Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2005

Contents

Polish September Campaign

Image:WWII Poland Invasion 1939-09-01.jpg
German soldiers destroying Polish border checkpoint on 1st September. Second World War begins.

The begining of Second World War. The birth of Blitzkrieg. The fall of the first Ally. The Hitler-Stalin alliance. Hopefully, my 10th FA :) Your comments, as always, much appreciated. Btw, I am adding the pic to this nomination, I hope you like it - perhaps all our future FACs should have a pic? Discuss the pic pros and cons it in talk, though, not here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Object - Very good, but: Overwhelming TOC. Stub sections, such as ==Names of the campaign==, ==Order of battle==, and the first === Economic base===. These should be merged into other sections, IMO. Causes of World War II is rather short to be the 'main article' to anything and the == Prelude to the campaign == section in this article goes into a comparable amount of detail as the 'main article'. So, given the existence of Causes of World War II, much of the common detail should be there so other articles can call upon it directly and interested readers here can zoom to that level of detail if they want. A more compact treatment in this article is needed to keep most other readers focused on the main topic covered here (the prelude is a sub-topic and should be treated as such). The ==Opposing forces== section also goes into more detail than needed for this article. Since it is about the equipment and tactics used (subtopics), not directly the campaign itself, that detail should be moved to equipment and tactics used in the Polish September Campaign (or something similar) and a summary left here (as I suggested in peer review). In short, almost everything but the meat of the article in ==Details of the campaign== should be condensed to get this article back to a more manageable size that can serve many different reader types (not everybody has the time or patience to read through so much text to get to the meat of the article). Also, where are the inline citations? Again, great work but it is still at the director's cut stage. A more compact treatment is needed for mass consumption. This is all part of good writing. Oh, and just give the word and I'll help you summarize - I'm pretty good at that. :) --mav 03:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • By all means, do try summarizing. The names and order sections can be merged, but I don't see how economy ones can be merged into others. I don't think this article it too long - we have longer FAs then this - but if you have a vision, do try to help :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I will do that. :) If you could first add inline citations (noting work and page number) via something simple and easily transportable like the inote system, then the text I move will also be correctly cited. I know it will be a pain to add the inline cites after the fact (it took me several hours to do that to an article half this size), but doing so will greatly increase the verifiability of this article. Please tell me when you are done and I'll get to work summarizing per above. --mav 16:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I merged 'names of the campaign' into lead. I can't think of a way to merge 'order of battle' anywhere, and 'German economic base' needs expantion, not merger. 'Causes of...' article is not well developed, but I think it is a logical main article for the 'prelude...' section. The TOC is large, but not overwhelming I think - do we have any rule for its lenght/number of sections? I still think that the current amount of information in the article is exactly what it needst to be. As for inline citatins, I will use them when I am sure I got a hang of them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
        • ==Opposing forces== section now a much more managable size and the detial has been moved to Opposing forces in the Polish September Campaign (with a little work that can easily be your 11th FA :). The == Prelude to the campaign == section is still too long by half, IMO, and later this weekend I'll see about some summarizing there. Getting close. --mav 02:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    • == Prelude to the campaign == section is still too detailed for this article, but I'm willing to see it expanded some more before it is summarized and the detail spun off. So I'm changing my vote to neutral. --mav 19:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • On the one hand, I think the article is great and comprehensive and I'd like to support, but I'm a little concerned about the Polish nationalist perspective and the presentation of the USSR in the article. It's not so overt that I want to oppose outright, but it also gives me reservations about supporting, so I'll just call my vote neutral. Everyking 08:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Feel free to mention which words/sentences/etc. look POVed, and I will try to NPOV them. Or go into any details - how and where is the article POVed? Or is it a 'general feeling'? I can hardly work on such a general feeling comment, though :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is filled with a remarkable number of pictures. While I know that people on the english wiki (in contrast to German wiki) are more lenient and less formal with copyrights with regards to pictures, I would nevertheless want to point out that the majority of the pictures lack traceable sources and merely state they stand in either public domain or are within the limits of fair use. Just a couple of examples with doubtful copyrights: a.the Image "German Soviet" refers to the US Memorial Holocaust Museum and 2 lines under the picture there is a copyright tag declaring that the copyright belongs to - well - the US Memorial Holocaust Museum (no-where is stated that an US-government employee has made the foto or that it was released into public domain). b.the claim of fairuse of the map "Ac.corridor" is rather doubtful, because this map isn't just a thumbnail and no link or source is cited. c.the photo "German troops in Warshaw" states that it was made by Leni Riefenstahl, however goes on to cite the US Government as a source (and presumably therefore it is labelled to be public domain). However only fotographs made by US employees for the US government published on a US government website are released into the public domain. These are just 3 examples, there are a couple of other pics that have a doubtful copyright status. In terms of the article itself, I do not find that this article is generally POVed like suggested above - it is well-researched and well-written. Themanwithoutapast 23:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point. I am sure there are relevant procedures to go through (fixing the tag or deleting the image as a copyvio). I am not a specialist with images copyrights though - could you give me a detailed list of the ones you find objectionable, point to the relevant policy or perhaps help me deal with them? It would be a shame if a few non-essential images would stop this from being FA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Object on the same grounds as themanwithoutapast. Minor points: the infobox contains two slightly different names, neither of which is the same as that of the article; the first sentence mentions several names for the war, but not the Russian one- is there a Russian one?; the statement that Soviet occupation, while shorter, also resulted in millions of deaths raises the question of how many millions. Mark1 08:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I have changed the infobox so it uses the most common term 'Polish September Campaign'. I have not yet found a Russian name, perhaps one of our Russian speaking Wikipedians can help with that? I will contact the ones I know. I have adjusted the 'millions' with a specific figure based on Polish areas annexed by the Soviet Union, tnx for pointing that one out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: The issues of copyright violations (missing sources and explanations) I have commented on have been addressed. As I stated above, the article is well-researched and also otherwise fulfills the FA criteria. I want to point out again, that I am not considering myself a copyright paranoid - on the contrary, I believe that the fair use-doctrine (and other legal possibilities for illustration of images) should be used to its limits, however as a rule of thumb an image should at least include a source and an explanation for its copyright status (especially if it is a FA). Themanwithoutapast 13:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support though the article exceeds the Wikipedia 32k size limit. Andries 18:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Balcer 06:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - can we have a brief description of what an "Order of battle" is? Perhaps turning that section into prose would be good. With regards to the sentence "The government of the United Kingdom pledged to defend Poland in the event of a German attack, and Romania in case of other threats.", why is "other threats" italicised? Why is "early autumn" italicised in "In addition, a military credit was granted and armament was to reach Polish or Romanian ports in early autumn."? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Tnx for adding the notes. Removed the pointless italics. Ilinked 'order of battle'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as I remember these additions were made by yours truly. The italicised text is simply the exact quote from the bilateral military consultations following the signing of Franco-Polish Military Alliance.
  • Support Perhaps the header is too long and might be shortened, but I like the article. Halibutt 17:09, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

The Brothers Karamazov

This is a self nomination. I think there is an absence on wikipedia of featured articles regarding classic novels and so I am hoping this article can contribute in some way. It has been peer reviewed for about a month now and I have addressed most of the concerns raised there. So I look forward to input. Thanks Jonesboy1983 00:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Support: Support: A lot of work has gone into this, I particularly like the brief but comprehensive summaries in the synopsis. The page covers a vast work in an encyclopedic and concise fashion. Giano | talk 09:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Overall it's a great article and is not just the boring crap usually found in an article on a classic text... but at the same time I think some of it should be NPOV-erised. For example, the "it has been acclaimed all over the world as a masterpiece of literature and one of the greatest novels ever written" comment needs some sort of reference directly after it (even if its just a link to the "The novel's influence" section), because when it's just that comment on its own it screams POV. Also, this image needs to be cleaned up and trimmed. plattopustalk 12:50, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unfortunately, as I have not read the book, I will not be reading the entire article so as not to learn the plot, and as a result, I will not be able to support. However, I noticed a couple things that might be improved. The lead looks short—it could be expanded to include more about the origin of the book and the influence of the novel. Don't add too much about the plot of the book, as people like me still want to read the book without being told the ending :). Also, why the project gutenburg link to "The Grand Inquisitor" [1]? That e-text weighs in at a mere 69k, so it can't possibly be the same thing—I think that Brothers Karamazov is on the same level as War and Peace in total length (i.e. megabytes). That's what I see right now; sorry I can't be more helpful. I need to get started on reading that book... --Spangineer ∞ 12:58, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • The Grand Inquisitor is but one chapter of the novel. It is probably linked because it is also arguably the most famous one. Phils 14:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is one of those books I read decades ago in college. I seem to remember that Grubshenka's name has a relevant meaning in German; & the image of the Troika in in the closing remarks of the Trial still remains with me -- but the passage about the "Grand Inquisitor" is often studied apart from the rest of the novel. Other than this, I think the best improvement would be to provide the names of the critics (& their citations) who prefer the Pevear and Volokhonksky translation to the Garnett one; that way you are reporting opinions, not stating them. -- llywrch 02:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support this much-improved article. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:25, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I remember wanting to look somehting up about this book about six months ago for a philosophy essay. The page then was poor - little info, no synposis, nothing about the characters. Now it is truly an encyclopaedic page. Also, it is shorter than (I think) the average FA, and that is a good thing. A mix of lengths, topics and styles is good. Whoever did the work on this page, it has my vote. Batmanand 08:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments...I fixed the image that had issues and added a couple sources for the lines that were bringing up NPOV concerns. Jonesboy1983 00:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks great! Good luck with it--Hypo 08:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I loved this book and very much enjoyed reading the article. --Laura Scudder | Talk 23:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Fascinating and incisive description. --Theo (Talk) 12:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Gbe languages

The most comprehensive online resource on the Gbe languages. Has benefited very much from thorough peer reviews by Taxman, Peter Isotalo and Bishonen (see archived request). Self-nomination. — mark ✎ 21:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong support - I would have considered it to meet the criteria weeks ago. - Mustafaa 21:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. All (reasonable) demands have certainly been met, and then some! / Peter Isotalo 21:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Enthusiastic Support. And I was hoping to be the first to support, but I had to take a phone call :). But he gives too much credit (to me at least). He has done tremendous research on this article and it shows, but is also well written and interesting. It is also a great example of what can happen in an effective peer review process as he did a great job implementing suggestions, and explaining his reasoning on those he didn't agree with. - Taxman 21:50, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support — This article takes me beyond Ewe to see the broader picture. It is well researched and well written. There is no doubt on reading this that it is of the supreme encyclopaedic standard. --Gareth Hughes 22:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support it makes an excellent FA. --nixie 05:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice. Phils 05:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 10:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - An excellent piece of work. Congrats to Mark and all involved. OpenToppedBus 13:25, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but some minor quabbles.
  1. I would move the map image to the top and give it a more prominent place.
  2. Some of the letters in the linguistic features section don't show up. Please add a link to this font in near the table.
  3. Where did the name Gbe languages came from? Mgm|(talk) 20:50, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • (1) Moving the map has been tried [2]; it made the article look cluttered. I thought the whitespace right of the TOC was the nicest place. (2) There is a known problem with Internet Explorer not displaying some vowel symbols with tone marks on them (it was also discussed on the PR request). I'm afraid it can't be solved, though I'll try a thing or two. (3) In Gbe languages#Naming it says that Gbe is the word for 'language' in all Gbe varieties. Perhaps too off-hand? — mark ✎ 22:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent piece of work and very informative. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 07:23, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments. Certainly worthy of high praise. I love the map. One thing I'm wondering is if it would be possible to obtain a sound sample from (one of) the language(s) as a .ogg file? A reading of a part of the gospel text shown or (as I would prefer) some native text. I think audio files are one aspect where Wikipedia can really outshine traditional paper encyclopedias. As for the gospel text I have something of a personal bias against using translated bible texts as text samples for different languages. To me it smacks of the old missionary attitude that the only reason to study a language and produce an orthography for it is to bring the scripture to a new people. I would much prefer some other text as a sample here, a native one or something like the frequently used "North Wind and the Sun". A personal and relatively small complaint, to be sure. The gospel text sample is certainly preferable to no text sample. All in all, congratulations on a work well done. Haukurth 01:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Presumably modern linguists don't like to use bible translations as samples? I've always assumed that the big reason they do is that these translations are usually the earliest, and sometimes the only, samples available. (And that the small reason is they can be compared with one another.) Bishonen | talk 06:29, 28 May 2005(UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Haukurth. I would love to add sound samples — the only problem is that it is a little difficult to get them. I promise that I'll add them as soon as I've laid my hands upon some recordings.
I can understand what you mean with regard to bible texts as samples. As Bishonen says, sometimes it's the only text source available. In this case it isn't, though — there are loads of literature in Ewe, and also a reasonable amount in Fon (though less so in any of the Phla-Pherá dialects). Anyway, I picked this one mainly because the translation is easy to look up for most readers. I fully agree that a native text would be better, so I'm on the lookout for a suitable one including a translation. —
Support. Good luck finding recordings and text samples :) Haukurth

mark ✎ 21:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, yet another tour de force by Mark. Bishonen | talk 06:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Myxobolus cerebralis (Whirling Disease)

Self-nom, though I couldn't have done this without Anilocra and Nixie. I think this overview of the parasite is one of the best you'll find anywhere online. The Whirling Disease Initiative called it an "excellent resource" (personal communication). I'd be happy to implement any suggestions you have. Dave (talk) 22:01, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Great article with excellent pictures. the wub (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Obviously a very thorough article, and one on a topic that many would be happy to see represented on FA as an example of wonderful obscurity. Harro5 10:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Incredible. The finest FAC in quite a while. Simply amazing. Phils 10:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support The only thing I saw is the appendix and the links back to the relevant section is kind of odd. It would be much more standard Wikipedia style to just move the appendix to Salmonid susceptibility to whirling disease and add a See also: link to the end of the Susceptibility section. That's all I could see though. Great work. - Taxman 13:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point. I'll do that now. Dave (talk) 16:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very good, support, my only question is whether the disease this parasite causes should be covered entirely in the article on the parasite, or whether it should have its own article? But either way I think it's good enough to be an FA. Everyking 14:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the current version is probably best. Anyone interested in the parasite would be interested in the disease it causes and vice-versa. Splitting it into two articles would require flipping between the two pages to find everything out. Dave (talk) 16:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC) PS I bolded your "support" above to make it easier to tabulate. I hope you don't mind.
    • Comment Just to support Dave's comments, this is a discussion we've had elsewhere (e.g. Talk:Anisakis). My gut feeling is that this would be appropriate for the "major" parasites and diseases, such as Malaria vs. Plasmodium falciparum, but less so for the "lesser" (and it sticks in my throat to say that!) parasites and diseases. Anilocra 22:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Another comment, it's a bit of a problem with diseases, viruses, genetic disorders and parasites, do you right about the disease or the organism (gene) or both? Keeping them seperate often leads to two sortish articles that would be better together, the black death/Yersinia pestis and HIV/AIDS are some more notable exceptions. When the organism only causes one type of pathology, I think it's often best to combine the two and it's done well in this article.--nixie 23:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I learned something new. It had nice images and it was clear and comprehensive. Mgm|(talk) 20:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good. We need more like this. — mark ✎ 15:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • YAS - "Yet Another Support"  ALKIVAR™ 07:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Do fish have allies? - Bryan is Bantman 21:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • You're right that the conventional meaning of "allies" makes no sense there. Biologists talk about a species having "allies" if there are related groups. For example, primates could be described as "apes, monkeys, and allies." It's not great terminology (it conjures up an image of related species banding together against a common threat) but it is commonly used. We could change it to "salmon, trout, and related groups" if you think it's confusing. Dave (talk) 05:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • Since it only affects Salmonidae the text in the brackets could be shortened to (salmon and trout), or delete it all toghther. --nixie 06:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Tamil people

Overall, this is a great read. It is also informing, visually rich and it's news to most people. It performs very well when confronted with the Featured Article Candidates requirements. Subramanian talk 00:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment Why list a "Main article" if it's just going to be a redlink? For example, in the Culture section there is "Main article: Tamil culture", and in Visual arts and architecture there is "Main article: Tamil visual arts", but both of these are red links. If it's going to be split, do the split and resolve the red links. slambo 10:56, May 19, 2005 (UTC) (Fixed. Subramanian talk 13:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC))
Thanks. I had read the lead section and skimmed the rest. Now to read it in more detail and vote... slambo 15:54, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. User:Vadakkan has done a wonderful job that has been well supported by others. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 07:25, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Very informative article, and much more significant subject than many other FACs MvR 08:26, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Support. I learned a lot. But I have one Comment: I don't think the labels "classical," "medieavel," etc. really have much meaning outside of Europe. Is there a better way of describing these periods, e.g. "predynastic," "early dynastic," or something? Dave (talk)
  • Support. Ditto MvR. Beautiful and informative. Per Dave's comment: Actually the terms classical and mediaeval are very well established in Indian historiography. Classical refers roughly to the Sangam period of Tamil literature in South India, and to the golden age of Sanskrit and Prakrit in North India (from the rise of Magadha and the Maurya Empire to the Gupta Empire). In fact, Sanskrit and Tamil are officially recognized by the Indian government as classical languages. As for mediaeval, that's perhaps a less precise term (particularly in South India); but canonically, mediaeval in India means the era from the Delhi Sultanate to the Mughal Empire, when Muslim rulers established themselves in most places of the Subcontinent. QuartierLatin1968 17:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. We worked quite hard on expanding this article, and as far as I can see it is currently the only comprehensive NPOV encyclopaedia-style article about the Tamil people available on the web. On MvR's comment: "classical" is an established label for that period in Tamil history. "mediaeval" is also commonly used, but I take QuartierLatin1968's point about it being less precise in South India. I've changed it to "imperial and post-imperial periods". Arvind 11:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Comprehensive article  =Nichalp (Talk)= 14:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. But what about the food/cuisine? Is it no different than neighboring ethnic groups? How has it evolved/stayed traditional over the timeframe in the article? - Taxman 17:09, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Taxman, it's good that you brought this up. Will try to add some info soon. Thanks. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 04:08, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Grunge music

Self nomination. I have researched this subject extensively and have fine-tuned this article into what I think is one of the best overviews of grunge out there. -- LGagnon 16:30, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support тəzєті 16:59, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like a solid over-all summary of the genre. Support. Edeans 17:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily an objection, but… the article is a frequent magnet for dubious additions of non-notable bands. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:03, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Your concern is understood, but we have removed these bands from the article and we haven't had such additions in quite some time. -- LGagnon 01:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • minor object/comment - please change over to template based footnotes (for example autonumbered notes. This makes it easier to locate and update articles with footnotes in future. Mozzerati 21:10, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
    • I've changed them to reflect your suggestion. -- LGagnon 21:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object, like I said in peer review, I would like to see some more info on the bands rather than just a list of names, as is, there is no indication of how grunge has endured, a basic table listing year of formation and year of break-up/last album (most of the bands have broken up) and biggest selling album can easily be compiled from the relevant band articles--nixie 03:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I read your original suggestion, and I thought it was unneeded. If you want info on individual bands, you can check their articles. And info on which album sold best is not available in the individual articles, nor can we use chart places to determine it; for instance, both Nirvana's Nevermind and In Utero were #1 on the charts. What you are asking for is more of a nicety than an actually required detail. -- LGagnon 14:18, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • I disagree, part of being a featured article is being comprehensive, a list is not comprehensive as it provides next to no information--nixie 05:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
        • It is supposed to be comprehensive on the subject matter, not on related subject matter. You are asking for relatively minor details to be added in, details which pertain not to grunge as a whole but to specific grunge bands. There is no need to review the careers of each grunge band for the article to be comprehensive. -- LGagnon 15:31, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting and apparently comprehensive. Minor quibble: is it not our convention to call the "Footnotes" section "Notes"? --Theo (Talk) 23:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I have changed it to "Notes" now, though I personally think "Footnotes" is a better name for the section. -- LGagnon 00:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Habsburg Spain

In the previous nomination of this article, it was described by some as a "tour de force" and one of the "best pages" on Wikipedia. Consensus was not reached however. In evaluating the article now, I find that either 1) some objections previously raised were bogus; or 2) legit objections have certainly been reasonably accounted for. --DanielNuyu 08:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Habsburg Spain/archive1 is the old FACfailed discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a nice overview, but I think it may be a bit picture-heavy. All those pictures don't have to be crammed into a single article. Everyking 13:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Everyking, especially since this article is not an article about art; all these pictures, while most are aesthetically pleasing, do not really add to the article. Please select a few a put the others somewhere else (or on Commons if you can't find an article to put them in). Otherwise, excellent article.Phils 18:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I haven't yet been able to find a Wikipedia policy on images (as far as quantity goes), but I feel that the pictures in this article add to its readability. I think that the pictures help retain the interest of people who might otherwise have only a passing curiosity for the subject, which might be a problem when talking about continental European history in the seventeenth century to an Anglo-American audience. Thinking about newsmagazines and (for instance) many current textbooks for schoolchildren, where keeping the reader's interest is at a premium, it seems clear to me that the editors view a lot of color as a means to that end. I did take one image out because it made for uncomfortable formatting, though, and I would be fine taking out others if that's the consensus. I was the crackpot who put them there in the first place. :) Adam Faanes 20:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC
      • I respect your opinion, but I personally feel the large number of pictures to be distracting, not to mention it probably dramatically increases load time for people with slower connections. Phils 22:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree with Phils. --mav 23:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I happen to like the pics and I agree that they make for a much more readable article, though I also concur that if I didn't have Broadband, I'm sure my loading time would be miserable. I would keep most of the portraits (especially if they're not located anywhere else on Wikipedia) but do away with the majority of the battle and other scenes leaving maybe one or two of the better ones, as the most of them are harder to make out as thumbnails. I must say though, Phillip IV and Charles II of Spain were certainly good looking! My word! Hot! Hot! Hot! :-) Ganymead 03:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking about the download time, and it occurred to me that it might not be as big of a problem as we might think that it is; most browsers tend to load the text first, display that, and then put up the images as they come. Even if the images take a while to come, they can bide their time reading the text (as we should hope) and still keep their attention with the color that the images add to the page, when they come. And, personally, I think that even the battle images add something to the page, if only color. (The only really unclear image, I think, is the Battle of Pavia image; the rest of the images, particularly those in the later sections, tend to have more vibrant colors). And have a look at this picture of the Count of Olivares for a stunning example of male beauty in the seventeenth century. Adam Faanes 16:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Wiki is not paper. The pics are nice. I would like for all the pics to stay - their abundance is nice, and cetainly it doesn't constitute any official reason for objection. I'd like to receive a reply on article's talk page about the relevance of characters I mention there, though, before I support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • See talk page. Adam Faanes 16:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object. After looking through the article, I see some problems with internal links and disambiguation: while some mentioned rulers are not ilinked, others are linked to disambigs. I fixed Ferdinan II references in text, and before I remove my object - and likely support this otherwise good article - I'd like to hear from the author that he has went over all names, linked them and/or fixed disambigs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The objections about picture-heaviness are valid. There's no need to debate the details of official policy to see that this article is too burdened by an abundance of pictures. The paintings of monarchs, battles and high nobility should also be much balanced against those of peasant life by Pieter Brueghel the Elder and the likes. / Peter Isotalo 14:13, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect, if there isn't an official policy then we are discussing style. It seems that, of the people who have commented so far, that it's at least an open question as to whether or not there are presently too many pictures. I would be more than happy to remove the pictures myself if there were such a consensus or such a standing policy. Adam Faanes 16:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
There is an official policy on this at Wikipedia:Image use policy. But even without that, objections on the overuse of images are still valid. Making almost all the images the default thumb width will help. Some other images will need to be removed or at least turned into (see image) inline links. See below for an example why (at standard resolution of 800x600).--mav 17:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
This is too crowded
Aha - I see what you mean. It looks a bit different on 800x600. I tried reformatting some of the pictures so that they would look better on lower resolutions. Adam Faanes 19:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I must also point out that out of the 33 pictures in the article right now, there is not a single historical map of Habsburg Spain or its colonies.
Peter Isotalo 21:31, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I've copyedited large portions of the article and inserted comments on several issues that should be adressed. Judging from what I've seen so far, the text seems to be good, but there are many minor errors, inconsistencies and slightly illogical sentences that need to be proof-read. Peter Isotalo 15:59, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. One of the most attractive aspects of Spanish history during this period is the pageantry of the age, which included some of the greatest artists of all time. We should try to capture the reader's attention and try to engross him or her in that pageantry, even if it distracts them a bit from the text. The reader will get to that in his/her own time - the important thing is to capture his/her attention first and get them interested. I can't say for certain, but I feel that when people said that this article was a "tour de force" they were saying that not only out of respect for the prose, but also because the article captures some of the majesty, color, and emotion of the era in ways that only Velazquez could. That's what I was trying for when I put these images in to begin with. Adam Faanes 16:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • My comment is not an objection, just a comment. However, I'd like to remind you that this is an encyclopedia: our first goal is to provide people with the information they were looking for when they typed "Habsburg Spain" in the search box, not to have them wait 30 seconds to be "captivated" by an enourmous amount of picture. If someone wants to look at pretty pictures, they have Wikimedia Commons to do that. Speaking of Velazquez, look at the article about him, it's less crowded with pictures, yet it is only about him, a painter (whereas Habsburg Spain was an epoch/country). Notice how there is a link to a picture gallery of his works at the bottom of the page. Again, this is not an objection, it's just a comment. I will read the article in more detail when I have time - I happen to know a bit on the subject- before I vote. Phils 19:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Though some inline citations for important points would be even better. - Taxman 17:40, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • support very nice pics!!!! (except the one of charles II) -Pedro 01:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
It looks fine to me.
    • Of course it looks fine - that is at 1024x768 not the 800x600 (standard res). --mav 03:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • In 800x600 every article looks terrible. I admit we should remove one or two pics (priority to Charles II!!!!) eheheh -Pedro 13:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The removal of Charles II image would increase the quality of the article, people will stop reading the article if they see it. LOL. BTW, ending the voting, this image that I've created can be deleted, it is useless. -Pedro 02:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Minor object, the lack of a map is quite an oversight, as is the lack of explanation for why it is called the Age of Expansion (I only know it is because of the series box). I agree that the amount of pics is a little overwhelming, especially on a small monitor (but I'm not objecting on this point), perhaps some could be moved to specific articles on a person etc. Support--nixie 03:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • the Portuguese Empire and the spanish one were separated (obviously controled by the same people), I never saw one with them together. The Portuguese continued to settled and explore Brazil, Africa and southest asia, and Spain central and south America, along with the philipines. The articles explains what was the Empire of the H. Spain, if you read it you wouldnt complain "it lacks a map". Besides the map would be probably innacurate in colonial aspects and desnecessary. Maybe an Europe's map would be easier. I think the picture of Charles II should go. lol. it would reduce the amount of pictures and the article will continue a candy to the eyes. Besides, it will lokk better, because when a person sees that pictures after seing so many beautiful paitings will jumb from the chair if they see that. -Pedro 10:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Addressing some concerns: Piotr, nixie, see the new map that has now been included; As far as the issue of the pictures go, I have taken the liberty of removing some. They include: the second picture of Olivares, one of the king of Portugal, one of the Battle of Pavia, and Ricci's auto de fe. At all times, keeping proper format of the article was my goal. Although I am for the inclusion of these pictures, the current reduction is in an attempt to form a compromise with those who think the article contains too many. Please continue this dialogue—those who thought there were too many pictures, consider how the article appears now. --DanielNuyu 23:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • It looks much better now, though two pictures per section seems like reasonable layout to me. A lot of them still have three, and most of those are still of a lot of royalty and nobility (they will seem dull to a lot of readers). There are also some pictures that I really think the article could do without:
The Vision of Teresa Avila
The allegory of Charles V - He's already depicted at the top of the article; it seems excessive to have two paintings.
Jakob Fugger - Though obviously a fairly important figure he is not mentioned in the article and is moreover Dutch.
Las Meninas by Velázquez - The picture is bigger than the section art and culture, which really doesn't look good at all. Consider expanding the section, though not adding more pictures. ;-)
And one thing that really strikes me as way too distracting is the huge picture of "The Glory of Spain" in the History of Spain article series template. Article series templates, when having pictures at all, should keep them to the size of the links in the template.
Peter Isotalo 07:50, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

New edits to address objections:

  • Peter Isotalo
    • Each of the four images aforementioned has been removed in accordance with your suggestion
    • Two paintings by Pieter Brueghel the Elder now appear, even as I believe that the same logic used to remove Fugger from this article could apply against including Brueghel's work
    • I completely agree with you about The Glory of Spain in the template, and a smaller (but still essentially comprehensible) rendition appears now
    • A few sentences were added to the Art/Culture section, but I don't want to keep going with it and make it look like a rehash of the Golden Age article it already suggests to link to
      • Eeexcellent! If you could just add one final paragraph with some information on the most famous painters of the period and I'll be satisfied. Objection withdrawn. Peter Isotalo 21:23, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • nixie
    • See the map
    • That the Habsburg period was an "Age of Expansion" is a somewhat implicit consideration throughout the article, but an explicit mention now appears in the lead section

--DanielNuyu 04:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through and removed about half the images (mostly ones that were only peripherally related), and right alinged almost all the rest. It should look good on big and small resolutions. →Raul654 20:11, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Looks good without all the pics! Very nice article! Support. Ganymead 22:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looking good indeed. Peter Isotalo 22:51, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hero of Belarus

Self-nom. I believe the article should be FA for various reasons. Though there has only been five people who have been decorated with the title, their heroism and service to their country serves as an example of the people who make Belarus a great country. Though I do agree this award is no where near recognized as the Hero of the Soviet Union thoughout our culture, an amazing article with great photos and drawings (from me) is a shining example of what can be done with a stub, Babelfish and those who are knowledge of the local language. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, I think it's quite good. It's also good that we have such a quality and neutral article on a topic associated with a country that is often unfairly maligned in the West. Everyking 04:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I do agree that we, the United States, bash Belarus because of voting issues, human rights abuses and also due to President Lukashenko's rule. We have even accused Belarus of providing passports and refuge to Saddam Hussein and his deceaed sons, though we have found them elsewhere (BTW, we never apologized for those, either). I also sadly think that this might be one of very few articles about Belarus-topics that mighe become featured. I state that since I find little Belarussian topics online, and most of it is from the government and in Russian. I admit that I had to use Babelfish on this page, and I know some translations and spellings are a bit spotty. But thanks for your support and I will wait and see what others have to say on it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Object (Resolved). There is almost no information about the heroes or why they got the reward. For example: "for the valiant service to the state and the society." is the only information we are given, leaving the reader with more questions than answers. The hero and reasons for the reward should be fleshed out if not bulked up to be FA level. Stbalbach 05:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Not much information on the heroes can be found. I managed to find a small bio on few of them, but I just need to put it down. There are some people who I cannot find information on, so I will see if people who know the language can locate something. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok, I lied. I found more information on all of the heroes. It will be good for this article, since I mainly want to discuss the title. If people want to start their own articles on each hero, then of course, we need more. However, I do have links to bios/obits/stuff about each hero. Checking the images can also give you some information on each hero. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • After looking at the article, it looks to me like this objection has been resolved. →Raul654 19:51, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. It looks rather short to me - from lead to main, which composes of many sections that would normaly be called stub sections. A good article, on a little known subject, but not not something I would judge as a FA quality. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The reason why the lead section is short is that there is only so much you can cover with a medal in the introduction. I tried to match my article to a FA that dealt with a medal subject: Medal of Honor. I know their lead was short, but it conveyed nearly the entire article in those two lines. I was wondering what other sections do you find short? Zscout370

(Sound Off) 14:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

      • I expanded the lead a bit, but I think the lead is fine now. As mentioned above, the bios have been beefed up, photos for all of the heroes have been located. Once again, I do agree this is a little known subject, but I want to have a good article about Belarus. Though, if anyone wants to move this to the Russian or Belarussian Wikipedia, let me know and I will give you all that you need to pull it off. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A well thought out article and it compares nicely to Medal of Honor and Order of the Bath, two other featured article medals. -Husnock 00:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - with caveat. Looks good, and you've got my support so long as you manage to get better translations! The Babelfishiness of those translations is pretty obvious. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • That is my biggest concern is the translations. I know some words might be off, but I think everything should be clear now. Mainly, only exact quotes from law sources and the decrees have been translated. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
      • James, which sections do you think sound a bit Babelfishish to you? I am trying to change some of the words now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • (answered on Zach's talk page) Grutness...wha?
      • will make the changes once the girlfriend gets offline. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Girlfriend is gone, changes has been made. Thanks again James. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Much better (although you missed the Vladimir Karvat bit!). Assuming that's done, the caveat goes and you have full support Grutness...wha? 07:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC) (thinks... how did he write that bit about waiting for his girlfriend to get offline while she was online?)
    • She was off doing something else, so I was able to drop in a quick line. I fixed up the Karvat line, so I went ahead and crossed out the caveat statement. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support as expanded - much better. It may be worth starting articles on the individual recipients, as discussed above. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • We can do that. Since this is a version many like, I can create a few stub articles about each hero. Once I do that, I will tag it with {{Belarus-stub}} so it can be expanded later on. Thanks for the support ALoan. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good! --Angr/comhrá 05:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The voting period is now over, and the article was promoted to Featured Article Status on 24 May, 2005. I thank everyone for voting and raising any concerns, I could not make this article Featured without your help. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 12:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Military history of Puerto Rico

I'm resubmitting this article after doing additional work. I believe I've covered the main objections on the fisrt nomination. I enjoy history and I wrote the article because I was unable to find one on the topic in the internet. I hope you all enjoy it. Tony the Marine (23:45, May 19, 2005)

  • Comment: former nomination is here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object. Half of my previous objections not adressed: lead is still to short. While references are split from external links, they are still not formatted (i.e. no 'last acessed on...', no ISBN). External link still in mainbody - use some note variant to remove it. I will support after those changes - a good article despite those few minor faults.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm helping out with this article. It looks real good so far and I think I can help bring it to FA standard. Great job Tony! :) --mav 02:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. After mav polished the article, I went over it, looking for details. I could only find nitpicky details to fix. This one has been polished to a high shine. SWAdair | Talk 10:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article. – ugen64 16:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; excellent job. Fascinating reading, and I didn't know a lot of this stuff. Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; Antonio Reckless Life Martin 00:01 AM, 22 May 2005 (MST)
  • Support - a wealth of information about a subject which I was previously largely uninformed about. I have two minor caveats, though. One - nitpickingly - is a technically incorrect sentence - under "War on terrorism" it states Among these were the first two Puerto Rican women to die in a combat zone. I would prefer that to read ...the first two female members of the Puerto Rican military to die..., as I suspect Puerto Rican women were among the casualties during the 1790s when much of the island could have been considered a combat zone. The other problem is a little more difficult, and is addressed by Piotrus, above. The lead-in section is quite perfunctory and reads "telegraphically". I'm not asking you to waffle, but a slightly more leisurely approach might be better. Even without a change to this, though, there is still enough there for me to give this the thumbs up. Grutness...wha? 08:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a fascinating article which reads really well. Ideally I would like the lead section to be a little longer, maybe another paragraph or two, but I do not see this as a reason to oppose this otherwise fine article. Rje 12:38, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good stuff from Tony and co. Andre (talk) 15:11, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work overall, Tony. This article seems comprehensive, detailed and informative. MusiCitizen 16:12, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good job. –Hajor 16:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Well done! Can't find anything wrong with it. Linuxbeak | Desk 17:22, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent job on a rather obscure subject, but that is very interesting. I as a Puerto Rican didn't know many of the facts that the article gives. Good job! <<Coburn_Pharr>> 22:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Object I don't want to be a pain, but there really should be some kind of in-line referencing system (footnotes, parentheticals, i-note, textual attributions). It's important that we make the article as easily verifiable as possible. Examples of things that badly need references are statistics (like numbers of people) and details of the various battles. I hope this is fixed so the article can get the featured status it clearly deserves. Dave (talk) 01:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment, stats are the only thing that I think really need referencing for historcial and overview type of articles--nixie 05:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I heartily disagree. I can see lots that need it, and stats might be the last thing. The best guideline I can think of is to prioritize the facts in the article from the standpoint of most important, and most contentious. This article may not have many contentious facts, but what are the top 15-20 most important facts, that if removed, the article would be much weaker? Those need citations to their source. Or pick the 2 most important facts in each section or subsection and cite those. Think critically - what could someone that does not trust this article take issue with, and what source would back up what is here? So lack of inline citations and the fact that the references section is still not properly formatted leads me to object for now. Article looks good though, so if this is fixed, I'd love to support. - Taxman 14:15, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • I have added the inline references but I need some help in making soem of them "invisible", please help out, anybody. Tony the Marine NEVER MIND I SOLVED THE PROBLEM.
  • Support Everyking 03:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This article is comprehensive, well-presented, significant, and a very interesting read. Acegikmo1 05:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "Over 28 Puerto Ricans have died in the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq." reads awkwardly, could this be changed to the exact number (as of some date), or at least changed to "over (some round number)". In either case, a reference would be appropriate for this fact. Thanks. Pcb21| Pete 08:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great, great article with copious information. I see nothing to fix. --Lst27 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Comprehensive and informative. utcursch | talk 10:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Whale song

This was nominated a few weeks ago by someone else and got some supporters but also some valid objections (see the previous FAC). I've now had chance to work on these (diff showing my changes) and got the approval of the user who made the specific objections last time here.

So I thought I should open myself up to comment again here. This time it's a self-nomination. Pcb21| Pete 15:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - great. -Pedro 18:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - could do with a lead image: the spectrogram and the humpback whale look good. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done, Pete. Phils 22:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, the article covers all the basics now--nixie 23:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article. I'd also like to see a lead image. CDThieme 04:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Much improved. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:06, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Danny 23:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written and interesting topic. Deserves its recognition. Harro5 04:13, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good job! Neutralitytalk 04:28, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting subject. Covered the topic. I was happy to see some sound files of the song included too. A minor quabble, though:
One researcher characterized listening to such a school as like listening to a group of children at a playground. This is weasel wording. My first reaction was: "which researcher?". Mgm|(talk) 11:29, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support MvR 08:01, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Support. Congrats Pcb21 - a great article and a soon-to-be featured one. Harro5 10:09, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hmm it looks really good, and I'd like to support, but the structure is a bit confused, and parts of the article are not even about the topic. I'll start with the second part first. The 'Toothed whale sound production' section starts with a sentence saying the sounds they make are not considered whale songs, so why is that section six times longer than the section on 'Baleen whale sound production'? So that section there then a later whole section on the Humpback whale song later is confusing structure wise. What is this article about? Whale songs or whale sounds? In fact I can't see anywhere in the article that it tells me the Humpback is baleen at all, so the prior distinction between baleen sounds and toothed whale sounds is even more disjointed. The other sections don't seem to flow in a logical order either. Further, do only males produce whale songs? - Taxman 14:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

WGA screenwriting credit system

Self-nom. An article on the convoluted process by the Writers Guild of America which determines who "wrote" a film. Comprehensive article and bibliography. Was on peer review here a couple months back and as a FAC here where the objection was to its US-centric title. No, there's no picture. I don't know how anyone would illustrate it, short of a screen capture of the relevant title cards. I don't have the ability to add such captures. PedanticallySpeaking 17:23, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Phils 19:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I have added a screenshot of the credits from A Christmas Story. I think that this is fair use. --Theo (Talk) 11:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • comment although some of your references state which film they cover, and so it is easy to work out which area they cover, others are more general. Some inline references, such as footnotes or invisible notes would really help with the verification of the article. Mozzerati 21:07, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Support. Neutralitytalk 03:05, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well written. →Raul654 05:06, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Papal Tiara

self nom When I started this article in February 2003 I did not expect that it would grow as it did or contain as much information as it did. I knew next to nothing about this topic when I started it but was curious. I discovered recently that during the papal conclave a journalist colleague had been using wikipedia as a sourcebook for papal information. Had Benedict XVI been crowned he intended to use this article for his newspaper article on papal crowns. So I guess this article has been a success, largely thanks to the work of so many wikipedians over two years. I think it should be showcased as an example of how Wikipedia can take an obscure topic and produce what is probably the most thorough article on this topic anywhere. FearÉIREANN 03:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Support-powerful article. The amount of information is incredible, as well as the structure and organization. A worthy article to be featured. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 05:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A very good article on a somewhat obscure topic, just what Wikipedia is all about. Rje 13:06, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Nice article indeed, but lead section needs to be longer, a ==References== section must be added and many more inline citations should be included. --mav 16:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • It looks to me like all of these objections have been addressed - the lead is now 4 hefty paragraphs, and it has 20 footnotes. →Raul654 16:25, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. It's always great to see a well-researched articles like this (judging from the number of publications given at the end), but the references require some polishing. If the publications in the "Additional Reading" section were used as sources or to fact-check, the section should be renamed "References". Some of the documents lack a name for the publisher (only the name of the city is included).
    • That is because many old texts either used long out of existence publishing houses or in many cases (God knows why!) used to use city of publication. In other cases, the information can from books that quoted from older texts but only gave place of publication. I used the reference to the older book.FearÉIREANN 00:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
      • This is v. poor technique, especially on a controversial subject. Use Inter-Library Loan, cite only the modern source, or indicate which books have not been seen. (See comment on Bibliography for dangers involved.) Septentrionalis 04:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • As mav above says, it would be useful to add footnotes to make it clearer where in the source documents some of the facts in the article come from (ex.: on what data is the average tiara weight that is given in the article based?). The "Symbolism of the Triple Tiara" strikes me as particularly weak in that area. Formulations like Some have linked [the tiara] to..., Others have given a spiritual interpretation..., Yet another theory..., and Other theories suggest... do not have their place in featured articles, unless they are backed with names and quotes for the advocates of the different theories. Also, is there not an inconsistency about the "papier mâché" tiara. In the section dedicated to it, the author(s) write(s) It is rumoured to have been worn by one later pope, Pius IX, sometime between 1870 and his death in 1878., yet in "Weight of the tiara", a few sections earlier, on can read Because of the weight of the older tiaras, some elderly popes, notably Pius IX and Leo XIII, though they had been given many tiaras during their reign, opted where possible to wear the papier-mâché tiara in their final years.. Was Pius IX the only pope to wear that tiara after Pius VI or not? (commented coninuted below)
    • No. But it was never stated that they wore it (it would be an admission that their health was failing.) It was just recorded in old diaries of people in the papal court that they were doing so, and hoping no-one would get close enough to notice which one it was, as a lot of the tiaras look the same from afar. FearÉIREANN 00:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
      • That is not made clear in the text. Phils 16:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Another section that would need closer examination is "The Papal Tiara and the 666 controversy". What are the four definitive sources that Protestants sometimes give, and Which Protestants claim they are definitive? Is Uriah Smith (author the publication cited in the 4th footnote) the source of all these claims? If so, he should be named, not Protestants in general. This is exactly the kind of statement that needs to be sourced with footnotes. I think the article should clearly enumerate the four objections, explain why these four are considered (and by whom) definitive, and if necessary, mention the Catholic counter-arguments, instead of pretending However none of the sources seem to stand up to detailed examination and proceeding to counter the "Adventists' claims" in a most vague and sometimes incomprehensible manner (In fact the tiara some Seventh-day Adventists has the words was actually manufactured decades after the supposed sighting of the words on the tiara supposedly seen at Mass. - I understand a word was ommitted after 'Adventists', but when was the tiara manufactured, and when was it supposedly sighted?). This just to confirm that mav's objection is justified. Apart from needing better referencing, a quick copy-edit would be a good thing (some commas missing, etc.) I know I ask for this quite often and could possibly do it myself, but we have enough skilled copyeditors around, so that we don't need a non-native English speaker to do it. Phils 18:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The 666 claim did originally feature in the article in detail but another user thought it overlapped on a specific article on the topic and reduced it to a summary. I'll re-insert the original detail. (The supposed sighting, BTW, was in 1834. Yet the Seventh-day Adventists then claimed that the tiara in question is the one used to crown Pius XII. That tiara was actually made in 1877! Their reliability on this issue is of that scale. Lol. Re the meaning of the triple tiaras, the problem is that many different theories are espoused as no-one really knows. What I did was pull together the most widely mentioned ones, but the mentions are often in obscure documents. But I'll retrace the research. FearÉIREANN 19:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I still don't like the formulation "Four definitive sources are sometimes given" (and all the other some-s in that section), but I'm probably overly picky, but you've already done a lot to improve the article. Phils 16:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
      • This website, http://www.truecatholic.org/nop/p6tiara.htm, is probably one of the sources that were supposed to be used in the article. I have no clue on where this website got it's information, but this group claims that when the Pope ditched the Tiara, he "told the world that he is not the Pope of the Catholic church." Zscout370 (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not yet of feature quality. Has recurrent POV problems, which may have provided the impetus for the article, but are unsuitable for a FAC.Septentrionalis 04:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • What POV problems do you see? Unless the authors know what they are, they can't be fixed. Therefore your objection may not be actionable. - Taxman 21:14, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • There have been recurrent efforts to use the article as a POV, exaggerating the (quite real) sufferings of Pius VI and Pius VII to make Napoleon and Pius IX look bad. See talk page for some of the issues. I would regard this as largely (but not entirely) solved by the present text, if the same assertions did not keep reappearing. Septentrionalis 22:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
        • There is also the question of whether the bibliography in fact represents books that any Wikipedian has actually seen, on which this page (above) and the talk page disagree. It certainly used to include one book which said nothing about tiaras or the subject matter of the article at all. If this is the case where I have checked, how is the rest of it? Septentrionalis 22:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Historians regularly mention books they have used in understand underlying trends that may have shaped their ideas. Hugh's book on the French Revolution was informative in contextualising the growing movement that saw a break in the concept of the alliance of 'throne and altar' of mediaval times to one based on the rights of man. The papacy in that period and for a century afterwards continued to be attracted to the concept of 'throne and altar' and opposed to the principles of the 'rights of man'. Indeed some of the principles of the French Revolution were only accepted as late as Vatican II. Understanding the changing conceptionalisation of monarchy and its symbols in the nineteenth century is an inherent part of this article and that book formed a useful source for understanding the changing secular world versus the world of traditional Catholicism. Using references is not about looking through indices to see if the word tiara exists in them. But as you seem to have a problem with the standard method of using references, to keep you happy in your non-historical understanding of using references I removed the book. (BTW a book I am reading on mediaval concepts of family uses as one of its references an article about 1940s Northern Ireland social traditions. And Scandal and Betrayal, an acclaimed account of the theft of the Irish Crown Jewels includes in its biography An Encylopaedia of British Literature, Art and Culture as well as The Real World of Sherlock Holmes. I suppose you disapprove of these two and want those books condemned because the books mentioned in the references don't actually mention mediaeval families or the Irish crown jewels?) FearÉIREANN\(talk) 23:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I need to look at this article more to see if it does fit the FA status. To Jtdirl: Though many of the sources might be in PD, still list the sources in the references. I would also pay attention to the Pope Benedict XVI article, since we are not sure about the status of the arms of Benedict XVI either will ditch the tiara in favor of the mitre or the tiara will be restored. I would also try to clear up any copyvios, if at all. I still thank Jtdirl for pointing this out on my talk page, but I still need to comb though this. Zscout370 (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is beautiful! But lead section can be improved, which is not going to be a big deal. muriel@pt 08:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Ok, I looked at the article and I believe, with a little work, the article can be FA status. Zscout370 (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Awesome article. Bratschetalk random 03:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Very interesting Giano | talk 08:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: most images have incomplete source information (there is a good argument for fair use here, I think, but that's no excuse for a lack of proper attribution). —Steven G. Johnson 05:26, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Right now, I am trying to find photos of the various crowns. For Paul VI, I found [3]. This was cropped, then used on Wikipedia, but was replaced. The photo being used now was taken from [4]. Most of the photos used for the articled at loctaed at http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/claims.htm. I do not know what copyright status every picture holds, but at least we are getting somewhere. Zscout370 (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Another image of the papal tiara on Pope John XXIII: http://pirate.shu.edu/~wisterro/cdi/John%20XXIII%20-%20tiara.jpg. Zscout370 (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
The tiara of Pope Pius IX: http://www.nd.edu/~bshweb/pics/tiara.gif. Zscout370 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Object POV mainly on anti-pope thing! -Pedro 00:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Same as above and what do you mean by "on anti-pope thing"? What POV problems do you see? Unless the authors know what they are, they can't be fixed. Therefore your objection may not be actionable. - Taxman 21:14, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry??? Not actionable?! this Pope Gregory XVII thing is surely intended to offend catholics and redicularizes the article. What that has to do with the article? is to make him noticeable? Did he died? I didnt knew that he had born. And I dont live that faar from Seville. I completly disapprove an article with such a biased info. I'm very faar from being a fundamentalist catholic. it is POV. This and Sealand are some of the articles that make wikipedia seem ridiculous. And passing this to a featured article?!?! I'm not offending the author that surelly has edited the article in good faith.object object object-Pedro 18:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
        • How the heck can the so-called Pope Gregory XVII thing be intended to offend Catholics? That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Firsty it doesn't mention a Pope Gregory XVI at all. It mentions someone who claimed he was Pope Gregory XVII. Secondly that mention is patently NPOV. It points out that the papal tiara is such a powerful symbol of the papacy that a wannabe pope felt it necessary to wear his own one. That is a fact. You may not like the fact, but is is a fact and an NPOV article cannot ignore such a fact. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 20:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
          • It is a non-important person, the image is very ridiculous. I've also a tiara at home, do you want to talk about it also? It is so powerful that people that dont go no more to the church (except on marriages and baptisms) have it at home. That would be a fact if I really had it at home. Did really the catholic church said that man was the anti-pope? Probably they've never heard of him. I think the article is going to controversial issues, with unknown people, trying to make them famous. -Pedro 02:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The rules for the FAC say you have to object with specificity, which, in all his commentary, Pedro has not done. His objection is therefore inactionable. →Raul654 16:28, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • your comment is the confirmation that this "feature article candidates" became a facade. The articles you (admins) dont like you dont say nothing, create the most mirabulous objections, or remove them quickly from voting, but if you like you withdraw other peoples arguments, I was pretty well specific. I'm not saying to remove the info on anti-popes, we should touch it with a simple paragraph, not refering to ANY supposed anti-pope, unless he is famous, giving the status that it has in the article, it is POV. -Pedro 01:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting and informative article.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 17:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • this one you approve, but in Goa you were commenting on blog content issues... this one also has.--Pedro 18:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
      • And which blog were you referring to in this article?  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:55, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • supposed.anti.pope.that.no.body.knows.and.cares.about.blog.com -Pedro 02:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 12:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Gorgeous article. Well written, and with excellent visual references. Kudos. --JohnDBuell 17:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow. I had no idea there was so much to be known about papal crowns. Good job. Support. Edeans 20:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear language and solid research. --Theo (Talk) 10:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Object for now. I hate breaking a string of supports, but I'm going to have to complain about the incredibly short section on Tiara envy. Could that section be renamed and include its current info (only better developed) plus something about Pope Gregory XVII? It seems strange to have just a picture of him and nothing in the text. Maybe the "The triple tiara in Tarot" section could be added too - name the section "Non-catholic tiaras" or "Papal tiara spinoffs" or something. Another thing that annoyed me is the seemingly random wikilinking of years. Is there a reason for that? Or can I/someone go through and wikilink all of them? Also, is there a reason that american units (pounds) are preferred over metric units (kilograms) for a european subject? --Spangineer ∞ 00:01, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • 'Gregory XVII' is not mentioned in detail because it wasn't a real pope, just a diluded priest who fanatised that Christ had appeared to him and told him that he was going to be pope and would then be crucified in Jerusalem!!! (He actually died in his bed in Spain!) He isn't in himself relevant to the article, though there is an article on wikipedia on him. The only relevance was that he showed the symbolic power of the papal tiara by having one in his own 'coronation.'
    • As to the wikifying of dates, go ahead. Bits were added in but not fully wikified.
    • Re tiara envy and the tarot - it is simply a matter of space. The article already exceeds the 32k advised maximum size recommended to make the article friendly to all browsers. There simply wasn't space, and while they are relevant in giving a cultural link to papal tiaras, they are a bit off message. One couldn't really drop bits about the actual papal tiara to make room for an interesting but overall side issue, though if more