Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2005

Contents

Caesar cipher

Partial self nomination. There isn't a great deal that can be said about Caesar ciphers, but I think this article covers most of it. — Matt Crypto 01:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Well referenced and linked. Has sufficient pictures and is comprehensive and coherent as far as I can tell. Support. Mgm|(talk) 11:23, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Concise and precise. Phils 19:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. More history would be nice (Sherlock Holmes solved them at a glance, probably), but what's there is good. Tempshill 01:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I managed to find and add another example of their historical use from David Kahn's The Codebreakers (lovers communicating using the personals section in newspapers in the 1800s), but I don't think there's much else recorded about the real-world use of these ciphers. (As you say, Holmes was undoubtedly familiar with them. He once pointed out that he was "fairly familiar with all forms of secret writing" and was "the author of a trifling monograph upon the subject in which I analyse one hundred and sixty separate ciphers." If only Wikipedia was as comprehensive!) — Matt Crypto 09:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice work, Matt. Securiger 11:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nicely done. Anville 20:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - seems a trifle short, but I can't think of anything more that needs to be said, so I should praise its concision instead. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Old Man and the Sea

This is a self-nomination. It was curious to me that a more modern novel didn't exist in the featured list, and I thought this would be a good one. I think the article is of appropriate length for the book and addresses relevant topics. Clearly the most difficult part to write was the Reaction and critical analyses section; my goal in doing so was by no means to provide an exhaustive rendering of criticism, but rather to give two paradigmatically opposing interpretations that make clear the range of views. Readers can then refer below to what I consider to be some of the most authoritative sources on the novel. Your comments are appreciated. --DanielNuyu 07:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. A good synopsis of the story and its accolades and criticisms. slambo 19:15, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with the idea that we need better articles for newer novels. Rlacroix 06:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, more like this, please! dab (ᛏ) 18:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain at the moment. Wonderful content, but the writing is stilted or unclear in some places and could use some copyediting. "it was met with intense critical reaction at publication—ambivalent, despite common conceptions." Conceptions of what? How does this contrast with ambivalence? How was the ambivalence intense? And it says in the next section that it was initially unquestionably popular – this doesn't quite match. "Paradigmatic in this diametric reading is"... overworded. It suffers from term paper speak and muddle at other points: "the novel's Christian imagery, largely instantiated through the novel's passage that contains a blatant reference to the crucifixion following Santiago's sighting of the sharks that reads:" for instance. I also think it's a bit overlinked – I stripped "cornerstone of literature;" "price the fish will bring him at the market" and "Santiago continues his journey" are some other debatable links. And what's the consensus about piping references to years to "X in literature?" I know in music articles it's generally cautioned against... I want to restate that the content in this article is exceptional. It's just that there's no reason an article on The Old Man and the Sea should not be as much a joy to read as the novel. I hope to support this nomination with a bit more work. Samaritan 20:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I don't the critical reputation of this novel is anywhere near as high as this article suggests. It's a popular book, but the critical consensus has come to be that it's just another self-parody, a retread of his short story 'The Undefeated'. Its intial popularity was due in large part to sympathy for Hemingway, and also to the fact that it was serialized in the middlebrow Life Magazine. It certainly should not be described as a 'cornerstone' of modern fiction: a cornerstone would be something that had enormous influence and inspired other writers, something like his early short stories.
      • Above unsigned comments left by 68.118.61.219
      • 68.118.61.219: While I see where you're coming from, the consideration of the importance of the novel is an issue, as I think the article suggests, that is debated by scholars, with prominent critics falling on both sides of the fence. To say that someone might think that the novel is just another self-parody is certainly credible; I am unsure, however, whether it would be sound to suggest that such a view is general critical consensus. For example, Jobes suggests in her introduction that, "although Carlos Baker calls it 'major' in the title of his critical anthology, Ernest Hemingway: Critiques of Four Major Novels, other critics, including some like Leslie Fiedler and Norman Mailer who have profound respect for Hemingway's early work, find The Old Man and the Sea a disappointing minor work." In my reconsideration, I have decided that labeling the novel "a cornerstone of twentieth century fiction" may in fact be biased toward one side of this argument. I will recast that line so it reads more accurately as a statement of how important the novel was for Hemingway's own progression as an author (after all, the novel was cited as a reason for his Nobel Prize), consistent with Jobes's statement that, "whether one sees it as fakery or as a parable of universal significance, the importance of Hemingway's last novel in his development is undeniable." --DanielNuyu 01:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Samaritan: thank you for your notes; your concerns are very well taken. If there are instances where the articles sounds slightly like a term paper, it's likely because some of the lines were adapted (with obviously not perfect success) from some of my own assignments. In any case, I have recast some of the parts that you pointed to in hopes to make them read more as they should. As for the usage of "X in literature," I am unsure; initially I had simply linked to the years, but User:Neutrality made those changes in a copyedit. --DanielNuyu 00:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spring Heeled Jack

Self-nomination, with the invaluable help of people outside and inside WP, especially JeremyA and Allen3. This article has been on peer review for 12 days with hardly any comments, so I tried to do my best to make it as close to FA criteria as I could on my own; and after a painstaking month of work, I'm satisfied with the result. The subject is the figure of Spring Heeled Jack, an English paranormal phenomena and urban legend of the Victorian era, with vast influence in many cultural aspects. Since all the online sources currently available cover either of these sides but not both, and usually in a shallow fashion, my goal was to provide Wikipedia with the most objective and comprehensive article I could write, and I hereby submit it for your consideration. Thanks for your time. -- Shauri 03:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I read it all and thought it was so interesting that I was disappointed that it wasn't longer. Support, but expand it further if you can! Everyking 07:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well-referenced. Bunch of nice pictures and as far as I can determine it's pretty complete. Support (Could you mention the jumping in the lead?) Mgm|(talk) 14:52, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Done, I added a small line to the lead mentioning his jumping abilities. Hope you like it, and thx :) -- Shauri 21:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; extremely well documented/referenced. Illustrated extremely well and seems to be comprehensive to me, good job.  ALKIVAR™ 19:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Over the last few weeks I have watched Shauri grow this article from a stub with possible copyvio worrries into the article it is now. I think that she has done an excellent job and produced a first-class article. JeremyA 00:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

kibbutz

Renomination. The last nomination got very few votes, but the object votes had issues with the article's organization, especially the lack of info on the background of the kibbutz movement. The article has now (laboriously) been reorganized and further expanded.Dinopup 19:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support AndyL 20:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd like to congratulate User:Dinopup for his excellent work since the last FAC nomination of this article, which I opposed. He has truly done an outstanding job. That being said, it would be nice if someone with a good mastery of English could go over the article and copy edit it so it is 100% ready for featured status. As it is, the prose is perfectly comprehensible, but there are still some unusual repetitions and wordings here and there. I could do this myself, but I am certain the result wouldn't be as good as if one of our native English-speaking editor does it. Phils 20:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I did a quick pass on the punctuation and spelling. However, there's still some repetition, such as the decline of the children's societies. --Wahoofive 23:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done User:Dinopup. - RoyBoy 800 02:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent. Gdr 14:59, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Support. Hydriotaphia 20:22, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Totally inadequate lead section and nearly twice the recommended page size. Article size is very important given that the average attention span of people is 20 minutes and it takes the average person about that amount of time to read 30 to 35 KB of prose. So a person who needs a good primer on this topic would not likely finish reading this article. Nothing wrong with having a great deal of coverage on a topic, but having so much in one article is not optimal. See Wikipedia:Summary style on how to fix this (involves summarizing some sections and moving the more detailed text to daughter articles). There also appear to be a complete lack of subsectioning. --mav 20:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree the article could use splitting. As I see it, a great deal of the information in sections 1, 2, 4 and 5 could be put in an article about the history of Kibbutzim Phils 23:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. In dire need of a thorough spellcheck pass--I only got halfway thru and found almost a half-dozen obvious misspellings and doublets (eg "holidy", "called called"). At .17 I presently am in no condition to do it myself, but it's not that hard to throw the text into a word processor and let its spelling checker do half the work. Niteowlneils 23:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)Spellchecker pass done. Niteowlneils 06:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am a embarrassed by the language mistakes. I wish I could say "I'm not a native English speaker" (as Phils assumed) but alas English is my first language. Sometimes though one doesn't notice one's own mistakes, so perhaps that was my problem. Hydriotaphia (thank you) has made many corrections, I just made a couple corrections that Niteowl pointed out. As for the length, I know that there are other FAs that are quite long. John Vanbrugh and the Cantos are two recent FAs that are as massive and thes kibbutz article. For what it's worth, most browsers can handle a 58 k article without a problem. Dinopup 00:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In the 'Kibbutzim during the British Mandate' section, Russian Revolution seems to need to be dabbed, but I'm not sure which one is being referred to. Niteowlneils 07:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Niteowl, I indicated that the Revolution of 1917 was the one being referred to.Dinopup 20:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article looks promising, but 58 k just isn't decent. I think the introduction could be longer. Perhaps elaborating a bit on the socialistic experiment. Peter Isotalo 00:43, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Peter and Maveric, per your comments I added an historical overview paragraph to the introduction. dinopup
  • Support - As a kibbutz member, I like the article, it is important to bring it to much people as possible, shorter even better. Keep up the good work, you can always expend it#################
  • Support. This article should be long. There must be more than two good external links, though. Samaritan 21:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Length seems appropriate to me. Lead section and references could still be improved; a more specific introductory overview of what a kibbutz is -- what makes kibbutzim like and unlike other forms of communal living -- would be especially nice. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I added two new external links, I added a sentence to strengthen the introduction ("indeed, kibbutzim played an essential role in the creation of Israel.") and I made clarifications per Niteowl's suggestions. Thank you everyone who has offered advice! I'm sorry my prose hasn't always been so neat. I will make more changes if advised. (though I'm relucant to make the article shorter, I don't know what I'd cut)Dinopup 04:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kreutz Sungrazers

Self nomination. I'm quite pleased with this article on an interesting group of comets which has supplied some of the brightest ever seen. I think it is comprehensive, and I hope it is comprehensible, so I'm putting it forward for consideration here. Worldtraveller 12:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Thanks for another great read, Worldtraveller. Denni☯ 01:42, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  • Support. Fine article and I can vouch for its being comprehensible to the amateur. Filiocht 09:07, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, possible techspeak is linked or explained. Contains stunning pictures and looks comprehensive. Mgm|(talk) 10:39, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Informative and approachable, readable and coherent. Geogre 13:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; very nice. --DanielNuyu 05:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; very informative, well illustrated. I like this.  ALKIVAR™ 19:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; most interesting and with excellent pictures. -- Shauri 06:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

El Lissitzky

Self-nomination. No offense to anyone present, but one area where Wikipedia is really hurting is in art. I've been noticing this for a while and, after seeing the rather homely article on Lissitzky that Wikipedia was cruely exposing to the world, I took it upon myself to make it as good as possible. I'm still not sure its FA-grade but, after sumbitting it to peer review (ignore the comments about you guys being scary; they made me say it) and expanding it greatly, I thought I'd, with the encouragement of other higher-ups, give it a shot.--Clngre 22:33, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Tentatively support. Really nice article. I haven't vetted it against the formal FA criteria, I just think it is a very good article, and if people deem it to fall short, we should fix the few problems there may be. I raised a few small issues on its talk page that I'd like to see addressed. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The points on the talk page need to be dealt with, of course, but shouldn't be a serious impediment. --Michael Snow 00:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object. Nice article. However, I have problem with the two-line "Works" section. This is not a proper section and it needs to be expanded or merged. 212.61.72.85 07:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • You're right, I agree. Check it out now though, I added a table. I'm not sure if it appropriate or if it works, so let me know if it's alright. --Clngre 15:20, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Refreshing. Phils 10:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Please, remove the article from Peer review. -- Shauri 15:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree we need more art articles. --Mattwj2002 04:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice work on the children's books section - I'll try to find quotes re: his influence. Warofdreams 14:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is as good an entry on an artist as any I've seen on Wikipedia. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Colditz Castle

Partial Self-nom: A Maximum security Nazi POW camp (Oflag IVc) for Allied officers during WW2, it has a history going back to 1046! I've put a ton of effort into this over the past week and think its probably at FA status now. Yes the article does have a ton of redlinks, however most of them are biographical articles on people from 11th to 16th Century, or WW2 veterans that havent been created yet. I say partial self nom because the following was left on its talk page by 68.77.162.199 on 17 Mar 2005: "I think this is a fascinating article, featured article material." Let me know where to go folks.  ALKIVAR™ 11:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - Great article Waerth 01:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Aw, this awesome article needs more Support - KingTT 21:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • support - I keep coming back to this article and noticing how much it's been improving. This time I was really surprised; it's really becoming something. I can't really comment on its accuracy or comprehensiveness, thats for someone else to check out, but just as a reader I think it's very well written and fully answers all of my questions. It's also one of those "fun" articles that makes Wikipedia more attractive and interesting. --Clngre 22:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A fascinating and comprehensive article, although the redlinks prompt me to wonder whether articles on some of these people will ever be written: perhaps they ought to be removed? However, redlinks are not a reason to object to featuring. Dbiv 12:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, a really interesting and enjoyable read. Disclosure: I've done superficial copy-editing. Bishonen | Talk 15:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Some images of dubious copyright status called "fair use", some with apparently no more justification than the "it's fair use if we really want to use it" theory. Two listed on PUI. —Steven G. Johnson 20:34, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    You dont really seem to understand how "Fair Use" works. These images are 1) used for illustrative purpose to a subject of which they relate to. 2) this is a non profit educational use. 3) credit is established and given for source. As far as wikipedia is concerned this is a legitimate fair use. From fair use:
    In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
    1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
    3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
    you can clearly see this fits those guidelines.  ALKIVAR™ 21:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In your way of thinking, is there any image on the web that would not be fair use in Wikipedia? If your answer is "no", then you need to think again — fair use is a very narrow exception to copyright law. Points 3 and 4, in particular, mean that in general you can only use small snippets of a larger work (and even then maybe not if the snippet by itself has commmercial value to the author) not just any random image you swiped from someone's web site (e.g. Image:The Rennaisance Portal.jpg). —Steven G. Johnson 03:56, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm following Wikipedia's established Fair Use guidelines, which it clearly fits. However since your objection still stands to ruin the hopes of this quite good article, I have since commented them out. Is this enough to remove your objection?  ALKIVAR™ 13:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; I had a great time reading this article, great work! -- Shauri 07:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Convair B-36

Self-nom. But still, Wow. It is a truly amazing article. →Iñgōlemo← talk 05:59, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

  • Support however, I do feel that the references/external links bit should be split into two sections (References and then External Links, not a combined section), but other than that I have no complaints. --Lan56 08:27, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the above comment. The 'Related Content' section might also be renamed 'See also', as that name is more common on the wiki. Phils 12:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • "Related content" is a standard section from the WikiProject Aircraft/page content guidelines. Many aircraft articles have it. Geoff/Gsl 22:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Like Geoff said. It's a standard that something like 600 of our roughly 1,500 aircraft articles conform to. --Rlandmann 10:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support looks damn good, think you can do this to B-26 Marauder ;)  ALKIVAR™ 11:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Great article. kaal 21:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I was delighted to see such a comprehensive article on an often-overlooked but very important aircraft. I've been pleased to be able to contribute. (btw, the Mistel reference was mine - forgot to log in.) Brendano 22 March 2005
  • Support I just follow the other people here in their praise. Wim van Dorst 21:26, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  • Support - doesn't get much better than this. I've just edited the Specifications section to conform to WikiProject Aircraft guidelines. --Rlandmann 10:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support and pleased to as it's one of my favourite aircraft designs. Dbiv 12:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - reminds me of the stuff at Greg Goebel's site, [1] which is a Good Thing. Ooh, ooh, write one about the flying wing, you know, the one that was in 'War of the Worlds'. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Operational history contains numerous original or unattributed judgements. The entire article continues to a lesser degree, as phrases such as "was considered" are used without specification of who considered this so. The article says the aircraft was "arguably obsolete", but no mention is made of who considered it obsolete (the editor?). The following sentence labels the aircraft as revolutionary and apologises for problems: "Also, the groundbreaking design had a number of problems, as is normal in revolutionary aircraft." "It is highly unlikely any will ever fly again"--according to who? Blatant original research and POV: "Its little-used nickname Peacemaker was apt, because its mere existence, whatever its flaws, probably played a significant role in preventing World War III." Again, original research and assertion of opinion as fact: "It was never tested in combat, however, and it is impossible to say how well it would have fared." Weasel statement reflecting POV: "it is possible that its rarely acknowledged reconnaissance missions were just as valuable." POV/unattributed: "could produce pictures of incredible clarity". 119 04:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    1. Operational history contains numerous original or unattributed judgements. The entire article continues to a lesser degree, as phrases such as "was considered" are used without specification of who considered this so.
      Has been rectified
    2. The article says the aircraft was "arguably obsolete", but no mention is made of who considered it obsolete (the editor?).
      Now reads simply 'obsolete'. The description 'piston-engined aircraft in the age of jet fighters' should provide enough explanation.
    3. The following sentence labels the aircraft as revolutionary and apologises for problems: "Also, the groundbreaking design had a number of problems, as is normal in revolutionary aircraft."
      Now reads 'Like many aircraft before it that had pushed the envelope of size, the XB-36 had a number of difficulties. (Compare the B-29 Superfortress, which was plagued by engine problems, and the Boeing XB-15, which didn't have engines available powerful enough for a useful top speed.)'
    4. "It is highly unlikely any will ever fly again"--according to who?
      The factoid about 900 hours of maintenance for every hour in the air says it all.
      But again, according to who? If no aircraft fly with such a maintenance record, then that can be noted as fact alongside the 900 rather than stating it as an opinion. 119 04:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Now stated as a fact.
    5. Blatant original research and POV: "Its little-used nickname Peacemaker was apt, because its mere existence, whatever its flaws, probably played a significant role in preventing World War III."
      Now reads 'Without the B-36, the Strategic Air Command would have lacked a feasible nuclear deterrent, potentially placing the United States at the mercy of the Soviet Union.' This statement is simple fact: after the B-36, the next longest range bomber had only enough range to make it halfway to Moscow, nowhere near enough to serve as an effective deterrent.
    6. Again, original research and assertion of opinion as fact: "It was never tested in combat, however, and it is impossible to say how well it would have fared."
      How is this POV? It is impossible to say how any plane would have fared in combat, if it was never used in combat.
      That is only your opinion. It may also be argued that based on an aircraft's characteristics, its effectiveness could be inferred. 119 04:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      This statement has since been rearranged by another user. The paragraph now reads ...the B-36's role as the United States' sole practical nuclear deterrent earned it the nickname Peacemaker in the opening years of the Cold War. Though it was never tested in combat, the Strategic Air Command defended its performance on the grounds that the few fighters that could reach the normal operating altitude of the B-36 were so lacking in maneuverability that the giant bomber could easily evade them.
      ('small' is too small for my old eyes to read - changed to italic) There is a long thread at the Cold War Vets forum on delphi (linked in External References) titled "The B-36 goes to war". It is filled with the comments and recollections of crewmembers who carried out the war-readiness missions. They were confident that they could have carried out their warfighting assignment. They are less confident that they would have survived the mission. Brendano 14:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    7. Weasel statement reflecting POV: "it is possible that its rarely acknowledged reconnaissance missions were just as valuable."
      Now reads 'While it received all its publicity in connection to its role as a strategic nuclear bomber, it also engaged in rarely acknowledged reconnaissance missions', with side comment 'Before the development of the Lockheed U-2, the RB-36 was the only plane with the range to fly into Asia from bases in the United States.'
    8. POV/unattributed: "could produce pictures of incredible clarity".
      The golfball stat provides an excellent explanation.
      But an explanation of your opinion. "Incredible" is a fairly sensational word. 119 04:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Incredible clarity>>High resolution
    Ist das alles? →Iñgōlemo← talk 19:27, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  • Support Oops - I've gone and edited over a whole bunch of Ingoolemo's rectifications, but I don't think I've introduced any new problems and a few things are better even (I was just merging in after an edit conflict). O well, I'm now familiar enough with this article to wholeheartedly support its nomination to FAS. -Lommer | talk 22:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support though I find the back-to-front dates confusing. Geoff/Gsl 01:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    There is ample precedence for them. →Iñgōlemo← talk 02:32, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
    Only in technical documentation, as far as I'm aware. Can you name a single general reference work on aircraft that uses them? I can't. Actually, apart from Ingoolemo's contributions to Wikipedia, I've never actually seen this date format used in connected prose (outside of technical documentation). --Rlandmann 05:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. 119 06:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mumbai

This is one of the largest projects I've undertaken. I've added a lot of information (including satellite pages so that there are no red links) to the city which is India's largest. I've also made all the maps, added a wikiquote and had it translated into numerous other languages (I'm working on adding about 15 more). Helped by User:Kaal, User:Sundar and User:Brhaspati in the copyediting of the text. It was on Peer Review last week and received just a single suggestion which was promptly addressed. I hope that this article sets the standards for all city articles. Nichalp 18:47, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Good article, but there are too many images and they are poorly sized (they are much too small) and all over the place. A lot of the map articles should be moved to the Geography of Mumbai article. Páll 19:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I've right aligned all images, and set all photographs to a standard 250px. The maps cannot be enlarged further due to their aspect ratio which would magnify their size. Please see if the juggling makes the page better. Nichalp 20:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
While the right-aligning is helpful, I still find that most of the images on this article give absolutely no indication as to the character of Mumbai. There are far too many maps, most of which are barely germaine to the subject they discus. I attemtped a slight change myself, but there is now a huge gap in the Civic Administration section due to the fairly pointless map of all the districts of Mumbai. Take a look at Johannesburg for what I consider to be a well-constructed city article. Páll 20:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
i have removed the ward map from the article for now. But T don't understand what u mean by images not giving the character of the city or maps being barely germane to the subject. All the maps in the article are relevant to the topic being discussed and i dont see the need to take them out. And having been to mumbai the rest of the images are what you will see in the city. They exactly show the way the city is. kaal 20:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I too don't understand why you have problems with the maps. The ward map is given alongside the text: The city is divided into 23 wards. This map is important; it is akin to the administrative regions map of Johannesburg. The district map shows the distinction between the city and metropolis. The rail network is shown alongside the transport section. I think its position alongside is germaine; it gives a reader an idea on what the topics are about. Sarajevo, on the contrary has loads of images, but all of them have a smaller size and tastefully done so that they don't mar the page. If you have problems with the captioning of the pictures, please let us know; that can be easily resolved, but getting new images to accede to your objection would be difficult at this juncture. Nichalp 18:39, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
I dislike the maps because this article discusses one of the largest cities in the world, and you have four map images. They do not contribute to the article, only one is enough. There is a large gap at the bottom of the Transport section. The maps are not bad, but they need to be taken off the main page and moved to the sub articles and images that give more of a character of the city itself need to be put in their place. The history section needs to be much longer, and there needs to be more discussion over the name change from Bombay to Mumbai. Obviously, there must have been different parties with their own opinions on both sides, I want to know more. It is a major name change. The map of the location of Mumbai needs to be changed and the location needs to be made much more clear. The user shouldn't have to scan the map to try to read where Mumbai is. There are spelling mistakes galore. The lead section is clumsy, particularly the "and is located on an island..." section. You talk about the new companies located there, but the (tiny tiny) economy section only has an image of auto rickshaws? Is that the most important feature to showcase Mumbai's economy? Also, are there any more recent references? Surely your information about recent changes must have come from somewhere, as the latest printed reference is from 1995. This is why I am objecting. Páll 19:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've referenced the statistics on the economy from Manorama Yearbook 2003 (I've already mentioned it). (The 2005 version should be out soon). In the demographics part; I've referenced the figures from the Times of India newspaper (various issues): Since I do not have the exact date, (I can give you the approx week) I haven't listed it.
  • The history section is a summary of the main points. I would not like to expand it as it would be too long given that there is a main article. Similarly with the economy section. Two paragraphs are perfectly fine since there is a main article. Its within wikipedia policy, and expanding the length would lead to objections from others. The main history article will be having detailed information soon (I've got stuck around 1700: I lost my data over a crash; but will be readding it in a day or two.)
  • The location is marked with a red dot and highlighted with a yellow background. Surely its easy to pick it out? (I can't expand the image as the table would expand.)
  • About the maps: While your points are sound, there's no policy on the "appropriateness" of its inclusion or non-inclusion on this page. If there is a consensus by more reviewers on whether the maps are an impediment or not germane, I'll be happy to concede and remove them. I'll remove the auto-rickshaw image as it conflicts with the economy section.
  • The space after the tranport section is due to the syntax "<br clear="all" />. Its common to use this syntax in many pages if the image overlaps with the next heading. If not used, the result would be horrendous in some resolutions.
    • I've removed the tag.
  • I've removed the autorickshaw image, added images in their relavent section and removed the road map. Also captioned the mosque image to fit into demographics.

Nichalp 19:41, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the rail map, cleaned up some of the lead-in gramamar and some in the article. The odd sentences do not appear incorrect in my word processor and so its a little difficult to catch it. Nichalp 19:40, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
The infobox now sticks out to the side because it does not fit, and the civic administration section has a huge gap at the bottom. This article desperately needs more content. Páll 19:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1)I've removed the space after civic administration. 2) I strongly disagree that the article lacks content. Wikipedia recommends that most pages be under 30kb. This page is ~29.8kb. I religiously stick to this limit in all my articles, providing a summary of the salient points and moving detail to other articles so that the result is not a long and winding article. Since I've made main articles for expansion purposes, it is well within the wikipedia conventions. 3) What do you mean by "infobox now sticks out to the side" ? IMO Its probably a browser quirk. I've tested the page (my resolution is 800x600) on Opera 7.54 and Mozilla and cannot see any problems. Nichalp 20:36, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Páll, This is what I have done: 1) Cleaned up some odd grammar. 2) Removed the rail map 3) Added the reason why Mumbai was renamed (Detailed report will come later) 4) Cleaned up the images by adding them is relevant sections 5) Removed the gaps after each section. What I cannot do is: 1) fix the infobox as I cannot replicate the quirk on my browser. 2) add more detail to the page. From [2] The 32KB (warning comes at 30kb) recommendation is considered by some to have stylistic value; if your article is longer than that, sections probably should be summarised. I would prefer that the page be a summary and detail moved to the main articles. Nichalp 19:02, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I guess that I have taken care of all your objections then? Nichalp 18:40, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Páll is right about the images. Find more representative images and most of all fix the layout. I will support this article once the images are fixed. Otherwise, nice. Support Phils 21:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article with the right amount of images. But can you please move the main infobox to the lead section. It looks better that way and one shouldn't have to scroll for that information. pamri 03:45, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support (As stated in the nomination, I did minor copyedits.) -- Sundar 04:38, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Can't think of what else can be added or taken away. Gaurav 05:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support There are numerous instances where the phrasing of a sentence seems odd to me, but I'm prepared to accept that this might reflect Indian English practice. I would recommend moving the transport map to its subarticle, it doesn't add much where it is. Fawcett5 22:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that there are some sentences that seem odd. I've cleaned up some of the quirks. It would be nice if you could point out further mistakes as they are hard to spot in my word processor. Nichalp 19:38, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Just move the infobox up to the very top and it'll be excellent, but it is great by the way it is already. Squash 05:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If seen a couple of discussions on the placement of the infobox. Most place it after a paragraph or two so that the lead-in doesn't look squeezed to the left. Nichalp 19:38, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • That is new to me, such a policy I never heard of before. Squash 23:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't put it as policy. Articles such as India do have the infobox a little lower. But its really personal preferences as far as I've seen. I don't know if there are any guidelines as to where the box should be. Nichalp 10:03, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • Hi, If you are interested, I could work on the infobox to make it similar to Infobox:India_City (example page Mysore).--IMpbt 18:23, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Thanks, but I feel that the Mumbai infobox is adequately informative. I have some reservations on the Mysore infobox (I'll mention it on that talk page.) Nichalp 19:16, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
              • Okay if it's a personal preference then don't worry about it, just checking :) Squash 05:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is certainly one of the broadest and best organized city articles I've seen, but not having any info on 'notable natives' is inconsistent with the relevant WikiProject's guidelines. Also, while they aren't mentioned there, I'm used to seeing info on twin towns and city in literature content in the most complete city articles. These would all work as 'see alsos' so I don't think size should be a problem. Niteowlneils 03:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1) I had initially thought of adding the sister cities but didn't have the information as to where to find the info after a google search. However after deep searching I have managed to locate all five sister cities and have added them under culture. 2) The "Notable natives" are the guidelines for US cities. I'm not sure as to who qualifies as "notable" and who not, since there are a *lot* of famous residents. Perhaps a dedicated list on another page would be the best thing. Nichalp 18:40, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
I realize that the cities WikiProject as currently written is rather US-centric. However, city articles as diverse as Cairo, Adelaide, and Zürich all have lists of notable people from their city. Picking names off of 'what links here' seems like the most effective way to start such a list. I must admit, looking at a bunch of other city articles has enhanced my appreciation of this one, and the other city FAs--most WP large city articles are either a real mess (eg Cairo or Los Angeles, California) or woefully under-developed (eg Nairobi). Niteowlneils 00:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's an interesting way to start making a page on it prominent citizens. I'll do that later on as 1) I feel that it is an ancillary topic as it doesn't add too much info on the city 2) I'm working on another FA article to submit soon. I don't have any problems on the prominent citizens, but it will be on a new page. I also agree with you that a lot of cities have poor information, mostly in lists et al. Some like Calcutta are informative but boring and long. It would be great if each wikipedian adopts his home city and works on it to be a FA. Nichalp 20:35, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
I've made a page for the notable residents and listed it in the ==see also== section under others. Its stubby, I know, but I hope others can also contribute to it. Nichalp 20:43, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. - Taxman 14:33, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Wladyslaw Sikorski

Partial self-nom. A biography of one of the most famous Polish generals and politicians. War, politics, conspiracies...I hope it is interesting :) I tried to keep it as NPOV and objective as possible, especially given the conspiracy theories part, which is rather tricky - I hope I succeeded, if not, well, tell me what to improve. Comments, as always, expected and welcome. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Good article. Could you make sure we always have English first, with Polish translations, where useful, left in second place? Also, there seems to be a bit too much on the controversy over his death. Perhaps most of the info could be placed in a separate article, with only a passing reference here? Good luck with it! jguk 22:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I am unaware of any policy that English necessarily comes first and in many cases (e.g., the title of a book that has never had English-language publication) this would be actively wrong. Jguk, is this just your personal preference, or is there some policy of which I am unaware? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:24, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's more a case that this is the English Wikipedia, and it's normally better writing to present the reader with something they're familiar with first. There's always Wikipedia:Use English, though that's a naming convention rather than a guideline for the text of an article. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to assume everyone knows what the word "Sejm" means, for example, jguk 06:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • My policy which I have used in my past articles is to use Polish term first if it is used in English and the relevant article is under Polish name, then English/other in parenthesis/italic. In case of Sejm, as it is used in English and the article title is Sejm, not Polish Parliament/Diet, thus any use in article text should be first Sejm (Polish Parliament), then just Sejm. I'd appreciate any comments on this policy if you think it is more confusing then helpful, though. And of course I might have made an error or forgoten to explain some other terms (in case of books without an English translation, I did translate the title, but again, in the above maner). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Weak Object The conspiracy section really needs to be converted to in a coherent narrative form, especially since it forms a major percentage of the text. Surprising also that there is no mention of Sikorski's relationship with one of his most important generals, Stanislaw Sosabowski. Fawcett5 23:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    • Are you referring to the list? While I am usually in favour of minimizing lists in articles, I think that in this case this is an acceptable approach, as this is has a rather logical structure (the most mentioned facts are bullet, bullet, bullet). I feel that if this was merged into paragraphs(s), it would lose some clarity. As for Sosabowski, this is because no source material I read made any significant mention of him (neither does the current wiki article on him). By all means, if you now anything about their relations, do let me know or add this to the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Changed now. Is it better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I withdraw my earlier comments - I have cleaned up the conspiracy section a bit more, and I think it flows better now - but see some html comments I embedded. There is still an issue throughout the article with making the English usage idiomatic, but these are mostly minor problems relating to the use of the definite article, and with sentence structure. I have already started going through and copyediting these. And it turns out there is not too much available on the relationship between Sikorski and Sosabowski. Sikorski did create on 23 September 1941 Sosabowski's Polish 1st Independent Parachute Brigade (confirmed by written order 4 October, 1941). This was notable as Poland's first unit of this type Fawcett5 20:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not bad, but I see some POV, such as in this sentence: "Sikorski's role, as that of all supporters of the London government, would be twisted and minimized in the official communist version of history, and those loyal to the government in exile were subject to imprisonment and even executions." Minimized is probably fine, but "twisted" seems problematic to me. Everyking 12:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The fact is that Sikorski's role was not only minimized, he was called a traitor and a fool in communist propaganda, and various other lies had been made about him (especially in the Stalin era) - starting from the accusation that he collaborated with Nazis (mentioned in the text). IMHO this falls in the area of 'twisting the truth', doesn't it? How would you suggest we rephrase the sentence? I am open for suggestions. I'd appreciate more POVed examples to fix if you say there is more. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I'd suggest spelling out the viewpoint of the Polish communists about him. It doesn't do any good to just say they "twisted" the facts, since twisted has a distinct negative connotation; it's better to explain what they said exactly, presenting the information without overtly judging whether it's true or not. Everyking 12:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, twisted is supposed to have a distinct negative connotation. As already mentioned in the article, communists accused him (without any proof) of cooperating with Nazis. Sounds fairly deserving a negative connotation to me. How would you suggest we rephrase it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • As it appears it is a repeated complaint, I changed it to: his role...would be minimized and distorted by propaganda in the official communist version of history. I hope this is more NPOVed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - Lead section is way too small for an article this size. --mav 17:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I have expanded the lead, it has 3 paragraphs now and takes most of the screen. Are you satisfied? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • First para is now a bit bloated, but overall that was good enough to remove the reason for my objection. I'll take a closer look later to see if I can support. --mav 01:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I'm ignorant of the subject matter, but this appears to be a solid treatment. I caught several spelling/grammar mistakes, though, so it's probably worth going over it carefully to polish it up. 1) The "Controversy over his death" section is in bullet point form: this does need to be reworked into paragraphs.2) Are we sure about "Poland, for whose freedom the world had gone to war" .. is that an accurate summary of the various nations' motives for involvement in World War II? 3) "Lech Walesa became the first President of Poland...in effect retrospectively recognising the legitimacy of the government in exile." ... is it appropriate for a Wikipedia article to judge the legitimacy of this or that historical government? 4) How is he viewed today, in Poland for example...as a hero? Are museums named after him etc? 5) I agree with Everyking's above comment regarding "twisted" — that sentence jumped out at me too. — Matt Crypto 09:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • 1) fixed, although I don't think it is a good idea - still, if it is what majority finds easier to read... 2) changed to Poland, for whose freedom much of the world had gone to war, which looks like a less poetic, more factual representation of the facts (after all, UK and France did went to war to honor their defence guarantees to Poland) 3) I am not sure if I undestand your complain here, but the current goverment of Poland (well, all governments after we became independent again in 1990) does recognize the gov. in exile as its legal predecessor, so I don't see it as any kind of POVed judgement, it is a fact 4) yes, he is a hero - your point being? 5) fixed, see above. Anything else? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your fixes. Regarding 4) If he is regarded as a hero in Poland (or elsewhere), then it would be appropriate to mention this in the article, perhaps even the lead section, to clue in people (like me) with little knowledge of Polish history; it's quite useful to report on modern perceptions of historical figures. re: 3) Again, I emphasise my lack of knowledge in this area, but is it really the case that there is no significant view that sees the decades-long communist government of Poland as legitimate? One other thing: 6) "recently declassified" — can we give a date/month/year of declassification, as "recently" is quite unspecific, and will (eventually) become dated. 7) Come to think of it, we could probably do with some more referencing in the "Controversy" section, particularly when citing quotations from people. — Matt Crypto 17:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • 3) Long story, could make an article in itself. The communist gov was legitimate, so was the London in exile, current Poland recognised obligations from both of them - however the difference is that London one was a democratic, elected government, while the communist one more of an occupation-like. Communist did not view London one as a legit. After 1990, new independdent Poland does recognize it as such. 4) Well, he was an important hero, but this article is not about him, and he is mention just as a sidenote to Sikorski's gov-in-exile legacy, really. And he has his own article. 6) I am afraid I cannot find the exact date, there have been documents declassified from late 1990s, my source for this (the Time article) although sais 'recently declassified under the 30-years rule' but I can only speculate what was the orginal date from which the rule applied :< 7) by using hyperlinked notes and such? It would be a nice touch, but is it really an objection?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the explanations; I'll remove my objection...regarding 4) I meant we should discuss how Sikorski is viewed as a hero; I presume you thought I meant someone else ("this article is not about him"). Re 7) I think that when people are quoted, it's a good idea to try to give a source for the quote. This doesn't necessarily have to be fancy hyperlinked notes -- it could be something like an inline "(Cooper, 1982, p178)" tag, and a corresponding entry in the References section. — Matt Crypto 13:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • 4) I thought you meant Lech Walesa. I will try to research and adress how Sikorski's perception has changed over the past few years, this is an interesting point. 7) Basically, I agree, although this is very rare on Wiki - something we should adress on a more general scale. I'll see what I can do about it in this article as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is informative, reads well, and is NPOV. It takes complex historical situations that are unfamiliar to much of the world and gives them clarity. It really is one of the better articles on the Wikipedia. logologist 04:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Parliament Act

Self-nomination. The German version of this article is a featured article (or the equivalent), I believe, on the German Wikipedia, so I decided to try to bring this up to quality (along with many others). Morwen - Talk 12:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Where are the other main articles relating to this article? Where are the WikiSources regarding to this article? -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Erm, I'm not sure I understand the question. Which "other main articles"? If you mean separate articles on Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949, this article deals with both - it would not make much sense to deal with them separately. Which WikiSources? Even if you mean copies of the Acts (which are subject to Crown copyright), can the absence of WikiSource material be an objection? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • These are not objections, just a comment. I would think that there would be a copy of the text at WikiSource, so that is why I questioned if there was. Also, typically, under sections which have their own article, I normally see something like:
        Main article: Parliament Act 1911
      • -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • But Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949 are just redirects to this article! It would be very odd to therefore have the behaviour you propose. Re WikiSource, the Acts are Crown Copyright and therefore I believe uploading to WikiSource not allowed. Morwen - Talk 07:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • It is a shame that these two articles are just redirects - it'd be nice to have a main article on each which expands on what a mixed article can provide. Keep in mind that in 1911 parliamentarians had no idea that another act would be made 38 years later. --Oldak Quill 13:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Please go ahead if you think there is enough material to write separate articles on both of them, but I think this article deals quite adequately with them in detail and in combination. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but I've also written large chunks of it, so an outside view would be appreciated. The German version, for comparison, is at de:Parliament Act, and has some flow diagrams: if someone can copy and translate them, that would be great. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; I don't particularly like the flow diagrams on the German Wikipedia, TBH. James F. (talk) 12:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I looked at translating it, but ended up agreeing with you. I think the prose explanation is sufficient. Morwen - Talk 20:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair enough - my only reason for mentioning it is that the Parliament Acts are rather hard to illustrate. I suppose a scan of the front page of one of the Acts would be good, although the image of the Palace of Westminster and the people involved do the job for now. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • SupportVery comprehensive and well explained. Giano 13:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm sceptical as to its completeness - particularly as all references are online. Is Erskine-May silent on it? What about what constitutional experts say on the Acts? (Also, though I don't object on this point, isn't the article name wrong - since it's about 2 Acts - the 1911 and 1949 ones?) The article appears to dwell too much on question marks (now resolved) about the 1949 Act. It would also be interesting to have more about the "money bills" provisions, particularly it is only in recent years that the House of Lords has taken upon itself to constitute a Special Subcommittee on each year's Finance Bill, jguk 22:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks: good objections, although I should have thought publications from Parliament and published court judgments (included in the online references) should be authoritative enough. I'm sure that Erskine May will have something to say. I'll see what I can turn up from the books (there are some journal references in the judgments too). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, would be good to expand on the subject of payments to MPs as this is a controversial topic which I hadn't realised the 1911 act introduced. Warofdreams 12:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. In articles like this, where the connections of the illustrations to the article are rather tenuous, the image captions need to do a better job of explaining the connection (see Wikipedia:Captions). For example, the portrait of Lloyd George could be captioned "The Parliament Act 1911 was passed to enable Asquith's Liberal government of 1908–1916 to push through Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George's land tax." (But I think the length of that caption shows that the connection is a little bit too tenuous. A picture of Asquith would be better.) Gdr 12:51, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

History of Cape Colony from 1870 to 1899

Self-nom. I have spent a lot of time writing and editing the History of the Cape Colony articles. Normally I know that articles in a series tend to not be eligible for FAC, but this article covers a set period of time (from the discovery of diamonds to right before the Second Anglo-Boer War) that I believe it is eligible. In fact, an earlier article from the series, History of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870 is currently a featured article. Thank you! Páll 17:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I read the whole thing. I don't know the history beyond what you wrote so can't say if it if is comprehensive, but it certainly is very well written. So until somebody comes along saying that it is not comprehensive, I'm going to assume it is and thus add my support. --mav 02:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I know nothing about this, but it is a very well written article, and makes it interesting to read. In my opinion it is approaching the perfect article, so I have no problems adding my full support. Good luck with this. Eric Burnett 07:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Great! Support. Everyking 08:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Amazingly detailed and comprehensive. A definite support! DO'Neil 09:10, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Superb addition to the 1806-1870 period article. I hope this leads later to a similar development of the 1899-1910 one, and maybe of the Boer War article as well. -- Shauri 10:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Just waiting for the rest of the series to be FACed :) Good job! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Cape Colony from 1870 to 1899/History comments
Comments after FAC complete

Well written, but I do find it biased in favour of British colonialist powers - notably Rhodes. Sir Thomas Pakenham's authoritative account of the Second Boer War (in the book by that title), offers a much more balanced and insightful account of the reasons for the war and the politics involved. His assessment of both Milner and Rhodes is scathing. j.louwAug 2005

The map of South Africa is incorretly labelled. The Cape Colony is coloured red, but in fact on the map includes Natal. While Natal was British, it was not part of the Cape Colony at the time of the Anglo Boer was. The map gives the mistaken impression that it was. Denis Nathan 23:05 November 6th 2005.

Comet Hyakutake

Hyakutake was the first comet I ever saw. Alleged to have been more impressive than Comet Hale-Bopp when it was at its brightest, it broke a 20 year drought of Great Comets, and turned up some very surprising results for cometary scientists. I've been working on this article over the last few weeks and I think it's near enough comprehensive now, so I'm nominating it for featured status. Worldtraveller 13:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you! It was partly your claim about it being better than Hale-Bopp which made me think I'd better try to get this one up to featured status as well :) Worldtraveller 17:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While Worldtraveller's edits have greatly benefitted this article, I think there is still a more more that can be done. A pronunciation guide for the word Hyakutake is needed, and the whole article in general can be lengthened. I also just went through and re-aligned the images, as they were oddly placed and sized. Furthermore, I think the lead section needs attention. Páll 17:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments, but could you be more specific? Apart from how to pronounce the name, what else is needed? I think I tend to have quite a concise writing style but I believe I've covered all the major facets of the comet's appearance. Also, what is wrong with the lead section? Worldtraveller 17:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
When you format the images so that they are not tiny, such as the image that is sized at 150px, the image in the lead section fits oddly into the text and there are a few ways to work around that. I think the images for a comet need to be larger and more clear, and also it is preferred that the images stay to the right so that you do not have images beginning a paragraph of forcing a paragraph to be right-justified. Páll 18:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Páll, I'd really like to address your objections but I'm still not sure of what they are; in particular 'the whole article in general can be lengthened' - how? What extra information should be in there?; and 'the lead section needs attention' - in what way? Worldtraveller 23:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The pronounciation of Hyakutake is, I think should be written as /hjakutake/. First mora, Hya is not pronounced as in Hyatt but more like "Shark". Revth 03:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for that info - sad to say I've been butchering the pronunciation badly all these years :(. Is '/hjakutake/' the way it would be written in IPA? Worldtraveller 23:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I checked again (using Wikipedia's articles), and it's either /ħʝakutake/ or /ħʃakutake/. Revth 01:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks for that - I added that to the article, assuming you mean either pronunciation is acceptable. Worldtraveller 12:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Phils 21:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - very nice improvement. KingTT 00:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Suppport - Sure. A nice story, meets all the FA requirements. Fawcett5 22:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good. JYolkowski 23:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, lookin' good!  ALKIVAR™ 00:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It still needs that pronounciation guide tho!  ALKIVAR™ 18:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. - BanyanTree 14:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Brian Close

A man dogged by controversy, and a life full of ups and downs. It's been on peer review, and I think it's ready for promotion. Self-nomination, jguk 19:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Minor Object. Good article, but the quotes should go to WikiQuote. A better close-up picture would also be nice. Jeronimo 07:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I've moved the quotations to WikiQuote (which is quite a shame as it probably means they'll never get read, but there goes). I've already searched the web and plundered the piccis that we can claim as fair use (checking on IRC as I went), so I'm not sure I'm going to get a better fair use image - still, it's clear enough what he looks like from what we do have, jguk 20:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Support. Jeronimo 21:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nichalp 18:45, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: couple small things. 1) As an american who's not very familiar with cricket this article does not establish why he's important in the intro. 2) you say he was "dogged by controversy" I dont know anything about that based on the intro. 3) Some of the cricket terminology needs to be fleshed out into more basic terms for those less familiar. 4) quite a few redlinks (yes I know this is not an actionable objection) it would be appreciated if you could try to throw something up for more of those my personal standard is no more than 4 per section. Some of those should just be dab'd to the right article. Support, you worked out my objections well. At least now people unfamiliar with Brian Close will get a good idea of why he is important based on the intro.  ALKIVAR™ 00:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comments. (1) I've rewritten the intro (2) The revised intro now gives examples of some of the controversies (3) I've explained or altered or linked in the cricket terminology - if there's anything else you think should be explained, please let me know what it is (4) I've created a few stubs and gotten rid of the links to articles that are unlikely to be written any time soon, jguk 11:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good article, with all the right boxes and sufficient references. Sports articles rarely make the front page it seems and it would help convince interested Wikipedians to see such a comprehensive article on the main page. Cricket being obscure is rubbish, its the same for baseball in the UK, in that its a sport more popular in some areas than others. Hedley 20:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - a good article on an interesting character (I should add that I have contributed to it). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Country Wife

Self-nom, 17th-century-cruft. A literary classic that's been offending right-thinking people since 1675. Bishonen | Talk 23:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • A example of literary cruft at its finest; support. My only complaint is the repetition of the early quote dismissing The Country Girl in favor of The Country Wife; I would hope a replacement could be found for the second instance of it. Everyking 00:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, I'm keeping an eye out, but very, very little has been said about The Country Girl at all. Maybe I should just lose the quote in one of the places. Glad you like the cruft! :-) Bishonen | Talk 00:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not sure I'd consider this "cruft"; it's just one more example of a work of art that suffered ignomnity due to changing tastes & shifting ethics. But the facts in the case are quite admirably set forth. -- llywrch 01:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: I have not contributed to this article, at least not a word of any contributions I ever made remains, as Bishonen has done a 100% rewrite. I think the anecdotes thing really is a bit of a tin can tied to the cat's tail, and I'd as soon see it gone (not that it isn't a good anecdote, but the article doesn't really admit of any anecdotes). Honestly, this article sets the bar very high for us other litgeeks. Geogre 03:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Geogre, you must have a cache issue, it is gone. Bishonen | Talk 03:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see that. Comments amended. Geogre 15:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, great stuff. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:31, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Of course. — mark ✎ 08:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work. Though "The few modern critics who have read Garrick's version typically dismiss it as "sentimental and boring, where The Country Wife is astringent and provocative"." is used twice. RickK 07:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article, just the kind of stuff I'd really like to see on the Main Page. I especially like the inclusion of sections on the original actors and modern criticism. Tobyox 07:59, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, and more like it, please. Filiocht 08:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I read this when it was discussed on the IRC channel. Definately worthy.  ALKIVAR™ 11:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Enjoyed reading the article. very comprehensive. kaal 21:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Fantastic article. I shall re-read the original with new eyes and understanding! Giano 21:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Lucid, erudite stuff. --Theo (Talk) 00:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support jguk 21:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Ganymead 01:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) Too bad we don't have more people like you working on theatre entries!

Carl G. Fisher

This is a self-nomination. I was working on another subject, and hit a red internal link. I was surprised to learn Wikipedia didn't already have an article on this remarkable man. The fellow was a child with a severe a sight-impairment disability who got into bicycle and auto racing, who helped and promote sealed beam headlights, opened what is believed to be the first automobile dealership, caused the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to became paved for safety reasons, was the driving force behind the Lincoln Highway (the first U.S. transcontinental paved roadway), and the north-south Dixie Highway which led to Florida where he became a real estate developer and helped turn a barren and isolated beach area into the resort city of Miami Beach, Florida. Although he lost his fortune in the U.S. Stock Market Crash in the late 1920s, and died in modest conditions while fighting alcoholism, considering himself a failure, he is widely regarded as one of the most influential in Florida history. As I believe seems true with better Wikipedia articles, this article benefited from collaboration, especially some good tweaking by User:Niteowlneils. The images are from the U.S. Library of Congress. Book and Internet references provided. Vaoverland 19:05, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Minor comment on first glance - has it been established that alcoholism is an inherited trait? Alcoholism doesn't seem to say anything about it. --SPUI (talk) 22:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I removed the descriptions as "an inherited trait", as I could not find where that statement originated in the sources. It should suffice that the father had it, and later it was a problem for the son as well. Reader can draw any inference appropriate (learned behavior, heredity, coincidence, etc.) Does this edit satisfactorily address your legitimate concern? Vaoverland 23:09, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'd like to see more photos; are there any photos of the places before or just after Mr. Fisher was involved? I've gone through with a quick copy edit to fix some grammar and links. slambo 19:25, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
I will go to Library of Congress website and search for more photos. Vaoverland 23:20, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
I added a nice b&w racing photo of him from Library of Congress collection. There are also many Lincoln Highway photos but none which tie directly to Fisher, who was of course, its founding force. There is a nice color photo used in the WP Indianapolis Motor Speedway article. Suggestions for other photos or improvements, anyone? Vaoverland 21:05, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
If I could strengthen my support on this one, I would now. Well done! slambo 00:14, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I've made some minor changes, but overall it looks complete. -- BRIAN0918  23:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Fisher was a major figure in the U.S. of his time. He might be more admired in the Libertarian quarters of today as he advocated the idea that the auto industry should fund roadways. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well I suppose this is worthless me even posting this, but I think it has pretty much all it needs before turning into a hard, boring book. It has valid childhood and career descriptions, and you can find pretty much everything you want to know about Fisher plus nice little bits on the side. Speedway 15:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article on an obscure figure, the sort of person Wikipedia is perfect for. I have a book on the Lincoln Highway and have read it but Fisher's name did not register with me. A few quibbles:
He was named an influential Floridian. By whom?
I had already provided the source under references, but have added to text. [3]
Memorial Day 1911 is mentioned with the Speedway. Could you add the specific date as well?
May 30, 1911, added to text
The length of the Lincoln Highway is noted but about how long was the Dixie Highway? (I was just on the latter this morning as it happens.)
In research, I have not found yet found a written description of exact length, or even exact routing. This is really hard, because apparently, the Dixie Highway designation included several parallel route links and spurs. There is 1923 map at a this link which would clarify that problem. [4].
In the section on his headlight business, there's a sentence talking about the many factories springing up. Does that refer to auto factories or his headlight factories?
I intended to refer to the auto factories. I have reworded for better clarity.
All these are small points which in no way keep me from saying: Good job, Vaoverland. PedanticallySpeaking 17:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support with the one minor quibble that it would be good to have a separate "external links" and "see also" section so that people can put links for more information without claiming that they were used to write the article. --Andrew 19:13, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
I personally like the "see also" section at the end of article for easy travel to related subjects after reading an article. However, if they have already been linked in the article, which also seems appropriate, then I I am under an impression that this is not the WP way to do it. I'd love to change this article do do that. Comments? Vaoverland 02:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I would, however, suggest that the listing of the two books near the end of the body of the article is made redundant by their (quite correct) inclusion in the Sources section. --Theo (Talk) 01:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have separated the true external links only from the ones which were sources of factual content for the article. I prefer to credit quotes of any length from sources directly as used in the article as well, which seems a bit redundant. Also, in some cases, who said it (IE his ex-wife) makes a difference to comprehending the article itself. If anyone else can help with doing this better, its all good with me, as getting this to become the quality of a FA is all about collaboration. Thanks for the comments and support, all. Mark in Richmond Vaoverland 02:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Update: After suggestion from another WP user, I have clarified the routing of the Dixie Highway to eliminate possible misinformation not material to this article, and improved the lead slightly. Vaoverland 04:23, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Update: Image source from another user produced a nice grand opening photo of the Collins Bridge. Vaoverland 04:52, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Update: another image added from the Florida Photographic Collection (great additional resource for PD photos for WP as suggested by SPUI). There are more, but I think we probably have a good balance now. Vaoverland 01:19, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava a.k.a Lord Dufferin

Not a self nom. I found this article during its peer review, and have made a number of suggestions and relatively minor copyedits — Worldtraveller is most definitely the hero here. By any standard, this article has undergone an extremely productive peer review — it has morphed from a non-comprehensive piece that even suffered from a few potentially copyvio passages to a comprehensive, well written and extensively researched biography of a fascinating man who lived during a compelling historical period. The size is good, it is appropriately referenced, and is accompanied by several relevant images. Although the article was previously nominated some time ago and did not then garner much support, the current article bears almost no resemblance to the previous nomination. In my opinion, this piece is an example of how peer review should work, and the result should now be recognised as an example of Wikipedia's finest. Fawcett5 22:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Of course. Phils 12:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 15:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support awesome work. Crisbas 01:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Remarkable article! Ganymead 21:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)