it mostly been forgotten? I'm not saying that the book has to have been revolutionary to deserve an article or get FA status, but it should at least provide some scope in the opening passage with regards to the book's significance. In fact, I would cut down the synopsizing in the first paragraph, since the first section after that is the plot synopsis. Additionally, the plot summary should be shorter. We don't need a long overview of the plot in an encyclopedia.
    Just briefly: notice that the opening paragraph in The Adventures of Tintin starts with a description of how popular the series is (200 million books, 50 languages), followed by a description of the whole series in under 50 words, followed by what the series is known for. The Brothers Karamazov also starts by explaining the book's relevance. It also described the book in less than 50 words in the opening section, mostly focusing on relevance. The Country Wife also mostly discusses relevance in the opening section. The Giver, on the other hand, doesn't mention anything external to the book and its author in the opening section.
    To continue: the article as a whole suffers from a similar problem: it is mostly focussed on the internals of the book and its relevance to the author. The "history and critical reception" needs to be broken up. The critical response doesn't really need to be in the same section as discussions on classroom use of the book. The "inspirations and adaptations" section is especially choppy in a fairly choppy article. Anything that seems as much like a list as that section does should be done with bullet points or rephrased to flow better. Additionally, the fact that imdb listed the Giver as a possible movie is not encyclopedic material, and this especially includes details about that listing ("Bridges himself is, at present, the only credited cast member to be listed.").
    Additionally, the fact that a small town decided to pull the book from 8th grade reading lists is pretty minor as controversy goes, and really doesn't deserve one of the longest paragraphs in the History/Criticism section. General trimming and restructuring is needed overall. Lack of concision is the most critical problem. All of the FAs on books are more concise, even though each of them is more well-known, and had a longer time to develop a history and have impact on society. The Giver should probably be one of the shorter FAs for a book. </Jun-Dai>
    Those should be longer, then. This one should not be shorter. Everyking 20:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Aw, James! You didn't say anything like that when you supported The Country Wife as "an example of literary cruft at its finest"! Bishonen | talk 20:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Refer to Peer Review. I endorse Jun-Dai's acute points about relevance and internal/external analysis. Also, the page is unhelpfully structured, a section with lesson plans is totally redundant (Wikipedia is not a how-to guide) and there's some quite surprising POV in it. I was nonplussed to find the passage "On the other hand, the current fashion in postmodern literary criticism of applying "serious" methods to any and every work in sight, thereby producing verbiage impenetrable to the outsider..." in a page nominated here, and looked for evidence of recent vandalism in the History: but not at all, it's been there since March. Unfortunately I wasn't able to access the (rather incomplete) online reference cited for it, which was to an article by Chip Morningstar entitled "How To Deconstruct Almost Anything" (no context or time of writing or retrieval supplied), as the site was down--I don't know whether temporarily or permanently. But whatever the cite says, there's no excuse for this kind of aggressive (and tangential!) POV in an FA. This is just one example, I'm going to look at the article and not least the links more carefully, hoping to come up with specific advice, but I can see right now that it's not ready for FAC. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
More: I believe there's a strong connection between the lack of external/societal context and the weak structure. Such a context is exactly what could give a master plan for the page, and avoid the impression of random order. There's good stuff here, if it were better organized and contextualized. For instance, the themes section needs context (with inline references) showing that not only the book, but the ways of reading it, come out of a particular time and place.
Now I've been able to access the Morningstar essay, and I have no quarrel with its quality, but I'd change "tangential" for "utterly irrelevant": what it's doing here is a mystery. The paragraph starting "The prolonged and arduous journey" is also irrelevant, with an "oh, that reminds me" effect.
It's very teasing to have a spoiler warning, plus references to the mystery and ambiguity of the book's ending in nearly every section, and yet never be told what the mystery ending is. The boy and the baby either die or don't die at the end, that's all I'm getting--is that all there is?
References seem good on the whole, but technically, I have trouble getting my mind round the way the footnotes work--not sure they do, in fact. Also, see here for how to format online references. I've done one example ("Award-winning book frequent target in schools") to demonstrate. Also reverse authors' names to surname-first name for alphabetizing and make a separate alphabetical references list, please, as well as the notes list. I know it takes extra space, but the reader needs it for orientation. Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 28 June 2005 12:43 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace

A third nomination. This still looks good to me. I have re-read, and I hope the objections to the two previous nominations (here and here) are addressed. Still mostly User:Giano's work. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Changed one of the archive links above so they point to the two separate nominations. - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is very good. The writing's excellent, it's comprehensive and interesting, and it's nicely illustrated. A couple of points: I'd like to see inline citations or more footnotes, as I see there's only one, and it's always good to see some sources as you're reading the text. I'd also like to see some mention of Diana's death and the crowds that gathered outside the Palace, with the tabloids stirring up rumors saying people were about to storm the walls. The mood was certainly ugly at one point, and I think that may have been a unique event in the Palace's history. I'd also like to see the red links deleted, as they make the page look untidy. But these are not objections, just suggestions. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very happy to see that a plan has been added since last nomination (I remember being told that it couldn't be provided due to "national security" or somesuch before). Could possibly do with information about the permanent staff. Morwen - Talk 13:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The plan I have drawn is basic in the extreme a few rooms on one floor, most of which are open to the public. No up-to-date more detailed plan, i.e., one showing guest bedrooms, offices and private rooms etc is available. Giano | talk 16:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written, informative article. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article. Ben Babcock 03:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well written. I'll add a spoken file to it soon. Craigy (talk) 04:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, a comprehensive and interesting read even though I have no clue what a spendthrift is. Could you add the external links that source the single father incidents in the footnotes or reference sections and maybe split website and books (in the reference) in the process? (Don't forget to add the time they were retrieved.) - Mgm|(talk) 09:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Lots of good information. Rentastrawberry 16:09, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Although clarification for the sentence However, it is not universally admired, and was voted the fourth ugliest building in London in March 2005. is needed. Who voted, what kind of poll was it, and perhaps provide a source for the Palace's ranking. Phils 18:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The article was elegant before, like all Giano's work, and it still is. Actually I liked it better before, when it had normal (=lower-case) spelling of words like king and queen used as common nouns (i. e. not as titles). I don't want to spend the best years of my life embroiled in wiki spelling wars, but a sentence like "the new King was rather less taken with the ornate palace than his late brother" looks simply odd to me. (The Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta are on my side.) Bishonen | talk 14:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Contains an image with an unacceptable copyright, Image:Buckthroneroom.jpg. Ideally we'd like to see images created by wikipedians, but we are not showing the best we have to offer by featuring something with an image that is about to be deleted. Otherwise this article does a great job of featuring photographs taken by editors... Gmaxwell 02:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Image has been removed. Giano | talk 28 June 2005 10:43 (UTC)
  • Support: Well-written and informative. However, I second SlimVirgin's suggestions about citations; I'd like to see more footnotes. Cyberjunkie TALK 28 June 2005 12:32 (UTC)
  • Regarding the footnotes: I and "an other" are looking at this, the problem is quite what is the best way to achieve it, most facts on the palace are easily checked, where I have thrown in an oft repeated story for interest's sake i.e. Eleanor Roosevelt in the Blitz and the Sheik barbecuing in his bedroom, I think it best to state instantly in the text that this is just part of the palace's folklore so there is no excuse for it being taken as undisputed fact. Giano | talk 28 June 2005 18:36 (UTC)

Captain Marvel (DC Comics)

Self-nomination. I did a good bit of editing work on this article, although the foundation of it was rather solid before I began. It would make a good comapion piece to Superman, as Captain Marvel was the most popular superhero of the 1940s. --FuriousFreddy 06:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Condional support. Quite good. Remove external links from the lead (!) and main body, move to notes/external links, link via Wikipedia:Footnotes. Spoiler warning template needed as there are a lot of spoilers in mainbody. The bullets in 'Supporting cast' section seem acceptable, but rewrite the 'Appearances in other media' and 'Cultural influences' sections so they are normal paras, not bullets. Also, I think that it might be good to actually merge the nominated Captain Marvel (DC Comics) with Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics) and other CMs mentioned on Captain Marvel into one article, but this is not an object - in the end, Captain Marvel (DC Comics) stands alone well enough as a good subarticle to the main (poor) article on 'Captain Marvel.' --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I can take care of all but the last one. The other Captains Marvel are compeltely different characters from seperate companies. The only thing they share in common is the name; it'd be like megring all the various uses of Tom and Jerry. The Captain Marvel mentioned here, however, is the original and most notable. Also, file size would definitely become an issue if the two articles were merged. The article at Captain Marvel is nothing more than a disamiguation page; it isn't meant to be a full article. None of the pages referenced from it are meant to be subarticles of the Captain Marvel page, but just articles about entities that all have the same name.--FuriousFreddy 21:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Done with converting the in-line references to footnotes style and the rewording into prose. Again, the various Captains Marvel have no correlation except for their name, and really should not be merged into one article. All of Marvel's Captains Marvel do actually share an article, but the only other character related to this one to share the name "Captian Marvel" is better known by her original name: Mary Marvel, who is also mentioned a number of times in this article). --FuriousFreddy 00:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • OK. I support now. The merger was just a comment to be considered by editors more familiar with the subject, not an objection, so I am satisfied now that it has been adressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, well written and comprensive, meets FA criteria.--nixie 03:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good research, well organized. ike9898 18:41, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • This article starts out great but falters a bit near the end; I think the article would be stronger if the various spinoff plot summaries -- which don't really add anything to the reader's understanding of the character and its importance or influence -- were themselves spun off into sub-articles; the final section could use some copyediting and style work (ie. the use of the word "kid") and the Family Guy reference seems useless and is a terrible way to end the article. I won't formally object to FA status, but I hope this critique is helpful. Jgm 03:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I didn't want to delete the American Dad! reference (I didn't add it, and it seems notable enough), so I just switched the "Cultural influences" and "Apperances in other media" sections; I actually think the flow works better that way. As far as making sub-articles for the various spin-off plots, I only did it for one The Power of Shazam! because that one was the most notable--and longest--revamp. The other two revamps were easily summarized into a few sentences which explained just the most notable aspects, which is what I went ahead and did. --FuriousFreddy 11:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support great article! Have done a few minor alterations, but most definitely support this. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support very well written, certainly meets WP:FA criteria.-Poli 21:17, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Antarctic krill

After much discussion I want to sponsor this article again. All objections and suggestions and language have been worked on, references added, some images moved off. An academic group from Australia, USA, Germany, Japan and Norway found no errors. Thanks go especially to user:lupo, User:Yakuzai and in Scandinavia to User:Salleman. The article covers the basic biology, ecology, geography, fisheries and some unique bio-features of this key species of Antarctica, which is probably (in terms of biomass) the most successfull animal of the planet (yet known to only a few), and gives an outlook for future ventures of Ocean Engineering (I contributed to the article).

  • nominate and support Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 18:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, it is clearly evident that a lot of work went into this article since the last time you submitted it, but the problem can be fixed. The article needs some variation in the positioning of the pictures, and there still may be too many. Phoenix2 18:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thanks for your comment, Phoenix2, I moved images out but others moved them back in Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 18:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Support, ready to be featured after lots of hard work. Phoenix2 00:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's a potential FA, just wait to see what others think. Phoenix2 18:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support this time around. It's still a little text-light, or maybe it just seems that way because of the wealth of quality images, but it has greatly improved. --Scimitar 19:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)*
  • Support The only thing i would add more to is the section on eyes, oh yeah and maybe renaming subheading from "Systematic" to "Morphology" as that would in my view be more comprehensible to the average reader. I think as it stands it is a very comprehensible article that is informative and interesting with some great supplementary images.Yakuzai 23:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support- it is amazing how much this article has improved since the beginning of its first FAC. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - much improved! — Catherine\talk 02:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I (?re)reoriented the pictures in an alternating fashion, and did some edits toward the end, where the redo had tailed off a bit. This was largely gilding the lily, as I think the meat of the article, in its newly rewritten state, had already made it feature quality. Sfahey 04:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object, I find the way the citations have been done to be quite hard to follow, a simple numbering system would be better. I raised this in the last FAC, the graphs need better captions. --nixie 05:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thank you for the comment - I added to the captions where senseful - I agree with Lupo on the numbering of refs - we will kep on putting more in (maybe change it in the end) - best greetings to Australia Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 12:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Big improvement on the captions, and adding the bullet poitns to the references list has made it much easer to read, Support--nixie 00:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, of course, even though I don't like the alternating left-right image placement at all; it makes the article looke piecemeal. To nixie: we once had a numbered reference scheme, and it's a maintenance nightmare. Two references are in image captions, they both got shown as "[1]", and somehow it made the numbering in the main texts start at 2, and it was very difficult and maintenance-intensive to make the ref numbers agree with the list at the end. (A ref reading "[7]" should indeed go the an entry numbered "7", otherwise it's worse than useless.) The current scheme uses symbolic references as they are common in many scientific papers (it's a scheme I have used successfully in all my peer-reviewed publications) and doesn't have that problem. Lupo 06:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I also like the images better on the right - change them back Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 11:37, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, on balance: I suspect that there is probably more to be said, but the nominator ought to know what should be in the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Much better now. Can we get the lists at the bottom formatted as * lists? Morwen - Talk 12:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
hallo Morven - we still collect more (see comment of Lupo, who did most of the ref work) later we might change it Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 12:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting and informative. One suggestion: It would be nice to include a little more on what eats the Antarctic krill other than the very brief "Position in the Antarctic ecosystem" section. BlankVerse ∅ 13:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thank you for the comment - I added some more, will later add some on the whales Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 14:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
added whale birds squid seal fish consumption data from Hampton Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 17:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support because what is there is great, but I'd still like to see more effort on providing explanation of jargon, and more context for many of the overly technical bits. Older Comment: great stuff, especially the thorough citation. If there's anything factually incorrect in there, a knowledgeable person could find it easily. But it seems the most imporant points have avoided citation. Specifically claims of the largest biomass, the specific amount of the biomass, and speculation of the largest biofeedback mechanism. This is enough to object on, but I'm assuming you can get those citations easily enough, so I'll support once you have. Also the citation system is confusing. What is the difference between Kils79 and H+83? Also, what is meant by directly utilizing the phytoplankton cells? What would be not direct? There are other examples of writing that appears like it would be clear to someone knowledgeable in the subject, but is a bit hard to parse for someone like me. I'll try and help if you like, or just go through and add some inline context for places where people might get confused. - Taxman Talk 14:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • thank you for the extensive comment, I will work on it - direct: means not over the traditional food chain phytoplankton small copepods, large copepods, mysids, little fish - biomass: this is much disputed, in lack of methods and because of the huge area we do really not know much - I was on a venture with 11 research vessels fron 10 nations, and we still have only a vague idea of the stock in Scotia Sea alone - and much krill lives under the ice - Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 14:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I understand that even less than I understand what is in the article. You mean that instead of going to progressively larger organisms a 6cm organism eats the phytoplankton? Well then just say that! Actually part of the rest of the article does I think, so just explain it a little more. The whole of the text is rather terse, so explaining some biology bits with very short (a few words sometimes) bits of context goes a long way and wouldn't be too wordy. - Taxman Talk 00:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
is this better?: "The size-step between krill and its prey is unusually large: generally it takes three or four steps from the 20 micrometer-tiny phytoplankton cells to a krill-sized organism (via small copepods, large copepods, mysids to 5 cm fish)[KK79]. The next size-step in the food chain to the whales is also enormous, a phenomenon only found in the Antarctic ecosystem." Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 02:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • it says not largest biomass but animal biomass Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 14:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, I saw that, but didn't specify. - Taxman Talk 00:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
The "Kils79" ref should have been "KK79". Fixed it. The system for deriving the symbols is pretty simple: if there's only one author, use the first few (3 or 4) letters of his last name. If there are multiple authors, use only the first (upper case) character of each last name. If there are many authors, use the first and add a "+". In all cases, append a two- (or for short symbols, four-) digit year. Break ties by appending lower case letters, beginning with "a". Lupo 14:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've never heard of that system but it sounds standard. Could you either explain it at the bottom or link to an article explaining it? As for the rest, it sounds like you guys will work that out well. - Taxman Talk 00:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
It's the "alpha.bst" style from BibTeX, used widely in Computer Science publications (and maybe in other fields, too). For an example where it's used, see Design Patterns by the "Gang of Four" (Gamma et al.). I do not know if that style corresponds to a recommendation by some style guide (it's neither APA, MLA, nor Chicago), but I somehow doubt that Patashnik just made it up. Lupo 07:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On the biomass: the FAO05 reference gives estimates from 1985 as ranging from 125 to 725 million tonnes. Surely there must be a more recent estimate? The CCAMLR upped its catch quotas significantly (from 1.5 million tonnes to 5 million) after a change in the methodology of arriving at such estimates in the 1990s. I would also like to see a reference for the recently added statement thatCrabeater Seals supposedly eat 120 million tonnes of Antarctic krill each year. Even with the highest estimates, that would be one sixth of the total biomass! I find that hard to believe. Lupo 14:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BONNER B 1995 Birds and Mammals - Antarctic Seals. in Antarctica Pergamon Press 202 - 222 I gave that on the crabeater page - the Antarctic is hard to believe - the high biomass estimations are based on what the whales once took (details are in Nicol, S.; Endo, Y.: Krill Fisheries of the World, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 367; 1997) Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 15:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I looked it up, Bonner writes at least 63 million tonnes, so lets change it to this figure, I have in my notes 120, will try to find the source or call colleagues about it, but even 63 off one species is astounding, taken that the whole yield from all oceans and all species, fish, mulluscs, cephalopods, srimps ... is only about 100 million tonnes a year - some say the ants are the biggest, but that would be a collection of many species, others say the copepods, but that too are hundredth of species - E. s. is one species all over the Southern Ocean - Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 15:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Made all of my comments on previous FA nomination page; thus support. Batmanand 19:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the article seems to be complete and is written in an understandable way. From looking around in other encyclopedias and in the internet I got the impression that this is the best article about this topic. Kudos to all authors and in particular to Uwe Kils -- mkrohn 01:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful article, and the Images are just so good. Though I can't get that last ref-note link in the intro to work (mn|nicol|NE97), it's missing, or something. Shanes 04:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fixed. Lupo 06:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I mirrored two comments from the first nomination down below to have a compact reference for our Wikiversity projects - thank you all for your help - it was a lot of fun to work with you - I think it is amazing what humans can create in no time if they work accross all boarders and ages with our new communication tools - good luck to you Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 10:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • (mirror)SUPPORT This is very different from the usual featured article format, but it is good. It explains in depth most of what (I would imagine) students of the subject need to know. I thought I was totally disinterested (still not riveted) by the subject, yet it held my attention to the end, and I have learned something. So in spite of being a little unconventional in its style and format, I have changed to support, now that it is reliably referenced. I would ask other objectors to give it a second read and see it accordingly for what it is, something well written and informative, on a subject little referred to elsewhere. Giano | talk 18:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • (mirror)Support I've rewritten the difficult systematic section to be more intelligible to the non-specialist, and I would now support this interesting article - perhaps pleopod could be explained also. jimfbleak 05:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Great article. Lisiate 23:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Worthy article. Alex.tan 04:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indian Railways

Last week's Indian Collaboration of the Week. I learnt a lot about the Indian Railways while writing this article. Thanks to all the people who helped. The first of my two (maybe three) part series... =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Thanks to Nichalp for leading the charge on this one. What a metamorphosis! I've helped out with copyedits and link fixes, but not much more. slambo 18:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, looks quite comprehensive to me, not rather Railways of India? Phoenix2 18:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I now see that Indian Railways is a company, not an overview of railways in India. Phoenix2 18:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Done =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
By merging the two sections the article becomes too long. In this way we can move the technical details to another page and expand that further. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
The discussion on the talk page was to split the article into Indian Railways and Rail transport in India, not to merge them. slambo 10:47, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
And then there was some about putting them back together again! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support a fascinating article that covers its vast subject admirably well. Lisiate 03:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Well written article with plenty of pictures and very good prose. Sam Vimes 11:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A well written article and I learnt a lot about Indian Railways. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 03:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good, it appears that the points I mentioned in PR have been addressed. JYolkowski // talk 20:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Order of Canada

I, along with two other users, have fixed up the article. We have added links, references, images (some drawn by me, again, like at Hero of Belarus). And with the possible removal of a person from the Order and a recent investure, people will be looking at the article to see what the Order is about. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I may also sound in, Canada Day is just around the Corner on July 1st. This is the day that new members are announced Dowew 00:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well written. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nicely done, images are well documented, and the article reads very well. --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I like the way this article is organized. Phoenix2 03:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, sadly. I agree with the above, but I think the article is not quite sufficiently referenced. There are no references except for the (rather poorly formatted footnotes) which means a lot of the information in the article does not have information on its source; I also suspect some of the "External links" were used as sources. Examples of information for which I could not readily find the source in the links provided are the numbers of living Officers and Companions, and the description of the backside of the medals. I admit I haven't searched through the sourches exhaustively, but other readers in need of this information might show even less patience. I apologize if I come across as being overly picky about references, but recent conversations with people I know have given me the certainty that lack of verifiability and through referencing is Wikipedia's greatest flaw, next to vandalism. Phils 09:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Support. Congratulations to Zscout370, and thanks for adressing my concerns. Excellent work. Phils 17:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey, there is no need to apologize. I will take care of the references. As for the reverse of the medal, there were pictures I have seen online, but no law to back it up. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As for the number of living C.C. and O.C., this is what me and others did. We went to http://www.gg.ca/Search/honours_e.asp?Search=2 and filled out sections needed. We checked off the grade, then living, then search. We cannot save each search, since there is no special website that displays each search, unless you wish for us to link to the above site and call it a reference. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I will support of the references are dealt with. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Support - I couldn't help copyediting. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, noting Phils' comments. I have little doubt that Zscout370 will address them to the best of his abilities, so I'll vote support now. 172 18:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above comments by Phils have been responded to, and if there is anything that I missed, just let me know. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My mistake-- I read the article earlier, missing the recent changes. Excellent work. 172 18:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A well written article and one of Wikipedia's best. --Omni gamer 19:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I pointed out during PR, it is very very short. Without pics, lists and section headings, all content would fit on a single screen. Since everybody seems to agree it's comprehensive as it is, I won't object, but I have this feeling it can and should be expanded somehow. I won't object based on my 'feeling', though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What sections, do you feel, should be expanded the most? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the only thing that can be added now is basic trivia regarding the Order. I just added info about Diefenbaker being the only Prime Minister not entered into the Order, however there is only so much of that you can add in before it just gets ridiculous. Dowew 02:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • If he is talking about citations for the various appointees, that is more appropriate on each article of the various appointees. If there are historical designs of the medal, we should show them. But I have yet to find older designs of the medals. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--Scimitar 23:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Extremely well-written and comprehensive. It is certainly informative and serves its purpose well. Ben Babcock 03:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems short for a FA, but I don't see anything that could be added.say1988 16:09, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

As of 18:09, 26 June 2006, the article was promoted. Thanks to everyone that has come here and voted. <Cheesy>I dedicate this one to my Ontario girlfriend.</Cheesy> Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:33, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Second Crusade

This has been on Peer Review for awhile, and no one seems to have any more suggestions, so I think I can nominate it here. This is mostly a self-nomination - the article existed before, but it has been greatly expanded, with a number of other new articles leading off from it. It's not quite as long as the featured First Crusade article, but not as much happened, and I think this is as good as it can be. Adam Bishop 05:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Stbalbach 05:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. You may want to ilink some more names and terms. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral - for the moment. Is it possible to go back and cite which material came from which source? Otherwise the article is in VERY good shape. --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, probably not...it's mostly a summary from Runciman and Setton, with relevant bits from the various sources. Adam Bishop 05:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I know, it's a pain to go back and add them, been there and done that :) Since that's the only "objection" I had (and the references used ARE quite clear), I change my vote to Support. --JohnDBuell | Talk 14:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Ancient history is not a strong point on Wikipedia, and this is quite the encouraging exception. 172 18:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 18:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support with the sources cited the article is FAC material. Falphin 14:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago)

I've been working on this article for a few months and it feels fairly complete and I think it is decently written, so I thought I would take a shot at putting it up for an FAC. On peer review I got a request for the party logo, but I can't find the symbol in the online or offline sources available to me. Guettarda 23:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Minor Objection- I would like to see more citations (sources) and in-text references. Otherwise, seems to be well-written, though I had to fix up a few grammatical mistakes. Keep up the good work! Flcelloguy 15:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Meighoo's work is fairly definitive (based on his PhD on TT politics) but I will look for some more refs. Guettarda 15:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Asking for references beyond those that have been used to write the article seems like intellecutal dishonesty to me. --nixie 03:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • In response to this I did find (and read) some additional sources which let me flesh out some parts of the article. Meighoo has his POV, Sudama another and Malik a third. Of course, it would be wrong to just add refs and not material. Guettarda 03:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I have to agree that just adding refs and not adding to the article would be unethical. However, what I was looking for was more references to verify all facts, make sure the article was balanced and NPOV, and make it more comprehensive. Now that the more references have been added and the article accordingly expanded/edited, I'm happy to support. Good work, Guettarda! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. An additional photograph or two would make the layout more visually appealing, but I can understand if these are difficult to find. Details of the party's stances on specific issues (political position of Tobago vis-à-vis the "mainland", for instance) would also help, if available. Are there any membership statistics? Did the party have any auxiliary organizations (e.g., a "youth" group/wing, a "women's" group/wing, etc.)? This is already an excellent article overall, but details in these areas would help to better convey the DLP's impact on Trinidadian society. —Seselwa 17:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Good points - these things didn't really occur to me. Guettarda 17:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • A lot of the context of global politics is beyond my expertice. I don't have the framework of knowledge to hang it on - I could repeat what sources say, but I wouldn't know what was POV or NPOV. I have not found data on party membership. Membership tends to be confined to activists and the like in Trinidadian politics. I've done my best to address your concerns. There's more material to digest, but never enough time. Guettarda 03:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, comprhensive article on an interesting subject.--nixie 03:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Architecture of Btrieve

Self-nomination — I got Btrieve to FA status, however during my attempts I shifted large amounts of material to the article Architecture of Btrieve. I then tried to get this to FA status but failed - the objections can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Architecture of Btrieve/Archive1. They were largely to do with explaining what a btree was and that the lead section wasn't terribly interesting. I have since fixed up these issues so am submitting to FAC again. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment — Could do with a few more linked words (I linked I/O and API) even though they may produce red links. More diagrams wouldn't hurt. Also, no external links? I know the Btrieve article has some but even so, are there no web pages out there that have information relating to the architecture?. Other than that I read it without my eyes drooping - which must be a good sign :) CheekyMonkey 12:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Good points - could I clarify which bits you think would be good to have diagrams for? This will give me a chance to make them... will link to the Btrieve website, however there really isn't much on the underlying architecture of Btrieve (its not as popular as, say, MS SQL Server - and rightly so IMO). Most of this is extracted from manuals but even more from Kyle's book! I am gratified to see that it's not too boring :-) Ta bu shi da yu 23:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Have wikilinked more words. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the Indexing section would benefit from a diagram. Other than that looking at the article again it's hard to see where else a diagram could go where it will successfully summarise the relevant paragraphs. Regarding external links, are there newsgroups / forums out there that deal with the architecture? CheekyMonkey 16:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • OK, indexing now has a diagram! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • OK, I think that's fair enough. Will look into creating some diagrams when I get the chance. Hopefully soon. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I now Support. CheekyMonkey 12:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't even really know what Btrieve is, so maybe I shouldn't vote, but the article looks sufficiently crufty, so I vote support. Everyking 12:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "Btrieve is a database developed by Pervasive". Thanks for the support, I guess. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that didn't help me much. I mean, I get a general idea. But never mind. Everyking 00:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • No, not "never mind". Clearly you have something you want to say, so out with it man! I'm not sure what else you want us to explain: if your suggestion improves the quality of this article then, by gad, I'll do it! But the fact is that Btrieve is a database, and if the reader wants to know more then there is a wikilink to the main article. As for being crufty — tell me which bits are crufty and I'll rework the section or remove the bits from the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Nah, I use "crufty" as a positive term—that's a compliment. I wasn't saying I thought the article needed to explain it better, I was saying that I don't understand it much myself, and I'm too lazy to try, but nevertheless on a cursory glance the article looks good. Everyking 22:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. In the Lead I would not mention Pervasive's unusual use of navigational database to describe their transactional ISAM-based architecture. I think that this is confusing although it merits mention later. I have also raised a number of questions as inline comments. --Theo (Talk) 22:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Have fixed the lead section (clarified the issue) and have edited to resolve your comments. Cheers Theo :-) Ta bu shi da yu 23:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The changes address all my issues but raise a new one! The clarification of the phrase navigational database is not best presented in the lead because it distracts the reader from more important matters. Could you move any mention of Pervasive's descriptions of their product and the consequent explanations to somewhere lower? --Theo (Talk) 01:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Cool... I was hesitant in making a new section as this doesn't really "fit" in any other section. I have decided that a new section actually was required and have shifted this info into that section. Look OK now? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The recent changes address all my concerns. --Theo (Talk) 19:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Ashes

This article was the previous Cricket collaboration of the fortnight. Nominated on behalf of jguk who has done so much for cricket-related topics here; and has now left wikipedia. Although I may not be able to address specific queries, there are a fair number of wikipedians who would gladly do so.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 13:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • I echo Nichalp. I am a member of the cricket wikiproject, but have played very little part in this article. I would be happy to address queries. I would certainly support. Cheers, smoddy 19:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am looking to support this FAC, but first want an explanation as to the placement of the note about rugby late in the article. Wouldn't it be better to place a note in italics at the top about another non-related page of the same name, like they have in the Harvard University article? It doesn't make sense to have it as it is now. Harro5 00:04, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've fixed it. =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • You could, of course, argue that they are related, as the name was directly taken from the one series to the other, showing the cricket Ashes' importance and reach in the early Twentieth century. smoddy 07:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • They are, but a single para is too short. Perhaps you could write something longer? =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • I'll see what I can do. smoddy 14:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • I have put something in at "The Ashes outside cricket". These were the only two examples I could find – are there any more? Cheers, smoddy 15:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - comprehensive, encyclopaedic and topical - Ian ≡ talk 04:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. But then I am a member of the cricket mafia. Outside opinions would be especially welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I made a few minor changes before posting this. Picky comments here important for FAC questions, rather than general article talk: Capitalisation, "The Ashes" throughout (not "the Ashes"). Would the initial "help" be better phrased: "Readers unfamiliar with cricket will find many cricketing terms used in this article explained in the main Cricket article and the List of cricket terms." Isn't "10 cm" better than "100 mm" (4 inches isn't exactly 100 mm, the urn probably isn't exactly four inches!). I think the reference to "Gladiators" in the outside cricket section is not mainstream enough to warrant a mention, but perhaps I'm a minority, here; also I think this would be the right place to mention - without overdoing it - its inclusion in works of fiction (I can think of two - as the backdrop to the film The Final Test starring Jack Warner and Robert Morley with cameo appearances by several England players of the time, and the intergalactic importance of the little urn in Douglas Adams' book Life, the Universe, and Everything and Adams' quirky reference to cricket's oft-perceived eccentricity - "Only on Earth could they make a game" out of it). Otherwise, a very nice article. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think I have addressed these concerns. The Gladiators reference is one of the few things that I could think of to flesh out that section. I have changed the units (for some unexplained reason, Bobblewik had changed them from something far more explicable). I haven't put all that stuff in the section, but if you want to add something, please go ahead. smoddy 16:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Cyberjunkie TALK 14:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I know nothing about rugby, but after looking at the article, it explained a lot about one of the most important sport rivialries/events I have ever heard about. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Australia

This comprehensive article provides a really good overview of contemporary Australia. It comes in at 37kb (right between Cambodia and South Africa). The writing is good and the facts are well sourced, I fully support its promotion to a featured article--nixie 05:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. C'mon 'Straya, vote now! Harro5 07:30, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support The sentence with were a commonplace of mediaeval geographers appears to be missing a word after commonplace. I don't know what to replace it with, but other than that, it's great! Tuf-Kat 08:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Is a commonplace becoming unusual? Perfectly cromulent word: "A common or ordinary topic; an opinion or statement generally accepted or taken for granted; a stock theme or subject of remark, an every-day saying. Slightingly: A platitude or truism." This article is very well-written. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I thought perhaps commonplace was what you call a group of mediaeval geographers. As in, look at that! It's a huge commonplace of mediaeval geographers in their natural habitat! Seriously, though, I've never heard the word used that way. In any case, the current wording is clearer, to me at least. Tuf-Kat 22:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - good stuff. Pity they are going to lose The Ashes this year ;) (Commonplace "... n. 1. b. Something that is ordinary or common".) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well ALoan, if they lose to lowly Bangladesh like they just did, England might win! :)  =Nichalp (Talk)= 17:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Thanks to nixie's hard work, this article is now one of the finest in Wikipedia and should be recognised as such.-- Cyberjunkie 11:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support — Excellent work.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 17:52, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object — This is a great article, except for the images. I think that a lot of them are misplaced, or should be moved off to sub article of Commons to make place for more evocative images of Australia.

** NewParliamentHouseInCanberra.jpg - There are no other images of historical Australia in this section, and thisimage has litle to do with the history of Australia at all. This should instead be moved to the Politics section.

Done, and added a lithograph from Flinders book to the history, unfortunatly most historical images are tied up with convulted copyrights by way of the Naional Archive.

** Image:Ac.johnhoward.jpg - I think instead of this image, the photograph of the Parliament house itself would be better suited. I tend to dislike photographs of individual people on country articles, it tends to make one person stand out above the entire country itself.

I didn't like him there either
  • Image:Map of Australia.png - I think there are much better maps of Australia available than this one. For example, the map of South Africa that is used on South Africa is much more informational than this one.
Actually there aren't, and I'm no cartographer. If someone would like to make one or reccommend a good map making program this can be changed. As far as I can tell the map on South Africa is a copyvio from here [2], along with several other images of dubious copyright, which isn't really acceptable on a FA. I have made sure all images in this article have GFDL compatible copyrights.
The map is actually from SSA, Statistics South Africa. All the other images are of clean copyright status, they're just miscategorised.

** Image:Australian $10 note 1988.jpg - This is a good image, but I don't think its the best image to illustrate the entire Australian economy. what about a photograph of the skyline of Melbourne or Sydney?

Changed to Brisbane skyline since its the fastest growing city.

** Image:Australian population.PNG - This is frankly quite ugly and might be suited for the demographics sub-article, but I think a photograph of a diverse street scene would be more effective and visually interesting. What about one of the Vietnamese-store lined streets in West Footscray in Melbourne?

The graph is gone, but there's nothing with free copyright available on the commons, If you've got something please add it.--nixie 02:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to support this fantastic article once my concerns over the images are addressed! Páll 22:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like the changes, but I still think that this article needs more images before I can offer my support. There are so many iconic images of Australia, there must be something to fill up all this image-free space. Opera House? Harbour Bridge? The Bush? Something? Páll 04:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I still maintain my oppose. The images in the history section have nothing to do wit the history. How does a photograph of Uluru relate to the history of Australia? Páll 19:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Images in the hisory section have been adjusted again, 1. captain cooks ship (discover and bicentennial), 2. Port Arthur (convicts) 3. Anzac Day (which I think should definately stay in the article as it demonstrates living hisotry)--nixie 02:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support! Barbequed prawns for all! Average image quality on WP overall is low. The textual quality here, however, is excellent. And while people are talking about images, how about some pictures of Melbourne? It's Australia's best city after all. --bainer (talk) 12:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support however I've two questions/comments:
1. The date of the first human habitation is estimated to be between 42,000 and 48,000 years ago when a period of massive ecological change, believed to be a result of human action, occurred although there is a footnote referring to this, I highly doubt that this can be accurate. 2. The agriculture and natural resources sectors contribute 3 and 5 per cent of GDP and make up the bulk of Australia's exports. this is a smaller nitpick, but as far as I know, there are traditionally 3 economic sectors - agriculture, industry and services. That Australia's industry sector encompasses the expoitation of natural sources should be mentioned, but within a paragraph on Australia's industry sector (that is currently missing). Themanwithoutapast 03:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Point 1 is more than likely possible. Agree with point 2 and 3. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • 1. When the Ingidenous Australians arrived they started burning everything, they used fire very effectively for hunting, and turned forested areas to grassland, they also wiped out the megafauna- they're very significant ecological changes. 2. There are way more that 3 sectors that make up GDP, in Australain data the typical breakdown is ag, mining, services, morgages and manufacturing, what makes it more confusing if you look at the raw data is that with the standard error in collecting the data it all adds up to more than 100%. The fact that mining has related services is of little consequence since all industires have related services many regional towns in Australia wouldn't exist if there wasn't an associated mine or agricultural area, better material for discussion in the Economy of Australia article.--nixie 04:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • 1. okay - if that is really correct, it should be either explained in the footnote or in the text - otherwise it is really confusing as it stands now. 2. Yes of course Australia has more than 3 "sectors" of economy - but the undisputed, traditional categories are: the primary (agriculture) sector, the secondary (industry) sector and the tertiary (service) sector - every branch of a country's economy should be classified within these three - that's the standard in talking about a country's economy (short overview of the 3 sectors).Themanwithoutapast 13:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm well aware of the high-school economics break down of an economy, the fact is that Australia extracts alot of minerals (a "primary" activity) and ships most of it unprocessed overseas, so mining is pretty much classed as a primary activity here.--nixie 13:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • First, this was just a comment, not criticism that Australia's minerals exploitation activity is mentioned. However, because this article will be a FA, it should adhere to common standards to make it comparable to other articles. The high-school economics break down as you call it is still the traditionally used break down of a country's economy - as long as this does not change I suggest to use it and describe Australia's economy in this way. Themanwithoutapast 14:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • I have, mining is a primary economic activity.--nixie 14:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent, excellent article. One thing, though - a few of the captions tend to use some poor grammar. I also disagree with the objector above about more images - it has just enough, and any more would start to overwhelm the text. Ambi 07:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is nothing on race relations, not much on immigration and nothing on Aboriginals. I'm sorry, but until that stuff gets added this is not a neutrally written article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Question / Comment (?!) The entry "official language= None" What does this mean? Is English really a de facto language in Australia ? What sort of political correctness is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ern malleyscrub (talk • contribs) 05:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • This article is a summary and I don't think that it should have an extended section on race relations, or the problems with immigration, there are other good articles that do that.
  1. Added a desrciption of Aboriginal and TSI culture
  2. There is a description of the genocidal policies toward Indigenous Australians, added a link to the Stolen Generation
  3. I added back info on the 1967 referendum (it keeps getting lost)
  4. I added native title
  5. I also extended the demographic information on the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians
  6. I added the following sentence Racial inequality is an ongoing political and human rights issue for Australians, I don't think editorial comment on the current governments policies and action (or lack of it) toward reconcilliation are necessary. (Apartheid gets about a pragraph in the equivalent South Africa article and most of it is about the ANC.)
  7. Immigration is mentioned, both in history (I added an explicit link to the white Australia policy) and demographics;
  8. I have added some info on mandatory detention of illegals, once again editorial comment is not necessary or NPOV.
  9. I have added explicit mention of multicultual policy since the end of the white Austrlaia policy.
  10. I am not qualified to make comment on the extent of racism in Australia, and I can find no recent publications that discuss it.

I think I have addressed your concerns, so unless you are going to make some other suggestions as to what is specifically missing and that can fit within the framework of this summary article then your objection is otherwise inactionable.--nixie 02:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - looks OK to me. Alphax τεχ 06:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Panavision

I started the article and have been working hard to build it up to featured status. Just came out of peer review, where it got a modest looking over. I want more critiques, though, and want it to be featured, so I figure this is the place! :) Thanks, guys. --Girolamo Savonarola 11:17, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

  • Comment: One small detail. I think it would look better if the links in the "See also" section were capitalised like headings in accordance with the WP:MOS. It isn't a biggie, but it just looks a bit more professional. Harro5 11:36, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I read this on Peer Review and was most impressed even then. --Theo (Talk) 19:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, though I believe the standard is to capitalize only the first letter of section headings (except proper nouns of course), so it should be Early history and not Early History. Tuf-Kat 18:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Is it possible to get a screenshot of a "Filmed in Panivision" credit from one of the movies mentioned? --FuriousFreddy 19:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No idea. I can't do it at the moment, unfortunately. (Computer's in surgery!) Anyone else up for the task? --Girolamo Savonarola 19:37, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Support: It would be better if footnotes were used instead of just a list of references. Otherwise, a very comprehensive article. Cyberjunkie TALK 14:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 13:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Convention on Psychotropic Substances

Re-nom. Broken links have been fixed, references have been converted to endnotes, and more content about meth has been added. The treaty text itself has been wikisourced. (Thank you, Smoddy, for your help!) Remember me 12:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • As Remember me says, I fixed up the footnotes in this article. I think it is well written, has good images, and is very well referenced *wipes sweat from brow*. Therefore, I support. smoddy 13:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but...well...the writing is a little dry, and full of extremely long chemical names. A tough read, especially for a generalist. Maybe we could move the sections on adoption and controversy up above the specific drug sections, to draw people in? Meelar (talk) 20:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • That suggestion has been implemented. Philadelphia, LA 21:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Object The Convention is an international agreement but there is no discussion of the politics surrounding its creation or continuing existence. The article has relatively too much focus on individual substances whilst ignoring the real controversy regarding the legalisation of some drugs. The Convention is regarded as one reason why some countries find it difficult to adopt a more liberal approach to drug use. In short, the article needs to take a more strategic perspective on the issues. JPF 22:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Support This concern has been adequately addressed.   JPF 16:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • A lot of political background has been added. 205.217.105.2 19:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, This one should have made it in already. Let´s try to get it right this time.Tparker393 09:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, my objections from last time still have not been met. It still concentrates way too heavily on psychotropics, and not enough on stimulants. It still needs more balancing, and at least 1 image of a stimulant (no Ecstacy does not count). But it is looking better. Support<