Contents 1 Keratoconus 2 William Tecumseh Sherman 3 Military history of France 4 Mexicanos, al grito de guerra 5 Pakistan 6 Philosophy of mind 7 S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 8 Battle of Cannae 9 History of Puerto Rico 10 Hurricane Iniki 11 History of Michigan State University 12 Mini 13 United States Bill of Rights 14 J. R. R. Tolkien 15 Albatross 16 Turkish literature 17 Bruce Johnson (politician) 18 Roman Vishniac 19 Sassanid Empire 20 Che Guevara 21 The Illuminatus! Trilogy 22 Bulbasaur 22.1 Summary 22.2 Support 22.3 Object 22.4 Comments 23 X Window core protocol 24 Chetwynd, British Columbia 25 Joan of Arc 26 Starship Troopers 27 George Washington Dixon 28 Eric A. Havelock 29 Manuel I Comnenus 30 Bath School disaster 31 Lothal 32 Red vs Blue 33 Noah's Ark 34 Frog 35 Hurricane Floyd 36 Thomas Pynchon 37 Antarctica 38 Salsa music 39 Second Malaysia Plan 40 Isambard Kingdom Brunel 41 New Radicals 42 Chew Valley Lake 43 Donkey Kong (arcade game) 44 Western Front (World War I)

Keratoconus

(Self-nom). This article has expanded substantially over the last few months, and I believe offers a comprehensive overview of a little-known, yet significant ophthalmic disease. A peer review was requested some weeks ago and comments raised there addressed. --BillC 10:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Would have expected it to be one after finding it by chance. —Nightstallion (?) 11:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very good and detailed article. Tarret 17:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Some comments:

• The lead should give "why" it's important. How many people are affected each year, prevalence (sp), what age group. Also, should mention something about etiology.
• I would drop the inline citation in the lead, it's distracting and inconsistent, as multiple claims are given in the lead, while only one is given a citation. (similary, in medical or science journals, rarely is the abstract given a citation, and the lead is the abstract here).
• History part is a bit insufficient. In addition to naming the people involved in studying the disease, should contain information about what did they "know" at the time and what "remained" to be known. Even though more about description of disorder can be added, history part now looks very good and put into context
• Diagnosis is hard to follow. Should contain a mini-intro about "rationale" for the methods. Ex. First Snellen test, since it's what every opthalamologist do first. Then physical examination of cornea such as curvature, features, colors, because keratoconus has the following features. Then go into specific methods. The current form goes to the methods first without providing a rationale first, and I think it's unclear. Diagnosis section now is clearer and easy to read.

The sentence "opthal tend not to ask what patients see," what's the rationale? Is it relevant?

• Cause, minor rephrase "the disease sometimes running within families" to "the disease running in certain families." Rephrase "cornea by proteases (a class of enzymes), which break some of the collagen" to "cornea by proteases, enzymes that break some of collagen." By the way, what kind of protease, any proteases? Are they overexpressed or just overactive?
• Genetic background should be expanded to more than just one sentence. Most people don't bother to read the journal, so should summarize about what loci is the putative gene involved, presumably the mutation runs in the family, and what the the suspected gene (cornea specific enhancer element, protease...?)
• The treatment sections are better than other IMO. But various mentions of company names, is it proper? I am not for either side.
• Other diseases: don't put the author who wrote a review in this section. Instead, link to that section as inline citation or as reference.

• Summary Overall the article has it's potentials. Grammer and others are fine, the main things are the lead should bring relevance, history should be expanded, and the diagnosis part should first give rationale for methods, then describe the methods themselves. I think this article is a good example of what wikipedia should have more as its FA, so I won't oppose here. These comments (objections) are easily actionable, when they are fixed, I'll give my strong support. Temporary account 22:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• update Very good edits by the nominator, I haven't comprehensively re-read the article, but right now looks a lot better. I'll come back in a few days to see if any changes are made and give my support then. Nice job. Temporary account 19:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive response above. Have made the following changes so far:

• Strengthen lead section to indicate prevalence, age groups affected, and some introduction to etiology.
• Remove single citation from lead section.
• Removed reviewing authors' names from the final section. --BillC 19:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Rephrased 'Cause'. More work on enzyme action required.
• Expanded history slightly, but a visit to Moorfields Eye Hospital library in the next few days is required, I think.
• Removed corporate names from Intrastromal Rings section, though I think the device names ought to remain, as to many these are the names by which they are known. "Intacs" is turning up in PubMed searches paper titles, for example. --BillC 21:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Added more to History.
• Rewrote diagnosis to explain clinical methodology better.
• Expanded on a couple of short paragraphs, and combined another two. --BillC 07:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• The latest changes:

• Removed redundant term from first para.
• Expanded history
• Added to genetics section
• Added handheld keratoscope and retinoscopy
• Gel injection as a intrastromal ring modality
• Combined some of the shorter paras.
• Added incidence rate--BillC 19:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Good information, it seems very well researched. The biggest problem lies in the short paragraphs that make for choppy prose. Combine or expand any under 3 sentences to make for fuller ideas and smoother prose. 2) I'm a bit concerned about the note at the end on Posterior keratoconus. That suggests this article should be at 'anterior keratoconus', and a more general article or a disambiguation at Keratoconus. Otherwise the other condition is buried in a spot few would find if they only see this article. - Taxman ^Talk 18:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

'Ordinary' keratoconus is almost never called 'anterior keratoconus', but simply as keratoconus. (A google for "anterior keratoconus" produced 182 hits; one for "keratoconus -anterior" produced 376,000). I used the qualifier there to distinguish from posterior keratoconus, which is a different disease, as did my source for that section. I will reword that para to remove the word anterior. If anything, posterior keratoconus could have its own article under that name, though it is a rare condition. I will also review the text to try to combine some of the shorter paragraphs. --BillC 19:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine to justify the naming. Once the rest of the items that have been brought up here have been addressed, I would certainly support. - Taxman ^Talk 22:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Call me conservative (and consider that I am not a native speaker), but constructions like can affect the person's ability to, for example, legally drive a car or are effective enough to allow the patient to still drive a car make me feel slightly nauseated. Split infinitives are ugly, and split infitives with inserted clauses are unspeakably ugly, IMHO. Kosebamse 10:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am of course biased, having written those sentences, but as a native speaker didn't see anything drastically wrong with them. I have however reworded them to remove the split infinitives. They were the only such examples I could find in the article. --BillC 21:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Support. Well referenced and comprehensive, a fine article. Kosebamse 04:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

William Tecumseh Sherman

This article was originally nominated by Kross in January. It had already had a positive peer review, but its nomination failed largely because on insufficient references (see archived discussion). I think that all of the issues raised then have now been addressed. The article as it stands is scrupulously referenced. It offers a balanced and very readable account of the life and work of a major historical figure. The images complement the text of the article nicely. I think this is the best source of general information on Sherman that is currently available on the web to the general public.

This is a self-nomination in that the bulk of the edits after the first featured article nomination failed are by me, though John Flaherty and Hal Jespersen also contributed significantly. -- Eb.hoop 18:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support, but I would like to see more footnotes -- one per paragraph would be nice. Ideally the new format (see WP:FN) should be used. Johnleemk | Talk 18:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well done. RyanGerbil10 21:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Definitely a Good Article, but not quite featured quality yet, I think.
  • According to WP:LEAD, the lead section should be three paragraphs long for this article.
  • Most of the sections are stubby, consisting of only one or two paragraphs. Consolidate sections, or, if there is enough to write about, expand them (preferred). If this makes the article too large, use summary style and split the article up.
  • Each section should have at -least- one inline citation. It would be nice to have at least one per paragraph.
• I didn't have time for a more thorough review of content and writting style, but I'll get back to that later (hopefully later tonight). But the above issues are obvious and need to be fixed. Fieari 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the lead was too short, and have now expanded it to three paragraphs. I also have added a few extra references, and expanded some sections. The footnotes are now in the new format. Please take a look! -- Eb.hoop 00:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This is a well organized, well referenced, well written, and well balanced article. Introduction, layout, and image use are all appropriate. FA material by all standards. Durova 15:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Clear, well-referenced, NPOV. One to be proud of. Hydriotaphia 04:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Military history of France

Self-Nomination This article was checked by the Military History Peer Review and the regular peer review, although it has received no replies at all on the latter (but many on the military history one), so I decided to place it here on FAC.

I decided to expand and improve this article because I’m interested in the subject and I felt it was very under-covered in its initial version. Pictures were added, information referenced, sources increased, categorization improved, grammatical and spelling errors fixed, the number of battles and wars greatly expanded, visual quality got better, and descriptions also became more detailed. I greatly appreciate any and all input. I also just want to clarify a few things (these will become clearer after you’ve read/reviewed the article, so please do that first):

1. The article is somewhat long, but this is out of necessity, not oversight. I can’t change the fact that French military history was long, but I did try to be as economical as I could.

2. On the other hand, someone could claim that the article is short. For example, one could object to the fact that some wars (Revolutionary and Napoleonic) are covered as separate categories while whole periods of centuries received a category. This is because some periods, like the ones mentioned, witnessed profound change in warfare, and the literature also reflects this division. One of the books I used (it was on general world military history), for example, devotes one chapter of about 20 pages on 1,000 years of Medieval warfare while giving one chapter of the same length to 23 years of Revolutionary and Napoleonic warfare.

3. Because the article may be judged as (probably) long, I have included many pictures for variety and “visual entertainment,” but I would more than concur should anyone suggest some need to be taken away. However, the very reason why I put so many up was to provide some balance.

4. Below the descriptions for each era of warfare are the major conflicts (organized into wars and battles) that occurred in that era. But you’ll notice that for most categories, not every war or battle featured in the tables at the end is included in the descriptions; this is because those descriptions are meant to give a feel for what happened and why it happened. They are not meant to regurgitate every war or battle that French military history covers (that in itself is impossible, anyway). In the military history peer review, there was an objection that the tables at the end of the descriptions should perhaps be removed. This is very sensible indeed, as it would save a lot of space, but on the other hand, it would take away a unique experience for those readers who want to delve further into the topic and check out a battle in 1799, let’s say, that wasn’t covered in the description. The battle and war selection is also arbitrary and selective, but this is mostly due to the fact that wikipedia has limited resources on the respective topics, not because I forgot a certain important war or decided not to include this or that battle because I didn’t feel like it. Furthermore, there is much analysis of society and politics and how they shaped particular eras. This just follows from modern military theory that war has many different aspects besides what happens on the battlefield.

5. There are some online footnotes (six), which I more than realize is a weakness. However, they do not in themselves represent important claims, and because of that I thought it would be more convenient if I used online sources. One was a copy of part of the Versailles Treaty (primary source). One is a Britannica article on the “Grand Empire,” which does little more than give a casual description of that term (and I wanted nothing but that, so I thought it would suffice). One is a link to another wiki page on the Demographics of France, and if I must find another source for that then I will. One is a site on French colonization that I used for the size of the French colonial empire; a book might have been more reliable here, but I went back myself and added the number of squared miles of France at the time in question and found the number to be correct. The last is a site that talks about the controversy regarding the date of a battle, and the issue at stake is between several different historical authorities claiming different things (you’ll see in the site).

6. Articles in wikipedia look different depending on the text size or screen size in which you are viewing them. The way in which I expanded this article means that for optimal visual quality you should use the “Larger” text size. To do this (in Internet Explorer), go to “View,” then “Text Size,” and select “Larger.” If you don’t do this, the spatial relation between the words and the pictures will look disjointed. This can sometimes be a big problem in wikipedia, and someone needs to find a way to fix it. Also, a desktop would be ideal because of the large screen size.

7. An earlier judge objected to pictures being right underneath headers. Fortunately, the article’s creator pointed out that several other articles have this. In fact, many others do (including some very recent ones), and this article is definitely among them. It makes stylistic sense to do that; putting pictures at the top, right besides the text, is a way to lure in readers and keep them interested.

8. Almost at the very end of the article, there are three lists of military institutions, alliances, and leaders. Some of these have been mentioned during the regular parts of the article, and others haven’t. Still, they are there to provide outlets for others wishing to learn more about different aspects of French military history.

That’s it. Thank you in advance for all comments and suggestions.UberCryxic 03:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I think that the "French Colonial Empire" section should be immediately before "Modern Period" and not after. My understanding of French military history is far from thorough, but what I saw here I liked. Andrew Levine 03:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This is a good article, and I think it does a satisfactory job of meeting the required standards. It is well-written and looks superb. On the other hand, even though I support, I think a few things could be revamped. For example, the lists at the end of the article are complete unnecessary and should be taken off. There's no real sense that they "provide outlets." It's just basically lists, without explanations of the alliances or leaders, that take up space. The "French Expeditionary Corps" redlink should probably be removed, leaving just the "Russian Civil War" (this was done with other wars where no battles were listed). The intro could also use a bit more work (in being shorter). But overall, I think the standards have been met, and we have an article worthy of fa here.Prometheus123 03:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Great, relevant images and prose that is very easy to read. Does a great job in avoiding bias, and even treats all periods of French history equally instead of favoring the more recent like some editors (i.e. me) would've done. Definite FA material. Juppiter 03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help guys. Ok, the French Colonial Empire has been placed before the Modern Period and I've removed the redlink to the Expeditonary Corps. But Prometheus, I'd like to see what the opinions of others on the lists are. I think some people may support them.UberCryxic 04:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think those lists are very helpful. If they were removed from the article I'd put them back in. Andrew Levine 04:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose -- 1) The article is long, but you can definately author it in summary style. Move unnecessary detail to daughter articles, and summarise the same here. 2) Those bulleted text at the end of each section look downright ugly. 3. There are issues with all browsers and resolutions but 800x600, the standard web resolution is regarded as the default. 4. A copyedit is needed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  I'm still not happy with a lot of the issues.

1. =Themes in French military history= reads like an overview (which is the function of the lead). Military history of Canada for example is chronological and starts off immediately with "European colonization".
2. Important milestones in Caesar's conquest: is a list and be prosified.
3. Immediately prior to Charlemagne, the Franks were preoccupied with.. why is the article not written chronologically? Why not merge the two sections?
4. Lots of essay type phrases: It could be said that French military history; the zenith of their power; afford a better understanding; By the time of the Crusades; Indeed, given the successes of Henry V,; It could be claimed
5. France had a particularly favorable climate ... sophisticated and increasingly more expensive and more impenetrable armor. How does one the link climate with armor? Why is France singled out?
6. more impenetrable???

I'd have to stop here. There's also simply too much detail (specific instances, figures etc.) in the article. A summary is definately needed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok Nichalp, I've made the following changes: the Gauls section is now completely in prose, the Franks and Carolingian sections have been merged (so have the wars and battles in the list at the French wars and battles category), and I cleared out many of those annoying phrases (also, Wayward already performed a wonderful copyedit). I deleted the parts about the armor. A note on the themes section: it is not like the lead because it is not chronological. It merely informs people of important characteristics of the topic without many references to events (a fundamental difference with the lead). I believe it is a very important and crucial section in the article since it gives beginners a good starting point; something to keep in the back of their mind as they actually are reading the chronological accounts. Let me know if you have any more requests. Thanks very much.UberCryxic 17:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

1. It still needs a copyedit. I've still found two "Indeed"s and wesel terms such as "Some have aruged"; "Perhaps some of the most celebrated military rivalries". 2. I'm not convinced with the argument that the themes need to exist. Such a section conflicts with the goal of having a smooth and logical flow of the matter at hand. See Wikipedia:Lead section. The lead section needs to be trimmed down by omitting names of people, specific wars and dates. The =themes= section can be heavily condensed into three sentences and included right in the beginning of the lead section. 3. =Napoleonic France= needs to be cut down. The section is too long. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The indeeds have been removed and the "Some have argued" now reads "Some historians have argued" (I have to phrase it like this because it's not an undisputed fact). The Napoleonic section has been considerable shortened and looks visually better; I think it's now in line with the others. I based much of this article on the Military history of Canada, and the lead there mentions both specific years and wars. Also, for a 53 kb article, a 3-paragraph lead with that size seems appropriate. The themes section does many good things that just simply aren't covered in other areas (and that would be better if they were covered in a section like this). If you would like to give people a stronger sense of chronology, then what do you think about moving it all the way to the end, so the article starts with "Gauls" right away? I'm just hesitating to remove it because I think it serves some very useful functions; things that the lead can't do (the lead is expected to give the chronological account of French military history, and it does that, but it is not expected to provide information on motifs or themes; neither the lead in the Military history of Canada or the Military history of the Soviet Union does that). Thanks again!UberCryxic 17:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think some historians have argued is any better or needed. What historians argue that? It's partially covered in that the refutation of the theory at least tangentially covers the existance of the argument, but that's not ideal. It's a pretty good article, but I'd like to see that last few short paragraphs expanded or merged to eliminate choppy prose. - Taxman ^Talk 18:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

=Themes in French military history= Is it original research? these rivalries and objectives give a better understanding of French military history than a mere chronological listing. ..for whom? I'm still not convinced why we can't use a summary the themes section in the lead. I usually never copyedit, but I can summarise over the weekend if needed. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nichalp, it is my opinion that readers unaccustomed to the topic will benefit from that section by learning why some of these wars occurred rather than "here are the wars; have fun." For that reason, I am strongly disinclined to remove this category. Including the themes in the introduction would make it embarrasingly long as the lead is unequivocally the place for the chronological account of French military history. But, if you do want it removed, then I guess I'll have no choice but to comply. Before I do that, however, I want you to tell me whether you have any other requests so I can take care of those first. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to excide the =themes=, but weave it within the lead section instead. I'll support the article once this is done. (I have a small minor request. That roundel image can be converted into an .svg image. Not essential though.). Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)r

Done and done Nichalp. After careful consideration though, I decided to just delete the themes section and not include any of its information in the lead as I didn't think it was essential enough to merit being placed there. I know it's not exactly what you wanted, but now the lead remains of appropriate length and the structure of the article follows that of its Canadian counterpart more closely. Tell me what you think; thanks!UberCryxic 14:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep I agree with you. I've removed the "Some have argued part" and it now just says "One of the driving.." and so on. French air force, navy, and linguistic influence have all been merged under the section "Topical subjects" (someone welcome to suggest a better name for it).UberCryxic 19:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

About the copyedit, would you mind if you did it? My worry is that because I wrote most of this article, I'll be hesitating about taking things away. I've already done several copyedits and we've still been having problems. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

All-right, I did another copyedit.UberCryxic 15:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed some .gif images in the article. They need to be converted to png. GIFs are only meant for animated images. Secondly, please try and fix a standard width to the images (this applies to images where width>height). I've done the svg roundel image for you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made the png versions. Support' now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Per Nichalp on the copyediting, but the article is very well written, so in no way would I use that to oppose. Also, the bulleted texts aren't ugly at all. They're very well-placed and fit in well with the rest of the text. I agree with Andrew on the lists at the end; keep them. Only thing I would suggest is to make the Franks category larger; as it is, a bit too small. In the end, great article and deserves FA.ThePro2 05:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support An interesting subject complex due to the length of time the article covers. I particularly like the list battles at the end of each section, very useful further reading. The only minor issue i have is in formatting around those list. Suggest a repositioning of Images to fill the large white areas as has occured in French Colonial Empire, this being a minor issue that its not sufficient to object. Suggest you consider an image of the periods major weapon(s) to fill the space as opposed to reformatting the current document. Gnangarra 10:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

comment continued support even with the loss of the list. Gnangarra 04:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Article very reader-friendly for the layperson. -- Sinatra 12:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nichalp. Those lists are really unsightly, and 60+ KB is too much for one article. — BrianSmithson 13:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment: In addition to my aversion to the aesthetics of the lists, they also bother me the same way all "See also" sections bother me. If something is a pertinent associated article, it should be linked in the main text of the article. Can you imagine if every article followed this one's example by appending lengthy "see also" lists at the end of each section? It's not a style I'd like to see mimicked by other pieces. If the lists are kept, they should be broken out into secondary articles, such as List of French wars and battles of the Middle Ages or some better name. The same goes for the long lists at the end of the article ("List of famous French military leaders" etc.) These lists are a large part of the reason this article is so large (66 KB!), and this is precisely because this is the type of stuff that should be broken out per summary style guideliness. Make these sepearate list articles, provide your links, and the main article will look and read better. The people who have supported the lists above will still have the information available, and I can forgive any excess of length at that point. — BrianSmithson 13:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing to Support. Bon travail! — BrianSmithson 12:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

All-right, I've made the following changes and the article has now shrunk to 57kb: I deleted the Medieval, Ancien Regime, French Revolutionary Wars, Napoleonic Wars, and Modern Period war and battle lists. I also deleted French military alliances. A lot more material has been taken to the "See also" around the bottom of the article. As of yet, those lists have not been made into their own articles to link off from "See Also," (so far I've only done this for the famous French military leaders and the naval battles at the end of the navy cateogry) but if there's support for this, then I'll go ahead and create those. However, I left out the lists in the first few categories and the lists in the French Colonial Empire, Air Force, and Navy since there's not much white space in those categories. But if you want them taken away Brian, I'll do it. Just tell me how you think it looks now. Thanks for your comments.UberCryxic 15:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks better. One thing you might consider (in order to get rid of all the lists but not lose any content) is to start List of French battles or List of battles in France (or some better title) where you could list as many battles as will fit (including all of those you have listed now, as well as red-linked ones that will hopefully spur further efforts from other editors). Best of all, you could add a piped link to this article after each section, thus clearing away all the boxes. For example, [[List of French battles#Frankish_period|List of Frankish battles]] would bring the reader to a list virtually identical to the one under "The Franks" now while keeping the article sleek-looking and smaller KB-wise. — BrianSmithson 16:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: I noticed somebody changed a particularly important part in the very first paragraph. What used to read as "peoples of France" now reads "the French." This makes it easier to read, but I'm afraid it's somewhat historically incorrect (which is why I used the phrase I did). The Franks, which made many of those important military developments, were Germanic and inter-mixed with the indigineous Gallo-Roman population, so Germany and France have just as much a right to claim them as "theirs." The reason why I wrote "peoples of France" is to avoid conflict like this. I don't think most laypeople would care, but a military "hardass" like myself would be skeptical about that comment. But I won't press it anymore. Overall, I liked the copyediting very much (thanks Wayward). UberCryxic 15:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say change it back. You researched this topic, so you know what you're talking about and what the best wording should be. — BrianSmithson 16:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I did change it back, and I'm in the process of implementing your suggestions. When I'm done, there should be no more boxes (*tears*).UberCryxic 16:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok I created a List of French wars and battles article, so the remaining Gallic, Frankish, Carolingian, and French Colonial Empire battles/wars have been moved there. I deleted the five articles on the French Navy since they describe the current navy. But there is a link to the French Navy in the summary, and those five articles are linked in that article for anyone who wants to check them out. Also, the Zouaves picture had to go since when I took out the lists it was intruding on the space of the Modern Period. However, there is still one more box left, and that's under the Air Force. This last remaining box holds the three historical articles on the French Air Force, and because it doesn't hurt visual quality and doesn't repeat anything mentioned in the summary, I'd like to keep it there. But once again, check it out and let me know how you think it looks.UberCryxic 17:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget my suggestion to pipe a link to the appropriate section of List of French wars and battles at the end of each section. I prefer it the way it is now, but I'm anticipating that some who liked the boxes above may object to their removal. Linking as I described would be a good compromise, in my opinion. But back to the article: Bravo! It looks much cleaner. I still n'aime pas the long list of see alsos, but I won't object based on that alone. However, regarding the French air force box: Have you tried to move that information up to the top of the section with the {{main|Armée de l'Air (Part I: From birth to "Torch", 1909-1942)}} then the other and the other? That's the standard way to do this kind of thing. Finally, I'm fairly certain that there shouldn't be any wikilinks in the title of the ariticle. Unfortunately, I can't find the relevant policy page at the moment! — BrianSmithson 21:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooops forgot about the pipelinks, but they're in there now. I also put the main articles at the top for the air force. On the wikilinks, I got that idea from the Military history of Canada, which is a featured article, so I think I'm with "legal" bounds for that one lol.UberCryxic 22:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Got rid of the many see alsos at the end too; the list looks more palatable now.UberCryxic 23:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Support. Needs a copyedit, I'm sure, but all long articles could benefit from some good proofreading. I don't believe in length as an actionable FA requirement, so I'm going to go ahaead and say that the length is appropriate. I personally don't like the lists that aren't converted into prose, but if that's just me, I suppose I can let it go. RyanGerbil10 04:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain.Object. Complety forgets about the interwar period - engagement in the Polish-Soviet War (French Military Mission to Poland) and later the Franco-Polish Military Alliance (and the Franco-Czech Alliance), which were very significant to the interwar European politics and to the eventual outbreak of the IIWW. If such issues are skipped, it makes me wonder what other periods are not covered.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotr, I share and sympathize with your concerns. However, due to space restrictions and the gargantuan, event-filled military history of France, it would be difficult for me to focus on almost every single alliance or minor engagement. Your opposition is sensible, of course, but carried to its logical conclusion, you must also object to the fact that I didn't include French military missions to Japan in the 19th century, or French military missions to the Ottoman Empire in the 1730s, or the dozens of other French military missions with advisory roles to various areas and nation-states throughout history that have been just as significant, no? Furthermore, the mission to Poland is listed in the List of French wars and battles (so is the French Expeditionary Corps to Russia, thought it's currently redlinked); that category is incomplete, but you'll find wars and battles aplenty there nonetheless. I sincerely hope you will reconsider your opposition. I tried to be as thorough as I could with the length I am reasonably allowed to have. If you would like, maybe I could search for some online sources dealing with the topics you've raised. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help. Thank you.UberCryxic 06:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment : If the lenght requirement becomes a restriction to how complete an article can be,than IMO the requirement is the thing that fails.--Technosphere83 11:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I definetly agree with Technosphere83. The article should be comprehensive first, summary-style second. Of course we should not aim for gargantuan 1mb articles - this is what subarticles are for. Nonetheless I think that few mor kb could be spared to include more info, and that you can reduce some sections from several paragraps by one paragraph to include info on other events. One can make a good case that Napoleonic times deserve more coverage than Franco-Polish alliance, but not that Napoleonic ones deserve 5 paragraphs and FPa (or FJapanese or FOttoman relations) does not need to be mentioned at all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I should emphasize that it's not the only problem preventing me from significantly expanding this article. I could go on with this in summary style for such a long time that 100 kb would seem short. It's just in the nature of the topic. Because it's so vared and complex, there are bound to be things left out. My objective is to cover the main periods, and the main struggles that covered those periods. The pictures also provide good, additional information and links where users can explore the subject further. Moreover, French alliances with other superpowers or alliances that produced decisive results on the battlefield are included; Franco-Ottoman partnership in the 16th century, Franco-Swedish cooperation in the 17th century, and the Entente Cordiale (mentioned in the article as something like "France, with British aid..."). But the Franco-Polish alliance didn't produce any decisive military result; in the Polish-Soviet War, the Poles were actually lucky to ignore the advice given by the French mission, or there would've gone one of the greatest victories of the 20th century, the Battle of Warsaw. In World War II, the French pulled off a measly Saar offensive to distract Germany from Poland, but it did nothing. In a strictly militaristic realm, this alliance was not as great as some other ones that France has had (which, again, have been mentioned). Thank you.UberCryxic 15:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comments (haven't read through the entire thing yet)
  • Squeezing text between pics is poor layout. Either remove or redistribute them. Readers should never have to change their settings for an article to look right. Basic principle of webdesign.
  • It'd be nice to see a conversion to the Cite.php (i.e. the <ref> format). I can do it myself if you don't have objections.
  • I think Piotr does make a valid point, although I won't be objecting over it, lacking the knowledge to do so, but a shorter section covering this period could be reasonably made. After all, if it is suposed to cover the entire Military history of France, then shouldn't it cover the Interwar period just as well?
• Circeus 15:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Circeus. I wholeheartedly agree that it is a good principle of design; however, it looks weird through no fault of mine. For example, I am now watching the Palazzo Pitti (current FAC) on the "Larger" text. Looks fine. Then I switch to "Medium," and an ugly gap emerges between the "Palatine Gallery" and the paragraph beneath it. This gap did not exist in the "Larger" style. This is the stuff I'm talking about. It's not just this article; every wikipedia article seems to look better on the larger setting. Yes, go ahead and make the conversion (thank you so much for that btw). Piotr does make a good point; let there be no mistake about that. However, the amount of detail and analysis that would need to be added if I were to keep this article fair (presumably I shouldn't just add a section or paragraph on the inter-war period, but also on obscure subjects like the Saintonge War, which in its time used to be important) would positively drive every single wikipedia reader crazy (including me, having to bear such a promethean task), even the fans of military history. I also just want to mention that it does talk about France in the inter-war period; there's a paragraph that mentions Charles de Gaulle's ideas on armored warfare and France's population problems leading to longer conscription terms, making military life increasingly unpopular. On top of that, I want people to read Military history of Canada and compare it with this. You should be noting major differences; notice how wars set the tempo and categorization in that article. Well, that's because whoever wrote it could afford to do that with Canadian military history, which is immensely shorter (in terms of events) than what we have here. I can't do that with French military history because the article would never end. That's why this article is organized into important military "themes" in French history; so it says "Modern Period" instead of "World War I" or "Inter-war period." For those who want to find out more, there are the lists at the end of each category. Finally, it is my opinion that whoever reads this will come away with a very good understanding of the developments, as seen in wars and battles, and the general themes in French military history.UberCryxic 19:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the gap you describe, but then, that is probably because I use Firefox, not Internet Explorer (Firefox has Wiki-related issues of his note, though). Also, I'm afraid this article cannot have Cite.php refs until the bug that prevents them being used in Picture captions is solved. Circeus 20:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotr, I am pleading with you to revoke your wish, not because it’s not a good one, but because if I were to comply, this article would turn into a fortress of useless information and unnecessary details that would completely turn off laypeople. If that were to happen, I would also be greatly disappointed. It’s not just about Franco-Polish, Ottoman, or Japanese relations; there are many other things that you did not mention. I would have to include those too. I am not opposing you because I don’t want more work for myself; I love this topic. I’ve studied French military history (and particularly Napoleonic warfare) for years, which is why I sincerely hope people listen to my warnings. If I do this, I want to add my own big, bold-face “OPPOSE” to this article for FA. It would ruin it; it would be flooding with redlinks. This article is based on the premise that French military history should be covered in themes, not wars, battles, or alliances. To that end, I’ve included what I thought was the best information that would allow people to understand the general nature of French warfare in a particular theme or era. If, however, you want an exclusive and explicit mention of Franco-Polish cooperation during the inter-war period, then I’d be more than happy to do it. However, that would make it very arbitrary, so also keep that in mind. But if you want it done, I'll do it.UberCryxic 19:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just thought of this: I could take the Louis Fary picture from the French military mission to Poland and use it on my article, then explain some basic things about the Franco-Polish alliance in the caption. Tell me what you think.UberCryxic 20:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do agree it is a relatively minor issue (for the same reason I don't think that Polish Legions in Italy need to be linked. Nonetheless I think that eventually all those things should be included in the subarticle, and I'd gladly see such subarticles created now - even if filled mostly with copied content from the main sections - so I (and you, and others) can then start adding such links (red or not) and related info to them, without overbloating the current article. When I see those subarticles, I'll support this one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotr, I'm trying to better understand what you want me to put in these subarticles. Do you want me to include summary content in the sections about what we've been discussing? So, for example, in the Modern Period, do you want me to include something like the "Inter-war period" and then there mention the Franco-Polish alliance and other relevant matter? If so, how many subarticles do you want for each main article (or do you just want this subarticle on the Modern Period)? One, two, as necessity dictates?UberCryxic 04:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you - do what you think is best. Eventually I'd expect to see a subarticle for every section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank God those horrible lists have been removed! Look, I don't know much about French military history (at least I didn't before I read this article), but I completely agree with Uber. This article is very comprehensive. Like Juppiter said up top, it covers all the major time periods, and does so in an effective fashion. I wouldn't change the summary content. If people have questions or desires about other material, just see the lists. And if your particular concern isn't there, then be proactive and put it in those lists. But the main article shouldn't be covered with litter because this or that was left out.Prometheus123 22:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Circeus, another problem for me could be that I'm using a laptop with a much-smaller screen than my normal home desktop (I'm in college now). And yeah, I've got IE.UberCryxic 23:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support, very good article; provides a comprehensive overview of the material without getting bogged down in endless trivia. I might add that the alliance with Poland, while undobtedly significant in regard to the start of World War II, is a miniscule part of France's military history overall; if we are to significantly expand the article (which I don't really recommend), we should concentrate on things like the Italian Wars and the French Wars of Religion, which involve decades of bitter warfare, rather than on advisory missions to other countries. —Kirill Lokshin 02:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support, well done for the effort put in to write this article. --Terence Ong 05:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Great article, great lack of bias, despite obvious pride. Very, very good indeed. --PopUpPirate 00:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Support. You've won me over. An article of this scope presents a great challenge. The piece is well organized and generally encyclopedic in tone. When editors take on this type of subject there's always a risk that someone who knows one part of the material well will come along and pick things apart. For this nomination, I'm that person. I'm very uncomfortable with the amount of unsourced POV on the topics I understand best. Details follow. Durova 21:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• "In approximately the 10th century, iron armor started to replace the use of other materials like leather or bronze." unsourced France remained in the bronze age until the tenth century? This would place the country well behind its neighbors in Europe where iron helmets and weapons predate that by centuries.

• In reference to the fifteenth century: "France could easily field over 10,000 knights in full plate mail, with a large number of those on heavy warhorses with their own armor. A knight on horseback would most likely have felt invincible except to another knight on horseback." unsourced Even before Agincourt, the English longbow had proven itself at the Battle of Crécy and the Battle of Poitiers and Swiss pikemen had earned their reputation in other engagements. Pope Innocent II had tried to ban the use of arbalests and bows because of their effectiveness in killing cavalry. Moreover, where does that enormous number come from? The most generous estimates of the 1429 campaign place the entire French army at 10,000, a figure which is probably exaggerated and certainly includes a preponderance of infantry, artillery, and noncombatants.

• "However, by the late 14th century and the early 15th, French military power declined because of the sudden obsolescence of men in armor." unsourced English technology and tactics barely changed between Poitiers and Agincourt. Armor didn't become obsolete until the seventeenth century. What did happen during the reign of Charles VI was a king who suffered from psychotic fits and a cousin of his who started a civil war. Before the middle of the century French men in armor humiliated the English at the very important Battle of Patay.

• "Given the successes of Henry V, the French could consider themselves fortunate that they recovered virtually all their territory by the end of the Hundred Years War." unsourced That makes adaptive tactics seem like luck. The French learned to ambush the English in open fields rather than charge against fully prepared longbowmen, and they learned to make greater use of bombardments and frontal assaults in siege operations.

• "Popular conceptions of the victory in the final stages of the Hundred Years War are often dominated by Joan of Arc, but there were far deeper reasons for the French triumph. The main step was taken by King Charles VII, who, with the Compagnies d'Ordonnance, 20 companies of 600 men each, created the first standing army in the Western world since Roman times, giving the French a considerable edge in professionalism and discipline. Additionally, developments in artillery made it the finest arm of the French army..." unsourced Arguably the English longbow corps was the first standing army since Roman times and the French reacted rather belatedly. The historians I've read give primary credit to diplomatic realignment at the Treaty of Arras and the weak leadership of Henry VI for the outcome of the war. This also implies that Joan of Arc was wholly uninvolved in artillery. Actually the men who fought alongside her considered her a tactical genius with artillery placement as her particular strength.

• Jumping ahead in time, but back to the article's introduction, we also find this: "In the 18th century, global competition with Britain led to defeat in the French and Indian War, where France lost its North American holdings..." unsourced Nothing in the body of the article clarifies or corrects this. In fact France retained large claims in North America which Napoleon sold in the Louisiana purchase. The transaction roughly doubled the land area of the United States.

Ok let me just chop off one thing first and then later on I'll address other more substantial claims. First of all, France did lose nearly all of its North American possessions following the Seven Years War. You forgot the Treaty of San Ildefonso in 1800, when Spain ceded Louisiana to France and Napoleon sold it three years later to America. The statement in the introduction is therefore correct (and it doesn't need to be sourced; it's a general historical fact). Also, I am 1000% sure that the Compagnies were the first standing army since Roman times (will be sourced). What I'm going to do about the Medieval category is use a site which up until now was listed as an "External Link." That site has terrific information on French medieval warfare and it's written by military historians. I'll notify you when I'm done with the changes (because essentially I agree with you; there's some things there that need to be referenced).UberCryxic 22:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, New Orleans was nominally Spanish - their lasting influence is demonstrated by the famous Spanish Quarter. ;) Durova 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

K the information about the Compagnies d'Ordonnance has now been fully referenced from credible sources. In the process of addressing other concerns....(will keep you updated moment by moment)...UberCryxic 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

From the Atlas of World Military History (editor Richard Brooks): "Much has been made of the success of the English longbow. However, it was not a war-winning weapon. Reliance on this defensive weapon on the battlefield gave the initiative to the French; its victories also depended on the French bungling their attack. The English were fortunate that their opponent failed to get it right three times in a 70-year period." My own research confirms the essence of this statement; the French would've crushed (excuse the wording but it's true) the English even with their longbows; they failed because terrain prevented the full maturation of an attack (Agincourt) or whatever attacks they did launch were poorly coordinated. The French tactical plan for Agincourt was superb, but the terrain prevented its implementation. The Henry comment is now cited, though quite unnecessarily. Every other book ....nvm, EVERY book on the Hundred Years War has the comment: "French got lucky when Henry died." Pejorative? You bet. But it seems to be a standard thing, and this is an encyclopedia, so standardization counts. Also, the article's comments don't in anyway belittle Joan of Arc's achievements; all the article says is that other, more substantial reasons than Joan of Arc can explain why the French won (which is true). Keep in mind that in this particular part I have to explain why the French won with little recourse to specifics (otherwise I'd break the structure of the article, which is not to get heavily involved in anyone part unless it's necessary....saying Joan of Arc spotted the artillery correctly at this or that battle is a bit irrelevant when I can talk about general trends).UberCryxic 23:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that the French got lucky when Henry V died. No quarrel there. The war continued more than 30 years after his death, though. Joan of Arc didn't end it either. However, DeVries (Joan of Arc: A Military Leader ISBN 0750918055) and Richey (Joan of Arc: The Warrior Saint ISBN 0275981037) cite the testimony of the French commanders who fought alongside her. They consistently single out her artillery tactics for special praise. Obviously you can only give this a cursory mention in such a general article. My point is that it misleads the reader to juxtapose artillery and Joan of Arc. I'd still like to know your source for the "10,000 knights in full plate mail." Durova 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh on the possibility that the English 'longbow corps' was the first-standing since Roman times, Andrew Ayton and J.L. Price in the Military Revolution from a Medieval Perspective (1998): "How far should the development of standing armies be regarded as a distinctive characteristic of the last century of the Middle Ages? Some states, like England, resisted the transition from contract armies to a standing army..."UberCryxic 23:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't dispute a citation. My point is that, during an era when armies disbanded in the autumn and peasant soldiers brought in the harvest, the English maintained a corps of longbowmen who practiced their weapon throughout the year. Obviously that wasn't organized in the comprehensive capacity that Charles VII established. Durova 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The comments about the artillery and their significance have been cited.UberCryxic 23:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The comments in the first paragraph about the 10th century have been reorganized and extensively cited; review them now and tell me what you think.UberCryxic 23:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the changes. I've been expanding Category:Medieval armor. You might want to Wikilink to a couple of items. Overall, thanks for responding quickly both here and at the article. Your subject deserves to be featured. You're very close to converting my vote into a support. Cheers, Durova 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I strongly disagree with your comments about 10,000 being the number of French troops at Agincourt. The truth is that there is much controversy surrounding those figures. For example (I'm getting this off the wikipedia article on Agincourt), Juliet Barker's Agincourt: The King, the Campaign, the Battle says 6,000 English and Welsh fought against 36,000 French troops. I'll get rid of that number though.UberCryxic 00:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read my comment again. I referred the drive to Rheims in 1429. BTW regarding your Agincourt numbers, each knight needed at least one squire in order to dress for battle. So if the French fielded 10,000 knights in full armor at Agincourt out of a force of 36,000, more than half their army is already accounted for. Durova 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok Durova, I believe I've addressed all of your concerns, both through writings here and the changes I've made on the main page. I'd like you to have a second look and tell me what you think. Thank you very much!UberCryxic 01:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support This is a terrific article. Good information, well-researched, and very well-written.MichaelBr 03:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support - very well written, though I have two items I have added to the talk page that need to be addressed. They are relatively minor, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Mexicanos, al grito de guerra

Another FAC attempt by me, second on a Mexican article and on a national anthem. The only thing I am concerned about during this FAC is the posibility that the media files I have might not be able to be used on here, so any comments about that, or anything else, is welcome. Also, if y'all think me moving this article a while back was wrong too, let me know. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 04:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: some of the sources are just placed as bare links, without them being treated as footnotes. That glanced at me as soon as I gave the article a full read. Some of them are in Cite.php format too, so it should be better to just standarize them under one format, preferably {{cite web}}/<ref>/<references/>. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Now better. Support. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Cautious Hold. There don't seem to be many references or footnotes... RyanGerbil10 05:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comments: Are there more details on the copyright situation? I found that Mexican copyright law (article 156) seems to suggest that the government thinks they own the rights to the song. I'd prefer a more weighty citation than LA Weekly for backing this section up. Also, where did the translation come from? A few of the lines are rather shaky, but if it's something official I suppose I can live with it. I don't like the explanation of "Patria" right beforehand; it seems unnecessary. A little more discussion of current events related to the anthem might be interesting (maybe [1] and some citations of the cultural importance of the anthem?) Other than that though, this is looking good. I don't mind the fact that there aren't a lot of citations; this is a short article and each citation covers alot of material. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 06:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hold. The translation is completely unofficial and has been discussed in the talk page. This should be emphasized in the article IMO. The copyright section should be clarified based on solid evidence, because otherwise it sounds like an urban legend. Itub 16:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I put an invisible note about the translation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Itub, I found out that the copyright mess, while it did happen, is mostly an urban myth. Only one recording was determined to be copyrighted by a US Company, the lyrics and music are in the PD. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, is everything alright now? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all right. I withdraw my hold. Itub 03:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, I got rid of all fair use photos from the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Adding my support; this is looking good. If anything, a little more copyright info would be nice, but I have a feeling that there isn't much more to say. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 04:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The only other thing I found was in Article 188 of the MX copyright law is that the rights cannot be reserved on "reproduce or imitate coats of arms, flags, emblems or signs of any country, State, municipality or equivalent political subdivision without the due authorization; " So, if I am reading this right, any unauthorized recordings of the anthem should be public domain. But, since that is probably OR, that will not be included. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, not comprehensive. Everyking 08:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you tellign me what;s missing? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd like to know also! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Ta bu shi da yu 12:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan

This article has gone through an extensive makeover in the past 5-6 weeks and I believe that it currently meets the featured article criteria. Pepsidrinka 06:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Almost there though: Some issues:

1. Following independence... twenty-fifth largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity. -- split and cpedit.
2. border dispute Kashmmir is not a border dispute. It's also territorial. I've fixed it
3. The tourism part in the economy sections reads like a brochure. plz tone it down. See Nepal and Bhutan.

   Please refer to [2] to populate the economy section. The tourism part needs to go. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

4. The image gallery in the =Society and culture= section needs to go.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think three of the four items you mentioned have been looked at and edited as such. However, I'm not sure I understand your objection about the Kashmir border/territorial dispute. Footnote 2 explains that China, India, and Pakistan all administer parts of Kashmiri region. Footnote 23, which was added after your comment, explains that India does not recognize Azad Kashmir nor the Northern Areas. IMO this sufficently explains that there is a territorial dispute. Your thoughts? Pepsidrinka 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Support -- A light copyedit by someone not associated with the nom would improve the text significantly. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• weak oppose also, the images need to have their copyright clarified. The image of Muhammad Ali Jinnah claims expired copyright and refers to a website. I checked that site out and cant find the image. Given that he died in 1948 (most photos would be this) if the photo was taken and published in India before 1946 then this image needs to have that confirmed and stated in its description. Images from world66 are creative commons with the requirement of acknowledging the author, i have fixed one but other images need to have this fixed. There is also an image with a template requesting the uploader to confirm copyright status. On the dates BCE and CE have been used, a wikilink to an article explaining what BCE and CE are would be helpful . Aside from these small fixes well done its an interesting article that kept my attention and deserves to achieve FAC Gnangarra 11:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

i found an article and linked BCE Gnangarra

• Is it safe to assume that since the uploader himself added the picture to an article here that he meant for it to be released into the public domain? Pepsidrinka 19:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• I have added the original author's name in the other picture (i.e., the King Faisal Mosque picture). Pepsidrinka 20:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It might be easier to just pick another image of the mosque from a PD or a creative commons work. Try these [3]. These images are CC-Attrib 2.0 images. You may want to search for additional images here too that might help satisfy any copyright concerns of other images currently used in your article. AreJay 15:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I found a similar picture of the same mosque and a similar vantage point by the same author on commons. I have since substituted it into the article. Also, the Muhammad Ali Jinnah picture has been removed and replaced with another picture, one whose status is confirmed to be within the public domain. Pepsidrinka 16:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Good job in promptly addressing concerns Gnangarra 14:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support Apart from the valid objections raised by Nichalp and Gnangarra, please address the following as well:. Good job addressing editors' concerns. AreJay 18:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. Pakistan has the largest expatriate community of any Muslim country with large numbers living in Australia, Europe, the Middle East and North America. Citation required.
   3. Pakistani emigrants and their children influence Pakistan culturally and economically by regularly returning to and investing in Pakistan. That's a blanket statement, considering the assertion above that the country has the largest Muslim expatriate community. Please delete this sentence.
   4. The climate varies as much as the scenery.. theme repeated from the first sentence of the second paragraph on Geography. AreJay 18:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• The last two issues you addressed have been looked at and have been edited per your recommendations. A {{fact}} tag has been added and the editors of this article are looking for an appropriate citation. Pepsidrinka 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• The expatriates statistics have since been updated and cited properly. Pepsidrinka 17:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional support once Nichalp, Gnangarra and AreJay's concerns are addressed, I'll give full support. Rama's Arrow 18:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support also. I liked the effort in article standarization. CG 20:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support as per others. I've added comments on Pakistan occupied Kashmir in the pertinent portions of Pakistan, according to the statements in Azad Kashmir and Northern States. I feel I may have acted under the influence of my bias towards India to do so! Please discuss if needed.--Dwaipayanc 21:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir article is fairly balanced. --digitalSurgeon 10:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Don't think its quality is good enough. --GorillazFanAdam 01:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Could you elaborate on how the quality of the article is not good enough? Green Giant 01:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment That's not very helpful. GorillazFanAdam, please be specific as to what your objections are, so that the editors can then appropriately address any actionable objections. AreJay 04:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• WeakStrong support While I acknowledge the tremendous effort that has gone into this article, I'm unable to offer a strong support before the following issues are fixed.
  1. The lead could do well with a little copyediting. Not a major issue though.
  3. Needs a reference for the assertion "imprudent policies led to a slowdown in the late 1990s."
  4. "Recent decades have seen the emergence of a middle class in cities like Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Hyderabad, Faisalabad, Sukkur and Peshawar but the northwestern regions bordering Afghanistan, remain highly conservative and dominated by centuries-old regional tribal customs." - The link between "middle class" and "liberalism" is not explicit. Definitely it's not obvious.
  5. The mountaineering mention in "Society and culture" needs to be reworded.
  6. The article as a whole could benefit from a copyedit by someone who hasn't actively edited this article. Perhaps Tom can help. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• A citation has been added for the economic slowdown of the '90s and the mountaineering sentence has been tweaked. The article has been copyedited again (though by an active editor of the article). The other issue will shortly be addressed. Pepsidrinka 06:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• A citation has been added in regards to the liberalist/middle class. The sentence has been reworded to make itmore explicit that the middle class is of a more secular/liberal nature as compared to the northwester conservatists. Pepsidrinka 20:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• That citation is really weak. It does not give any information and when I clicked on it you get a subscriber site. You should provide the title and author, assuming it is some kind of an opinion piece. Furthermore, recent riots over the cartoons in urban areas seem to indicate that it is not something confined to frontier areas.(Blacksun 22:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

• I could not find a link so I rewrote the citation in a more appropriate format, which includes the author and the title. Pepsidrinka 22:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. I trongly support now. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support: Really nice article. However, their is one thing that I found to be in gray area and bit misleading: "In the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2005, Pakistan's GDP growth rate was 8.4%, the second-highest after China, among the ten most populous countries in the world." I do not disagree with the figure. However, that growth rate was from an extraordinary weak base of previous few years. Considering the context, I find the statement to be bit misleading but it is not enough to oppose an otherwise fairly good article. Just my two cents. Good job. --Blacksun 01:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• The 8.4% figure was the number released by the PM, Shaukat Aziz. Please by all means, discuss it on the article talk page if you would like to encourage other editors of the page to chime in. Pepsidrinka 01:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Incidently, that figure is also used by the CIA World Factbook. Pepsidrinka 01:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support: I have been watching this article for a while and indeed it has gone under major changes and corrections that I feel it should be selected as a feature article. Fast track 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. We have references in the reference section that we don't know what they are there to support. Should be called a further reading section, not a reference section. Also, there is no decent map of Pakistan in this article. On another note, the map pertaining to the ethnic groups shows the Soviet Union! Do we have nothing more recent? --Bob 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As explained already on the talk page of the article (though I'll explain for others who haven't read the dialogue on the talk page), the References were there prior to the current group of editors editing the page, and prior to this current trend where inline citations is the standard. If you take a look at older FAs, many do not have inline citations, as they weren't apart of the standard. Things have changed now. However, when the current group of editors started pushing for a FA, they added inline citations for those facts that needed it. As far as I know, it is not necessary for every fact to have a corresponding inline citation (this is explained further on the talk page). So the References section are references used by editors in the past, and assuming good faith that they are actually used in the article, it is my opinion that they should stay in the article, and be appropriately named References. However, I'm not going to get into an edit war over something like this. Pepsidrinka 23:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm with Pepsidrinka on this. I feel there's a distinction between the Notes and References sections. Notes contains specific in-line citations while References contains material that was used to gain a general understanding of the subject. As Pepsidrinka pointed out, the article lacked in-line citations before he and Green Giant and the new team of editors came on board. However, portions of the article existed in some state prior to their edits and the past editors had, it appears, referenced the material contained in the References section. I don't think the articles in the References section need to tie in directly and specifically to sentences in the article. I don't see how this particular objection can be satisfied short of tracking down this article's many previous editors and having them identify what they specifically referenced from each of those links. AreJay 02:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- Saravask 02:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- It is well written. --Spasage 05:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of mind

I think this article is the most comprehesive, factually accurate, throughly documented, non-technically written overview of the philosophy of mind that you will find anywhere. Now go ahead and rip it to shreds!!--Lacatosias 11:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

comment wow a slug fest this should be interesting to watch, seriously its a good article obvious potential for FAC, first read is a little difficult(heavy) yet I understood whats was being said. I do question as to why Duelism has such a large section when it refers to a main article. Plently of referrences though their frequency increases towards the end of the article. I'll be back for another read before I climb off the fence Gnangarra 11:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

: Short and honest answer about dualism: I was trying to keep the structure of the article as faithful as possible to the German featured article version. Since I have no previous experience with Featured Articles on Wikipedia (have only been doing this for three months or so), I looked over the German version and decided there must have been something right about this particular organization or it would not have been accepted as an FA (which is something that only .001% of articles acheive??). In any case, this was my basic reasoning. Later on, someone added the main article links (this is not included in the German version) and I didn't want to offend by taking them out. Originally, there were just links in the body of the text to dualism or other technical terms and concepts.--Lacatosias 11:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Support Back I had time to read again and digest definately worthy of FA. Removing the main article link and placing a link within, the text flows and doesnt detract from the article.Gnangarra 16:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this is a very interesting article, and obviously a highly abstract and technical one. That presents some reviewing challenges. To start with, I think the WP:LEAD runs long and is not truly an overview of the article. I think I would amend this by removing the third para ("within dualism itself...") which may be more detail than is necessary, and replace with details of the first paras about "Dualist solutions" and "Monist solutions." This will give the general reader some overview - (1) what philosophy of mind is, (2) what types of answers there are to it, (3) what the history of these views is. Kaisershatner 15:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This was one of the key areas that I tried to address in Peer Review. To start out with I had only one paragraph there, stating the nature of the questions (or something like that). It's not easy to summarize philosphy of mind in three paragraphs!! I will try to address your suggestion. Also note that in PR, I was advised that the artcile was too "popular" in style and read too much like a magazine article.--Lacatosias 15:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I qualified that by saying the Mind-body problem was to 'popular' - I changed my mind about the rest of the article.Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Need some clarification on this question of technicality. I've even added some illustrative diagrams to clarify several important concepts now. What specifically is still too technical about this article, in your opinion??--Lacatosias 08:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no piling on. One thing at a time here. I've changed the third paragraph in the lead. Is this more along the lines of what Kaisershatner is suggesting? --Lacatosias 15:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, better. See my further changes, but it's getting there. I will have further comments when I get a sec. Kaisershatner 16:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm basically happy with the intro, and I hope I haven't messed up the definitions. And my head hurts, or at least I think my head hurts. My brain hurts? Kaisershatner 17:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I just needed to clarify again that while Spinoza was the first monist, his position was the very odd one called neutral monism. It is the latter that Bretrnd Russel breifly adopted and is not not very popular in modern times. Monism (physicalistic monism) is the dominant position. I just cut out the reference to Russell and left is as something like "monism originated with Spinoza". So as long as its clear to readers that Spinoza was a NEUTRAL monist, as is indicated later in the article, I think it works alright.--Lacatosias 17:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW.. the answer to your question, as any neurologist will tell you, is that since the brain doesn't have pain receptors, it's the nerves in your skull, skin or other tissues that hurt!! (;--Lacatosias 17:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I read this entire article, and all I can say is "wow." It is extremely well written, and even though the tone wanders in some places, especially towards the beginning, this article is excellent. Once a reader is familiar with the terminology used in this article, I think they would find it most enlightening. RyanGerbil10 21:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• comment. Haven 't finished reading yet, but looks good. I am not that familiar with the subject matter, but does this article cover all aspects of philosophy, are there any other schools of though that we missed? BTW, the lead mentions categories of thought, but I think it should be rephrased to "schools" of thought. Temporary account 23:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

**Response: All aspects of philosophy? Of course not. Perhaps you meant all the schools and traditions in the philosophy of mind? If so, the response is that it is undountedly very close. I could perhaps add mention of phenomenalism (a version of idealism sustained by the Bertrand Russel and some positivists at the beginning of the 20th century) and panpsychism. The first is not really a thesis about the philosophy of mind in particular though and the second is just another, more modern word for idealism (the idea that all that really exists is the mental and everything else is illusion). Those are the only things that I can think of that may be missed by some nitpicking terminologist. I agree with your second point and will change it to traditions. This is somewhere beteen schools (too narrow) and categores (perhaps too vague). --Lacatosias 08:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Done.--Lacatosias 08:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The writing could be improved in sections, however, I am impressed. Good job. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This is indeed a great article, bound to be one of the very best and most comprehensive articles on philosophy here at Wikipedia. I think it deserves to be featured, although it can be further expanded, especially the Philosophy of mind in the continental tradition section. I also think that there should be something there about Indian philosophy of mind, Akan philosophical psychology, and mentions to other traditions. Nevertheless, superb work!
• Support.Abstain. Will support if more inline citations are added. Currently there are entire sections without one, starting with the lead and going through 'Arguments for dualism', 'Behaviorism', 'Psychology' (shouldn't this link to main?) and 'The self'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • **Ok. Good observation. I think that can be addressed easily enough.--Lacatosias 08:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. --Lacatosias 10:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Great job, the inline cits have doubled since the beginning. I still see a few places they can be added, but even so the article is much better referenced than most of our current FA.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Unfortuately, there are a large number of poorly written philosophy articles in WP. This rises quite highly above the mediocrity. Excellent. --DanielNuyu 03:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support - excellent article. Gandalf61 15:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support-This is a very well-written and informative article that as far as I can tell meets all requirements. --Kahlfin 20:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897

Self-nomination, with many thanks to Johan Elisson who made the map. An unlikely tale from the heroic age of polar exploration, involving blinkered patriotism, chicanery, crazy technological optimism, the spirit of Jules Verne, and suffering. The peer review is here. Bishonen | ノート 00:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

• Most emphatically support for FA. A shining example of a Wikipedia article; very interesting, and indeed a poignant reminder of how idealist optimism can lead to such disastrous consequences. The prose is nicely set out, the article is clearly structured and defined, is well referenced, and presents an excellent summary of the subject in general. It's about the right length, too; it's got enough detail to make it a good read without it being too heavy. Indeed, it is perhaps one of the very best articles I have so far come across on Wikipedia - of course, I would have expected nothing less from Bishonen. :) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Everything from references to the wacky ttile is unimaginably good. RyanGerbil10 01:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Well, support. Extensive peer review. Great prose. Fantastic article. – Elisson • Talk 01:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written; a fascinating story that I had never heard of before Bishonen started working on it; the 1897 photos are an amazing, haunting time-capsule. Structure is very nice, references are plentiful and solid (if somewhat, what's the word? Swědïsh), and the length is quite appropriate to the topic. Wish-list item: a screenshot from Ingenjör Andrée's Luftfärd (Flight of the Eagle). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Pretty good all around. Good prose, everything is referenced, I have read the article and looked at the references and can find nothing substantially wrong. A few minor gripes, it is perhaps ever-so-slightly overlong, but that can be addressed with pruning of minor redundancies (as I've already done on a small scale) rather than taking out any content. There are also some parts that could read a bit more clearly, for example the first part of the last paragraph of the "Promotion and fundraising" section. But overall it's quite nice already. --W.marsh 03:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That paragraph you mention was a mess, I hadn't noticed how tortured it was. Please see if it works for you now. Bishonen | ノート 16:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC).
    • Yes, it looks better, thanks for checking it out. --W.marsh 00:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support: One of the strongest FA's in a long time. The narrative itself is interesting, and the writing moves well, so the native interest of the events combines with a clear telling and appropriate amount of context. There are many ways to add, but each of these represents a sub-topic. The article is nearly a perfect example of how to tell the essentials, spare the extranneous, and yet achieve comprehensiveness. Geogre 04:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, you know, I like this article until I read this comment. Is this article in fact lacking detail, as Geogre suggests? Everyking 10:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I could snow you, James, since nobody around here except me has read the sources, but I won't. There's an inordinate amount of detail in the diaries, and certainly I've selected, yes. There are high-colored anecdotes, mainly from Andrée, a practised diary-writer since childhood. "I was mending my underwear and the boys were cooking dinner when suddenly I noticed a polar bear staring into my eyes from a few inches away, through the slit in the tent. I never stopped sewing but merely said: 'Look, lads, dinner'. Frænkel grabbed his gun..." and so forth. Or: "Frænkel has invented an excellent new recipe for pancakes, using seals' blood as a coagulant. It's really good, much less nauseating than seal meat." :-) I could have filled a couple of screens with such illustrations of Andrée's rather determined cheerfulness and non-complainingness, even in a diary. Of course he had reason to believe posterity would read it and judge him by it, so it's a kind of interesting reflection of the stiff-upper-lip when-men-were-men culture of the time. But the page is on the outside of long enough for the subject as it is, and I'm dead against spinning off subarticles from such a very narrative article. I don't think readers would come trooping to say "fascinating" ever again if it was re-cast like that. :-( And now you're gonna oppose, aren't you? How about a deal: I'll add a paragraph about Strindberg's fiancée and Andrée's mistress, which I wrote earlier but removed for considerations of length. They're quite interesting, and relevant to the expedition. Any good? Bishonen | ノート 11:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC).
      • I don't want you to include great quantities of non-notable detail, I just want the topic to be covered thoroughly. I know that I tend to disagree with Geogre about what's significant, and so I get nervous when I read praise from him like above. And notice that I did in fact vote to support, and I read the article all the way through and liked it very much. Everyking 11:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Sure. Thanks. I didn't mean to suggest you'd oppose unreasonably, just that I know how you feel about comprehensiveness, and there are a few things I would have liked to include. Also, it's a bit of a problem that few people here can review the sources, as pretty much all the good ones are in Swedish. Bishonen | ノート 12:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC).
  • I should clarify. I am the great expander. I usually think everything lacks context, and I see connections between things that other people think are irrelevant. I was praising Bishonen's article for not falling into the traps that I often fall into. For example, you could say, "Tell me more about nationalism," or "Tell me more about the Swedish Church's role," or "Tell me more about the newspapers," but all of that would be interesting and unnecessary. I thought Bishonene showed us all exactly the right line to walk between comprehensive and rambling, the necessary and the extranneous. Geogre 13:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support of course. Great work. Looks like a speedy FA candidate to me. - Taxman ^Talk 04:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I don't normally take the time to read through an entire FAC, but that was a very well written and interesting article. Has some excellent photographs in too. Could we get a photo of Ekholm? The sane one? - Hahnchen 05:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I do have a good pic of Ekholm in a book, but when I let slip he didn't actually go on the expedition, the family tech was reluctant to break out the scanner. I'll try again, I can totally understand the story makes you want to look at a sane man. Bishonen | ノート 06:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC).
    • There is one at the SMHI website here. As he died in 1923, I assume it is old enough to be {{PD-Sweden}}-eligible. u p p l a n d 07:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Mmm, thanks, Tups, but that portly white-haired gentleman looks an awfully incongruous candidate for Andrée's triple sleeping-bag anyway. I should get my photo scanned, it's from 1896 and has a more explorer-like look.
• Support. Excellent article. u p p l a n d 07:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great article, minor suggestions I will make on the talk page. -