Contents 1 Objectivist poets 2 Dawson Creek, British Columbia 3 Rosa Parks 4 Arrested Development (TV series) 5 Claudius 6 Omnipotence paradox 7 StarCraft 8 Yuan (Shao) 9 History of the Jews in Poland 10 Hugo Chávez 11 Planetary habitability 12 University of Michigan 13 Imperial Japanese Navy 14 Black pepper 15 Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory 16 Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618) 17 Cyberpunk 18 Shoe polish 19 Pneumonia 20 Music of Maryland 21 The Relapse 22 Yoweri Museveni 23 Acetic acid 24 Belgium 25 James T. Aubrey, Jr. 26 Barbara McClintock 27 Canon T90 28 Canberra 29 Mandan 30 Our Friends in the North 31 Waterfall Gully, South Australia 32 War of the League of Cambrai 33 November (film) 34 Boston, Massachusetts 35 Sylvanus Morley 36 Doctor Who missing episodes 37 Human

Objectivist poets

Self nom. A not uninformative (I hope) account of an important group of poets. This had a peer review that resulted in a number of improvements. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object, over a few, easy-to-fix, details in a very good article. The article wikilinks every year mentioned. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). The last two paragraphs of the the "Legacy" section fail to have the scrupulous referencing of the rest of the article; the statements of infuence aren't attributed to anyone (great work on weaving the references into the rest of the article, though!). There are few incoming links, so I'd suggest creating a redirect from Objectivist poetry, and see if you net some that way. There are something like a hundred links pointing at the disambiguation page Objectivism, some of them may want this article (although my quick scan didn't reveal any). One could spend a sentence on who the Beat poets and LANGUAGE poets were. Lastly, the article left me wanting to read some of the poetry, but it wasn't obvious to me from the External links section precisely where I should go to do that. I look forward to changing my vote. Jkelly 18:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment I found one link which should have been pointing to Objectivist poets, an article on the Beat movement. It is now properly disambiguated. The others look like the creations of Bland Rand enthusiasts, persuing their philosophy of self-interest by contributing to a free encyclopedia. Anville 22:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, the MoS is a guidlene only. I believe that the links to the years are useful because they help provide an appropriate historical context for what was, after all, a group of poets who stood outside the mainstream of their time. Unless there is a really strong objection, I would prefer to retain these links. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added links to texts and expanded on the Beats and lang. poets. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the year links should be retained, and I appreciate the expansion. (I probably should have mentioned that I preferred the years linked when I voted below, but oh well.) Anville 17:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the year links also. I guess I disagree with Mos here. Paul August ☎ 22:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support, informative and beautiful article. I like especially that, purporting to be about the poets and not merely the poetry, it really is; i. e., the loftiness of poetic discussion and careers is supplemented with a biographical and humane "Objectivists after Objectivism" section on the later lives, which are sometimes part of the poetic careers, sometimes not. As always Filiocht's brilliant prose flows clear as water. (P. S. William Carlos Williams: what a babe.) Bishonen | talk 19:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC).
• Object for the moment (but this will probably be easily addressed): I believe that much as with images, quotes this lengthy from copyrighted poems need to acknowledge copyright and indicate whether they are used by permission or with fair use justification. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As I understand it (and I have some experience of print publishing) quotes as short as this (to give a context, the Reznikoff quote is from a 20 page sequence, the Zukofsky is a 14 line part of a 6 page section of an 800 page poem, and the Oppen is a short section from a 30 page work) do not need to acknowledge copyright but are fair use by definition. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • While I don't necessarily think it is required to give such notice, it can't hurt to have it. To avoid cluttering the page, it should be a footnote (or inote, possibly). —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I tend towards the "if it's not needed, don't add it" approach. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It isn't needed. I understand JMabel's original concern, as it's not made clear on the page that the outtakes come from poems that long; in fact I rather came away with the impression that the Oppen and Zukovsky quotes were whole poems. But now that Filiocht has explained the context, there is no copyright issue, they are indeed fair use by definition. (I have some experience of academic publishing.) However, I'd like to see the point that they're taken from long originals touched on in some way in the text, so as not to raise the same alarm in future readers. Also: "To avoid cluttering the page, it should be a footnote" is a contradiction in terms in my book; footnotes are clutter. Sometimes they're necessary clutter, but not here. And nobody should be made to use inote unless they want to, as there are very reasonable objections to it. Bishonen | talk 14:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I have tried to implement this suggestion. What do you all think now? Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object for the reasons Jkelly and Jmabel gave above. I expect these issues can be addressed relatively easily. Anville 22:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Support now that the context of the quotations is better explained. Anville 17:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support: This is a great article. One of the best. I had never heard of Objectivist poets before seeing this. I would too wanted to read more, so looked here [1] - One types in the author's name, and then purchases the book and reads it. There are 86 books in Britain alone beginning at £0.98p for works by Robert McAlmon (very good value indeed - I've ordered one) . The page is more than adequately referenced, all this constant referring back to various books is unnecessary, so long as the sources are listed in the reference section the reference books can always be read by those wishing to check or further their knowledge. The style and prose are well up to Filiocht's usual high standard. Another great page for Wikipedia. Giano | talk 12:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment could do with an image towards the last half, maybe a bookcover if anyone has one? DVD+ R/W 07:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As no book is discussed in depth, I think that might be pushing fair use a bit. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly written and informative; excellent article. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. An excellent article and very nicely written. violet/riga (t) 21:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Another fine Filiocht fashioning. Paul August ☎
• Support. What Paul said. Mark¹ 01:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Dawson Creek, British Columbia

It is a town of 11,000 people in northern British Columbia. I believe the article is of feature quality so I bring it here. All comments are welcome. --maclean25 09:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Dawson Creek, British Columbia/archive1

• support. only 11,000 people is nothing compared with wikipedians deleting thousands of smaller cities and towns with 100,000 - it's a unique city more than just any city. It's a city with a great history, and it's specially good place for bounty huners! There is always gold in that old Creek!
• Support. Great article! Though I might make a suggestion to vary the size of the pictures in the article. Some are a bit hard to discern at their current size. In addition, the fabulous graph of the town's population should be bigger. There is also one detail that I think may need a bit of clarification: Why did refugees from the Sudetenland choose to move to this particular area? Lovely job! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support, and also the comments. I expanded the Sudeten sentence and provided a new reference that has a better description of their settlement. The Sudetens were refugees in Europe (I think they fled to Britain) waiting for a country to accept them. Canada accepted a few of them and since there was still a lot of open, arable land in northeastern B.C. many went there. --maclean25 02:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support: This should be a model for all small town articles that wish to ascend to FA Status. It meets all of the WP:WIAFA criteria, it's free from edit warring from what I've seen, and it's a great tool for likewise articles on similiar subjects. Karmafist 18:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A good read indeed. I agree with the Sudetenland suggestion though. Quite a well-written article! -- user:zanimum
• Strong Support. Absolutely remarkable! --Hollow Wilerding 01:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support This is the sort of article that should be set up as a model for its kind. Well done! A few comments for you, Maclean, regarding the content, follow this vote. It is mostly nit-picking, so feel free to ignore any (or all) of it. :)

• 1. sub-section: History - "the community boomed" - The meaning may be lost on non-Native English users.
• 2. sub-section: History - "Elevator Row" - I cannot parse what exactly this might be other than having a connexion with grain elevators.
• 3. sub-section: History - "Since the 1970s, the town's population and economy has not expanded greatly due to the nearby town of Fort St. John taking most of the industrial development and Grande Prairie the commercial."

suggested rewrite, with the changes in bold:

• "Since the 1970s, the town's population and economy has not significantly increased. This is primarily attributable to the nearby town of Fort St. John becoming a centre for industrial development and Grande Prairie becoming the same in the commercial sector."

• 4. sub-section: History - "and the factory was half built the industrial company abandoned their plans." - Which company?
• 5. sub-section: Demographics - "and its participation rate was 69.5%" - The term "participation rate" is unfamiliar to me, and there does not seem to be anything linked to it here or at the other Wikis. Is there a synonym for the concept/phrase that does have a linkable article somewhere?
• 6. sub-section: Economy - "As city acts as the retail and service center for the region" As city acts? Looks like it is missing a word somewhere in that clause.

• Overall, a shining piece of work. Again, well done!--P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Good points, all of them. The industrial company was Louisiana Pacific veneer plant. It is now an abandoned factory (the kind super-villians make they HQs in). I am amazed that participation rate is red linked. It is the percent of people in the labour force. It expresses the confidence of the population in finding work, whereas unemployment rates just show the supply/demand ratio of work (not willingness to work). Tracking unemployment is useless without understanding if more or less people are actually looking for work. What is that called in the US? Also, Canada has a funny way of calculating unemployment rates. Canada uses a base population of those over 15 years old, whereas the US and the rest of the world use those over 21 years old. So we have a little higher unemployment rate and lower participation rate as not many 16 year olds are employed or even looking for work (especially during the May census periods). --maclean25 03:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, economics is not something I know very much about, so 'participation rate' may very well be quite appropriate, and it does seem to be so based on the definition provided here. The Canadian system of describing unemployment conditions does seem rather useful in giving a better 'picture' in statistical terms. Anyway, glad I could help. It pleases me to see really good articles at Wikipedia- kind of a 'buffering the Wikifaith' sort of thing. :) Slainté, P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 15:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great work. Jkelly 02:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, as the article is very good!!! 64.231.163.172 23:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great small town article! Carioca 05:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object – the table on the political parties looks terrible on 800x600. Please ensure that the tables fit on the screen in lower resolutions. Width must be set to 100% or <600px =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I have adjusted the tables. I did not know you could use % instead of px. That's fantastic! Thanks for your help. Let me know how it looks now. --maclean25 07:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

    Yeah, it works. I wish I could fully review the article, (it looks good at first glance), but sadly I don't have the time. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Look what happened to my little baby stub. It makes a papa proud. Gentgeen 19:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Good article, but I strongly recommend a copyedit, as there are a fair number of strange word choices and grammar oddities: over-casual phrasings such as "As for the railway," grammar errors such as "Since the 1970s, the town's population and economy has not significantly increased.", and comma usage and spelling errors such as "As a service center Dawson Creek has a large retail sector that craters to the rural community as well as the city’s inhabitants." -Silence 22:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant object. The article is perfect up until the last paragraph of "Demographics", but after that point needs a copyedit in quite a few places. Silence highlights some of the worst examples of this, but I'm sorry to say that quite a bit more is needed. Ambi 01:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Silence and Ambi, you two are correct. However, I wrote the vast majority of the text and have read & re-read it dozens of times. It all makes sense in my head as the errors and oddities just flow by. It has had a few copyedits which made it a much better read, but it still needs a fresh pair of eyes to read through and identify what is odd. But that "craters" is pretty funny, I'll change that now. --maclean25 02:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe I'll give it a read-through, then. -Silence 02:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Rosa Parks

50th anniversary of Rosa Parks' bus protest coming up on December 1.

Lotsofissues 00:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. I don't have the time to read this article in depth at the moment, so I can't say if all picky things are in order, for example, picture tags, grammar, copyediting, and the like. However, the actual content is worthy of the honor of being featured. If consensus is that all small things are in order, then I must support. RyanGerbil10 01:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• .. So your vote is essentially "support, as long as the article's good enough"? Isn't that a tad redundant? ;D -Silence 01:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A small stylistic issue is that I don't like pictures being aligned left, but prefer thumbs down the right instead. If this is changed, and no other problems pop up, I'll support this important and wonderfully written article wholeheartedly. Harro5 08:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. Good work, but please expand the lead to atleast two paras. Also, align all the images to the right side, so the flow is maintained. --Pamri • Talk 16:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree that moving all images to the right would improve the article. Just the opposite; I think it would make the article seem much more crowded and unbalanced. There are some articles where I agree that predominantly right-aligned images are better, but this is not one of them. It also seems strange to me to base one's support on a loose, stylistic issue rather than on one of the FA criteria, but maybe I just haven't seen that practice before. -Silence 20:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• I also strongly disgree with moving the images to the right. It would make the article look so heavy to the right and would constitute as a graphic design faux pas. Staggering the images helps to balance the flow of the eye. I realize Wikipedia isn't a design piece per se but the rules of design apply if it helps information design to ease flow for the article. --speedoflight 09:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support Melaen 21:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support The Wookieepedian 01:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, on a few points that should be easy to address:

1. Notes in the text should have corresponding notes in the reference list, there is also a mix of notes using ref/note and plain html link in the text- all the notes should have full citiations in the notes list.
2. I have tried to verify that a number of images are actually in the public domain- the link on Image:Rosaparks.jpg doesn't work, so it can't be checked. This image Image:Rosaparks bus.jpg is not a work of the US government and needs a full fair use rationale provided. Image:Rparksmug1.jpg should also have a fair use rationale provided given that the status of the image is unknown, I have a feeling that the same should be done for all the scanned police documents unless they can be shown to be in the public domain.
3. The lead is too short, the lead should summarise the content of the article.

1. I can't see any reason why the large text section of text from her Presidential Medal of Freedom Award Ceremony is included- move it to wikisource/wikiquote and include a short excerpt in the awards and honours section.--nixie 23:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Arr, I really didn't want to have to get too involved in this article, but there seems to be remarkably little interest in actually putting in the work needed to get it Featured. I've moved most of the text from the quotes-heavy section to the Talk page, where it can be transferred to sister projects if appropriate. I've also put Fair Use Rationales on the two items you identified as not necessarily being in the public domain, Image:Rparksmug1.jpg and Image:Rosaparks bus.jpg. For most of the other images on Rosa Parks, I advise that someone contact User:Speedoflight, since that user is the one who uploaded almost all of them to Wikipedia.

• Most of the images featured for the article are available on US govt sites. They have reproduction numbers, etc. Does that not constitute work that has been released to the public domain for reproduction and hence, no need for a fair use blurb? --speedoflight 09:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• The original Rosa Parks on the bus image for the article wasn't uploaded by me (speedoflight). But because it was such a poor quality jpg, that I decided to go find a better version of it. I found a copy of it on the Library of Congress site. And this is the caption from the LOC site:

United Press photo. Location of Original: New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection.

Library of Congress Digital ID: cph 3c11235 Source: b&w film copy neg. Reproduction Number: LC-USZ62-111235 (b&w film copy neg.) [Rights status not known.] http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/list/083_afr.html#ParksR

Given that there is a reproduction number associated with its rights unknown and that the image is now in the LOC collection, I think it is safe to say it has been released to the public domain. --speedoflight 09:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the lead; it may look a little short, but I think it does do an effective job of summarizing Parks' life, considering that she is almost entirely known for a singular incident. Any more text feels like it would just be filler, and while I could make filler, it wouldn't seem right for an intro, which is usually supposed to be as short as possible while conveying the necessary information. If anyone else wants to give a try at bulking up the intro, feel free; I divided it into two paragraphs are requested above, though if they're too short to stand on their own feel free to re-merge them. -Silence 02:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Finished standardizing the Notes and putting them all in order. Surprisingly tricky. So, all that's left now is possibly expanding the intro a tad, discussing the right-align issue, and verifying whether all the "U.S. Federal Government" photos are all really public domain, eh? -Silence 03:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You can click on the US Fed Govt images with links and you can see that they indeed are listed either with the Library of Congress or the US Archives. They have reproduction numbers associated to them. They have been released to the public domain. Not need to put a fair use blurb with these. --speedoflight 09:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• The intro does not need to be expanded. Her importance is succinctly distilled. Going any further would inevitably create a too glowing for an encyclopedia intro. It's now an images issue. Lotsofissues 03:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Cool, someone who agrees. So, yeah, let's find out about those images. -Silence 03:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Please see my comments in the paragraph above. Click on the links associated with the images in their caption. When I downloaded them from the LOC or US Archives, I was careful about copying their source links for precisely this reason (people asking about their status). Those that have been stored in the LOC or US Archives have repro numbers and are considered works owned by the US Gov, therefore, there is no need for a fair use blurb. I did not upload the mugshot image. I thought it was an image owned by the LOC but turns out that it may not be. --speedoflight 09:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Can you please point out the rational that all works stored in the LOC or US Archives with a reproduction number are works of the US government. The description of that image clearly lists the original photo as residing at a newspaper (who would own the copyright to it). --Martyman-(talk) 21:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think that that the brevity of the lead downwplays the significant contribution she made to the civil rights movement- she did more than get on a bus- and the lead should mention that. At the very least it should mention why the Montgomery Bus Boycott was a significant event. See Wikipedia:Lead section.--nixie 03:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Shouldn't Montgomery Bus Boycott be the article that mentions in any detail why the Montgomery Bus Boycott was a significant event? And the opening does already say that she had a huge impact on the civil rights movement and on American history, and properly attributes this to stemming originally from her bus protest and the fact that the Montgomery Bus Boycotts used her arrest as a uniting symbol. I don't see a major problem here.... Though again, if anyone else wants to try their hand at improving the opening, be my guest... -Silence 04:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• OK, I've expanded the information on the Montgomery Bus Boycott in the intro paragraphs quite a bit, hopefully satisfying the three requests on this page to expand the intro. Also, two of the images on the page have been removed by Speedoflight; presumably Speedoflight did so in reaction to reading this page, and those are the two that weren't public domain. So, does that satisfy your objections yet, Petaholmes? -Silence 01:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Silence, I did not remove that portrait image of her that is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rosaparks_1964.jpg. I feel it should be featured under the later years section. I have inserted it back to the later years section where it should belong. It is an LOC image, released into the public domain. It can lend some weight to the article to give people a different perspective of Rosa Parks other than ones of her being arrested, etc. I have scoured the archives of the LOC and the US Archives sites and have found no childhood image of her in the public domain. The 1964 portrait, the 1955 portrait, the finger prints, police report, bus diagram are images in the govt archives. If you click and read the caption, you will see the source links. I was very careful about capturing their reproduction numbers, source links, exact caption as listed by their sources. --speedoflight | talk to me 11:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support Very impressed by the article. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding Image:Rosaparks_1964.jpg, is it automatic to assume a photo listed at the LOC taken by the associated press of unknown copyright is a work of the US government? Wouldn't the copyright reside with the photographer who took the photo? The LOC page here seems to back up mty argument. Also what is with Image:Rosa Louise McCauley Parks in 1979.jpg? It is of terrible quality and blown up way past the resolution limits of the camera it was taken with. --Martyman-(talk) 21:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Support, provided that User:Silence, after his excellent upgrades are finished, comes to support the FAC himself. Also, Petaholmes/nixie's points of objection must be first addressed. I trust Silence's voting judgment. I've actually read the text thoroughly and did do copyediting a while back (before this FAC), and found the prose exceptionally clear and well organized. I see that more references have been added as well. One minor suggestion (which can be safely ignored at Silence's discretion) is that perhaps a "Impact on popular culture" or suchlike section be spun off from one or more of the currect sections (especially "Awards and honors"). Otherwise, I'll offer more constructive comments here as I think of them. Good luck. Saravask 02:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Heh. My upgrades are pretty much done for now, I've copyedited the article and addressed the above problems. The main issue seems to be the mysterious origin and copyedit status of some of the images now. If there are specific images which there are problems with confirming the status of, maybe we should simply remove those and put them on the article's talk page until their origin can be confirmed? Once that's cleared up, I'll gladly support; my only other concerns are with whether the article is as expansive and thorough as possible (your popular culture category, for example, and also more details on her life and reactions to her civil disobedience), and whether there are enough print references for this article (it seems to have been constructed almost entirely from newspaper articles, which may be reliable but often ignore interesting details), but that's more of a problem to address in the long-term than an immediate concern, and shouldn't get in the way of FAing a very nice article. -Silence 03:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The improvements are great, but the images still need to be dealt with, appearing in a US govenment library/archive does not make a work PD, anything of unknown copyright that presumably is not old enough to be in the PD needs {{Non-free fair use in}} and a fair use rationale. Image:Rosaparks.jpg still doesn't even have a working source URL--nixie 22:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• OK. Replaced "public domain" tag with "Non-free fair use in" tag (and rationale) for Image:Rosaparks.jpg and Image:Rosaparks 1964.jpg, until those images can be shown to truly be in the public domain, at which point the "public domain" tag can be put on them. Anything else? -Silence 22:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence, support--nixie 00:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Image dilemma seems to have been resolved. -Silence 00:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Arrested Development (TV series)

Partial self-nom. The character and themes/characteristics sections are particularly thorough. I will be working to correct any problems that arise in this FAC, so please frequently check this nomination for updates. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 08:25

• Object, for several reasons:
  1. The image Image:GOB on stage.jpg does not have the proper copyright info; also, the article lacks images as a whole. Try and find some as they add variety.
     • Done and done. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 19:19
  2. Some of the English is awkward. I'd advise the article to be copy-edited.
     • I've copyedited some of the sections that I thought needed improving. If you want more changes, please be more specific about what needs changing. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 21:19
  3. Following the "Spoilers warning" tag, there should be another tag that reads "Spoilers end here". If you don't add this, then some people might think that the plot of the article never comes to a conclusion; that's a crucial issue. Fix it, please. --Hollow Wilerding 13:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
     • I don't think it's that simple. There are spoilers throughout the article, not just in the plot section. I've never heard of this "end spoilers" notice, except as used on internet forum discussions. I don't think people will believe that the "plot" section constitutes the entire article without this notice. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 19:19

Better English and images, but still lacking the spoilers tag. I've placed it on the talk page for you to view and include in the article. --Hollow Wilerding 00:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. We appear to have paved a path. Excellent job! --Hollow Wilerding 01:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I thought the article was quite well written, but only two references? A featured article should cite its sources much more than that. I suspect a lot of the information was gleaned from some of those "external sites", and could thus be moved to the references section. With more references, I'd be likely to support. Fieari 15:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added more references that were used in creating the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 21:56
• Support. Good article, comprehensive. Two notes. One, the date for the DVD release is clearly wrong--it's before the show is said to have been first broadcast. And the reference section is wholly inadequate. Where are the printed articles, e.g. Entertainment Weekly, Variety? (Cf. Dawson's Creek). PedanticallySpeaking 16:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed the DVD date (it's a typo on Amazon's site). I don't understand your last question, do you want critical reviews of the show? The Dawson's Creek article overkills it on the references section. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-21 17:37
  • I've added some prominent reviews, including Entertainment Weekly, in keeping with WikiProject Television. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-21 20:21
• Support. Very comprehensive and well-organized overview of the show. Valid concerns raised above seem to have since been addressed. Andrew Levine 18:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Great article for a great show. Every stated problem has been addressed so far, any other comments for improvement are appreciated. --TheMidnighters 05:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, on numerous isses

1. The lead is too focussed on the broadcast of the show in the US. eg Three unaired episodes will run in the show's regular time slot beginning December 5th, 2005. The five remaining episodes may air later this season, or possibly over the summer. It also focusses too much on the shows demise.
   • Fixed, hopefully. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 03:04
2. There is no detailed information later in the article on where else the show is aired or how critics/viewers in other countries have received the show, and how it rated in other countries.
   • Done, hopefully. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 06:15
3. There is no detail on how the show rated in the US, it is mentioned that ratings were low, how low, ratings information should be available and cited.
   • Done. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 01:16
4. The numbered notes in text do not have corresponding numbered references.
   • Fixed. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-25 06:12
5. If the trivia section must stay- I think an attempt should be made to turn it into prose rather than have it presented as a list.
   • I've removed some of the unnecessary trivia, and shortened the others. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 03:18
6. External links, especially to fan sites and to the petitions are excessive.
   • I've removed several unnecessary links, and think the rest are alright. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 01:27
7. Dawson's Creek has a good section on the how the show was created and production information, this article should probably have a similar section.
   • Done, hopefully. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-25 06:05
8. The prose is average, brackets are used too frequently to explain things that can be described in the text, word order and phrasing are uncomfortable in parts, and there are innacuacies for example psycharists don't get disbarred.
   • I've removed all of the unnecessary parenthetical comments, fixed the psychiatrist wording, and made other general cleanups and removals. If you find anything else a problem, let me know. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 03:52

--nixie 00:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks Brian, the article has improved alot. I would like to see fair use rationales and source information added to both the cast photos, which currently lack source information. Ideally the screenshots should also have fair use rationales, and there are probably a few too many screenshots.--nixie 12:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Someone complained above that there needed to be more images, so I added more. Then, someone removed a few saying that there needed to be fewer fair use images. I think the current amount is alright, since they are all talked about in the text. I've added source info for the two cast photos. The fair use rationale is already on their pages, in the {{promotional}}. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-25 16:58
    • I've also replaced some of the images with publicity-photo equivalents, for which the fair use rationale is always much stronger. The rest are discussed enough in the text that I think it's alright. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-25 17:22

• Comment I suggest that more prestigious sources be found for the critics' reviews quotes e.g. Variety, the New York Times, The Hollywood Reporter. I would also suggest that all reference to non-US critics and non-US screening details of the show be removed (except for the bare fact that it has been broadcast in these countries), in order to make the article's context more focussed and established (and no need to update about when which season is showing in the UK; and it also gets rid of the question of if you mention the UK, why not every other country its shown in?) just my two cents. Bwithh 02:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The international content was added in response to the Oppose vote above. I think it is alright to keep it in the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-25 06:05
    • The tag is not enough, the image description page needs to specify the rationale for use in a particular article, see the images in Cool (song) for a recent example.--nixie 12:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Done and done. I removed less important images, and added rationale for the remaining ones, in the wording used at Cool (song). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-26 14:29
        • That's everything I can think of taken care of, support--nixie 22:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Carnildo hasn't voted on this FAC yet so I'll cover his ground. The seven screenshots used are all copyrighted, and it seems excessive to use them all. Do we really need the blue Tobias pic, the boat skit pic, or the shot of Charlize Theron? Wikipedia needs to limit the amount of copyrighted pics from the smae source, or else we are testing the bounds of the fairuse on these stills. Please deal with this, and just keep the most relevant and useful images. Harro5 09:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Done and done. I removed less important images, and added detailed rationale for the remaining ones. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-26 14:29
    • Support with a fair use rationale on the logo in the info box. Unless anyone else sees problems with the images, this is a very good article on a hilarious show. Brian, would you be interested in helping bring Seinfeld up to this standard after its recent FAC? Harro5 03:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Claudius

I would like to self-nominate the article on the Emperor Claudius. I have completely overhauled this article over the course of the last day. The previous article was lacking in detail and heavily criticized on its discussion page. The new article encompasses a variety of new and old sources on the subject, which are listed in the new bibliography.

• Nomination by User:LaurenCole. No vote. PacknCanes | say something! 03:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I quote from above: "I have completely overhauled this article over the course of the last day." I'd like to see the page given a while to seetle as the editors who have been discussing it on the talk page get a chance to review the new changes. You cannot say this article meets the FA stability requirement if it has been rewritten in the last 24 hours. Harro5 04:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review - well done, but: (i) Some more images would be nice. (ii) Presumably the "Bibliography" are references? (iii) It would also be nice for other editors to have a chance to review. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - same reasons as Harro5. I like the changes but we shouldn't rush into a featured article. --Ignignot 14:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• I understand, I will remove the article from consideration and put it up for peer review. -- LaurenCole

Omnipotence paradox

Self-nom. This page has gone through some trauma, but the Cleanup Taskforce left it in good shape, and it was stable for several months afterward. Following the references added during cleanup and those suggested during peer review, I expanded the article to cover more twentieth-century philosophy. To the best of my knowledge, it is a decently comprehensive treatment of a fairly ticklish subject. (I realized I rushed this through peer review a little faster than normal, but my gut feeling was that it wouldn't attract too many more comments, and in a couple weeks, I won't have the time to address comments that I do right now.) Thank you in advance for your input. Anville 22:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Support. Very well-written and informative. At first I didn't like the parenthetical style of citations, but after reading more I think it's the best way to do them. Very nice job. The Catfish 00:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Support. Great job on what could have been a boring topic. Balanced and easily comprehended by the layman. Hydriotaphia 03:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. A very accessible rendering of the topic. One quibble: the paragraph that begins "it should be noted that this particular derivative of the omnipotence paradox is inherently flawed" tends to vitiate the main example around which the article is constructed. If the stone example is inherently flawed, should the article discuss it at such length? That section in general could be slightly re-jigged. Topically, the paragraphs go A, B, A, B, C, and then more or less discuss of A for the remainder. Marskell 12:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I can reprhase all of the step-by-step lists in terms of Homer Simpson's version. Would that help? (Half-joking.) I have rearranged a few pagagraphs under "Philosophical responses", since I think your point is quite valid, and I added a note on how the examples can be rephrased. Anville 15:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of being humourless, I'm going to ignore the Homer Simpson reference and oppose until the sentence I referenced is altered. It simply does not follow for me that you can construct an article around "x example" and simultaneously suggest "x example is inherently flawed." Marskell 22:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It's about the example because the example is famous [even though it may be flawed]. I understand it and I think the article is very good. I am hesistant to support because I don't if it's referenced enough (I'd like footnotes for some things, but there are lots of references, so I'm not sure). Broken S 01:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with BrokenSegue that it would be strange for the article to not be written in terms of "Can God make a rock he can't lift?", even if it does have some interesting flaws. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Para 1 introduces the stone example, 2 and 3 introduce similar examples, 4 offers one answer to the stone example, 5 suggests the stone example is inherently flawed, 6 notes similar problems for irresistible force, and 7 actually reads as an introduction "this article will..." This just doesn't hang together for me--and this is the single largest section of the article. By all means use the best known example, just introduce it with consistency and don't hop about. Marskell 08:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Sentence was moderated, therefore no oppose. I'm still uncertain about the movements between topics in the intro to that section but not enough to oppose. Marskell 17:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral/Question: Averroës advanced the omnipotence paradox for this reason (for which he was condemned by Bishop Tempier), although instead of phrasing it in terms of stones, he asked whether God could create a triangle with internal angles that did not add up to 180 degrees.

Can that really be considered the same paradox, or a paradox at all? I think it only takes on the flavor of the being the same paradox if you also posit that God created the universe that contains these rules that he can't break. I realize that Averroës almost certainly believed God created the universe, but the article doesn't make this explicit in discussing his version of the paradox. Am I making sense? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have continued to shuffle, expand and elaborate the "Philosophical responses" introductory section, and it may go some way towards replying to these (very nicely presented) comments. Whatever else happens, the article will probably leave FAC stronger than when it came in, which is a good thing. Anville 10:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Is the "pop culture" section necessary? Jkelly 02:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment I'd say "yes", weakly. First of all, articles tend to accumulate cruft, and any device which helps keep the inevitable trivia away from the "real" material is, in my book, a Good Thing. It may be less "serious" than the Wittgenstein, but at least it's all in one place. The same thing happened at Schrödinger's cat, and the excess material was eventually spun off into Schrödinger's cat in fiction. Second, and this is only anecdotal evidence on my part, I've heard more people use the Simpsons version than any other, save the rock-He-cannot-lift one (around 11,200 Google hits for "could Jesus microwave a burrito", 2,200 for "omnipotence paradox"). Anville 08:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support, as the article lives up to its standards, good job! 64.231.163.172 23:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support, and I quote: "The purpose of a supreme being is to create a universe. The laws of physics serve as a flexible framework to support that purpose, but if the nature of reality gets in the way of a little rock lifting, then simply use omnipotence as you go about working on the universe. Being too wrapped up in natural laws can cause you to lose godhood, so there are times when it is best to ignore all rules ... including this one." --zippedmartin 17:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support, well written and all, no reason to reject it. -- Ashmodai 21:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

StarCraft

I'm probably taking a chance with this, since it's been a long time I've taken an active part in FAC, so the standards are certainly higher now than they used to be (which is good, of course). However, as far as I can see, this article cuts it. It's had a really long and healthy maturation time, with much constructive discussion and many different contributors helping on it. It's a good example of a "hub" article about a wildly popular concept. It's got it all: summaries with links to more detailed articles, a large template with all the pages related to the SC universe, links to other wikis, and most of all, detailed, reality-oriented discussion of the subject's relevance as a cult video game. For those who don't care about video games, StarCraft is a legend in gaming. Its impact on the strategy genre can safely be compared to Doom's impact on the shooter genre. Do me a favor and promote this. Phils 16:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Support. PedanticallySpeaking 19:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support Good work to all the people who contributed towards this article! — Wackymacs 21:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object: The image Image:StarCraft.png is used for decorative purposes only, and so does not qualify for fair use. It needs to be removed from the article. --Carnildo 22:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I removed the image. Phils 22:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article; no apparent issues. Ambi 23:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object, please take out the piped html links and include them in the extenal links section, also please provide a full citation for html links used as references in the text so that there is a record of the item being referenced - and if possible convert them to footnotes- they loook nicer.--nixie 01:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the footnotes, I think the awards section would be better as prose and a screenshot thet demostrates gameplay wouldn't hurt either.--nixie 02:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well-structured for the most part and comprehensive. I'd also rather see the list go, and a one-sentence paragraph jumped out at me, but the problems aren't widespread. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, how was the influence section created? It doesn't seem to be sourced at all... gren グレン 23:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Most references to other fiction works are apparent throughout the game. There is no real "reference" that could be given to show the quotes and appearance are indeed those in "Aliens", apart from the game itself. Some "hero" units simply share their (distinctive) names with fictional characters (Gui Montag from Farenheit, Tom Kazansky). Your comment is valid though; I will try to find authoritative reviews mentioning the similarities to popular fiction works and find images where they are obvious. Phils 05:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• SupportMinor object. Can we have at least one screenshot?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object. I agree - there ought to be at least one screenshot up. Otherwise, an excellent article. 72.15.175.129 00:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Moderate object I'd like to see more info and discussion regarding the characters and units in the game, which were a big part of what made this a great game. I usually hate storylines, plots, and narratives in games but this was an exception for me. Also, more comparison with Warcraft would be interesting. But I think this is a great subject for an featured article Bwithh 19:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Units and characters are discussed in separate, StarCraft-related articles (see StarCraft storyline, Terran, Edmund Duke, Arcturus Mengsk for examples). See the "StarCraft" internal links list at the end of the article. The main article simply cannot discuss all these, because it would become too long; we already had to trim and split it several times. I consider your objection invalid. Phils 22:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - Get a screenshot of the game in action, and that's all this article needs. No more detail required in the main article due to having so many sub-articles. It's a detailed, complicated subject, and deserves all those sub-articles, some of which might one day join the main article with featured status. Fieari 16:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Two screenshots added. Phils 19:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I've seen quite a few computer games articles, and this is a general point about gaming articles, which also seems to apply to this one. It only mentions sales figures in passing, only giving a singular estimate in this article of how many sold. Now, chart positions in gaming are nowhere near as important as in the music industry, but still, I think more should be made of the sales figures, and in what regions. It's not just missing from this article, but also from Super Mario 64 too, which is an FA. Katamari Damacy is a bit better, in that it some further information on the game's sale figures, but still could be improved. I'm not opposing this article because of this though, because other FAs don't have that information in either, but I still think it's useful to include. - Hahnchen 16:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support I think with the minor storyline edit, it meets the standards of a featured article. Kimera757 18:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

PS can someone explain something to me? Is StarCraft actually a featured article, or just being nominated for one? The icon at the top of the discussion page is a little unclear about that.

Yuan (Shao)

This is a self-nomination. I've been working on and off on this article for about a year now. After incorporating suggestions from peer review in the last few days, making many improvements and adding a full list of references and sources, it's now relatively stable. The article by far the most comprehensive source of information on the surname in English. Yeu Ninje 23:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• support. very well written and comprehensive. this information can only be found in English and compiled as such on wikipedia, and nowhere else online or in another encyclopedia. excellent work! --Jiang 00:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support as per Jiang. Saravask 01:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• The peer review can be viewed here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Yuan (surname)/archive1. --maclean25 03:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Awesome article on what could have been a mundane subject. Plaudits to everyone who worked on this!Borisblue 06:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and remember to claim Camildo's bounty here when it gets passed: Wikipedia:Bounty_board#Any_article_with_free_images Borisblue 06:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support - I have no knowledge of the subject matter, but the article looks great. I trust that our contributors with interests in Chinese matters will verify its accuracy. I also hope you will be looking at the 32 Chinese family names ranked higher by population - neither Wang (surname), the most popular according to List of common Chinese surnames, not Li (surname) (another family name that is sometimes said to be the most popular too) is anywhere near as good. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Kudos to you for your work! ''*Exeunt*'' Ganymead [[User_talk:Ganymead|^{<font color="green">Dialogue?</font>}]] 17:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Superb article on a topic that mustn't have been the easiest to write upon. Ambi 23:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• A model article. Support. --Michael Snow 00:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. A few quibbles, somewhat technical:
  • There's a problem with excess wikilinkage, especially in "Spread of the surname". Plenty of repeated links for no apparant reason.
  • A bit of a footnote bonanza. A lot, if not most, of notes state uncomplicated ("state the obvious" is a recommendation for prose, not footnotes), and as far as I can tell, completely uncontroversial facts. One of the notes in the first paragraph is used only to explain an off-topic statement of transcription systems. This is not an appropriate or proper use of footnotes as far as I can tell. Some other examples of notes that could really be done without are 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18. Also, is there any chance that ancient primary sources such as those of Sima Qian be replaced with just one modern work on Chinese history? I'm personally skeptical to using very old history material first hand in an encyclopedia unless the works themselves are discussed.
  • No proper reference section.
  • I don't see any more need for a "Prominent personages"-list in this article than I do of any other arbitrary list of famous people loosely associated to an article.

  Peter ^Isotalo 02:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • • Ive de-linked the "Spread of the surname" accordingly.
    • The footnotes look fine to me. The second footnote, since you've mentioned it, could indeed be incorporated into the lead section text itself, but that would create unnecessary clutter, especially in the lead section where we can least afford it. I support the way the information is moved off as an aside. Footnotes 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18 are all references. I don't see why you would want to delete references.
    • references are under "Notes and references". If this is a problem, notes and references can be separated.
    • I think the "Prominent personages" section is very relevant. A surname is greatly characterized by the people holding that surname. Presenting the famous people who held this surname is practical, interesting, and informative.

    --Jiang 05:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    • I accept your point about wikilinkage. The edits which Jiang has made are appropriate.
    • It's true that there are relatively more footnotes than other featured articles, but I think it's good academic practice to include that number of footnotes for an article of this length. More importantly, specific footnotes is better than a reference section in this case, because there are very few general sources which would be appropriate in a reference section. The most important sources for this article are the Standard Histories, especially Ouyang Xiu's Xin Tang shu (which gives a family tree from around 1046 BC to the 9th century); and also Hou Han shu, Sanguo zhi and Jin shu (which cover the early Yuan clans of Ru'nan and Chen). Placing them in a reference section without quoting direct page numbers as you can do in footnotes would not be very useful. ****There is no way to replace them with a modern work because there is no authoritative modern work. I dare say this is the most comprehensive and reliable resource on the surname you will find anywhere. The only other important sources are localised family genealogies, sometimes with material as early as the Song Dynasty. If they were put in a reference section, it would almost be completely meaningless since they are generally not easily accessible to the public. Thorough referencing in footnotes would help those conducting genealogical research. As far as I know, a section of notes and references is accepted Wikipedia practice.
    • Footnotes are supplementary to the article in that they support the assertions which are made. For example, the article states "descendants of Yuan Taotu are mentioned by name in the Zuo Zhuan as holding high office in the state of Chen", then reference is given from the Zuo zhuan to support that fact. This supports the goal of verifiability. They are not common knowledge nor does the article "state the obvious". Footnotes 6, 8, 18 are relative obscure facts. Footnotes 11, 13, 14, 18 all point to sources for further reading or research.
    • What Jiang says about the introduction is right. Transliteration issues are just technical details which would only serve to confuse a reader if placed so early in the article.
    • I also agree with Jiang about the prominent personages section. Many of the figures in there, like Yuan Taotu, Yuan An, Yuan Shao, Yuan Huan and Yuan Chonghuan were instrumental in establishing, expanding the surname and increasing its profile. They were also leaders of their clans and proud bearers of the surname - certainly not "loosely connected". --Yeu Ninje 11:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The point about the transcription comment is that it's not the least bit relevant to the article. If the article was actually about transcription of Chinese, it would be, but it's about a surname, so it's really just off-topic trivia. The same really goes for note 3 as well. There's really a rather annoying abundance of transcription- and pronunciationcruft in most China- and Japan-related article these days and it doesn't seem to be there to please anyone but those who already know it.
      • Footnotes are not references; they're notes that specify details of references (sources). Removing a few footnotes does not mean the source itself has to be removed. (That's the whole point of having a separate section.) And while it is certainly nice to be academic, Wikipedia is not the appriopriate place for it. We're writing encyclopedic articles for a very general audience, not academic treatise for experts. Any note which refers to a source merely for "further reading" is inappropriate and unless the source is actually used to reference any of the prose, it belongs in a "Further reading"-section. A motivated researcher can take the hint without needing to force it on every single reader.
      • Pure lists of famous people in articles are always trivia. If there's a need to refer to people named Yuan, it should be done in prose, not in separate list-sections. (Nor in lists disguised as prose.) These things also have a tendency to attract yet more trivia and are very hard to delimit. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
        • The focus of the entire sentence in question is over the different spellings rendered in the Latin alphabet of the name. It is not about the name in Chinese. Since these spellings are derived from the listed transcription systems, they are every bit relevant. Multiple spellings exist for different dialects due to the existence of different systems of Romanization. It is important to specify which one we are using because space does not permit that we list every rending of the name in the Latin alphabet. Most people (as in most people familiar with the Chinese language) do not know all these romanization systems. They usually only know Hanyu Pinyin at a proficient level.
        • the FA criteria specifically calls for inline references. There is no policy against footnotes. In fact, the "notes and references" header used here is prescribed by Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Footnote_notation.
        • I don't see how the list is trivia. Yeu Ninje already stated that these people were instrumental in establishing, expanding the surname and increasing its profile. Lists are not banned from Wikipedia. You will see much more trivial lists elsewhere. If the list is trivia, then the whole article is trivia. After all, these Yuans "just share the same last name". --Jiang 19:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Please note that the Surname/Clan name in Chinese Culture is held in more importance than in western cultures. The section is definitely relevant IMO Borisblue 16:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Difference between perception of family names between Chinese and Western European culture has absolutely no relevance to my objection. The list is trivia because it's arbitrary and most of the Yuans aren't even related to one another. They just share the same last name. --Peter ^Isotalo 16:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
        • It's not true to say that most on the list aren't related to each other. Yuan An, Yuan Shao, Yuan Shu, Yuan Huan, Yuan Hong and Yuan Shansong come from two major Yuan clans very close to one another and all are documented descendants of Yuan Taotu, who is the first on the list. Yuan Chonghuan is one of the most famous descendants of Yuan An, and I specifically make a point about clans claiming descent from Yuan An in the article. As for some of the later figures, in theory at least, all of the late imperial and modern Yuan are also descendants of Yuan Taotu and so are linked because of that. Including them could also be indicative of the extent of modern day distribution and continuing strength of the surname. Yeu Ninje 20:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
          • That's just a substandard of explaining it to readers, Yeu. If you want to make clear that the name is still common, do so in prose, like with any other fact. And since I now noticed that half of the list is of people that are already mentioned at least once in the article already, I'm removing the list outright. I urge you to consider a more creative solution to keeping the names than simply reverting me. / Peter ^Isotalo 02:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Peter, I don't want to get into an edit war with you. I've given my reasons and received support from others. A consensus has not been reached about the removal of the "prominent personages" section, so I'm reverting it. Please do not remove it unless you have more support. Yeu Ninje 02:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
              • You're being very insistant about keeping duplicate links. Considering incomplete lists are frowned upon in all other types of FACs, I don't find your motivations less arbitrary than the selection of names. And, again, half of the names are already linked in the text. Why not just make an extra list right below the lead in case someone would miss the second one? / Peter ^Isotalo 13:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
                • The list is not meant to be a list of all people surnamed Yuan who ever existed, it is a list of "prominent personages" with that surname. Given that criteria, it is relatively complete, mentioning what I and others consider to be the best known holders of the surname. In that sense, it is not arbitrary at all. Also, I've already stated the importance of these figures to the history of the surname as well as a reflection of the current strength of the surname. It is true that some of the names have been linked in the main text, but these are very scattered. I think it's useful to collect them together and present them at the end. Yeu Ninje 00:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It is not helpful to denigrate reliable footnotes either here or elsewhere; this singular fixation with deleting footnotes and sources endangers Wikipedia's goal of presenting to users some semblence of reliability. I am in complete accord with Yeu Ninje's position that the "prominent personages" must stay in the article. Yeu Ninje has explained his/her position well and now has the consensus behind his/her model and comprehensive article as it stands. Congratulations are again in order for Yeu Ninje; maintain your resolve and this article will most certainly become featured. Saravask 08:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Though I have some reservations given what I think is the relevance of the article itself (what about an article about ``Smith``?), the topic itself is so well covered that i decided to support it.--Anagnorisis 20:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• support and I would support a similar, well written, sourced and interesting article about the popularity of the surname smith and its origins. Why not? Kit 02:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, I can find no fault with this article. Andrew Levine 03:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Extremely minor object: the referenced works are listed somewhat inconsistently, sometimes including a transliteration of the title, sometimes omitting it. In addition, the names of the authors are only given in their transliterated forms, but the titles include both (as well as a translation). It would be helpful if all of the references were in a more standard format. Kirill Lokshin 04:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The transliteration of title helps a person to find the title in a library, since most library databases don't use Chinese text. A transliteration is not provided for internet sources since there doesn't exist the purpose of helping to locating it (i.e. you just have to click on the link). The translation of the title makes the title meaningful to someone who doesn't understand Chinese. Chinese text is not included for the author since it wouldn't be that much use and isn't generally the practice in sinology bibliographies. In that sense, the references are standardised. Yeu Ninje 04:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

  I stand corrected, then. Support. Kirill Lokshin 19:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support --Melaen 17:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland

Partial self-nom. Many editors have helped to prove that we can have a good NPOV article on a controversial subject. Has been through a Peer Review. Former FAC objections have been addressed, I hope - they were fairly minor, and I was supprised that the article had so few (2!) votes then. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. But, of course, I have also worked heavily on the article, and would be pissed off to deal with any objections that might be raised. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, it's definitely one of he best descriptions of the topic I've seen on the internet - and I did read a lot. Halibutt 18:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support; a very well-written and thorough article. A few questions/suggestions, though:

1. The two templates at the top, when combined with the TOC, form a continuous set of boxes across the screen, which looks somewhat strange; it may be better to space them out vertically, possibly by using {{TOCright}}.
2. Some of the section headings don't follow the MoS in that they have leading articles and non-standard capitalisation.
3. Most of the articles in the "See also" section are linked in the text; is this section necessary?

The issues are minor enough that they're not worth objecting over, but I think resolving them may improve the article further. Kirill Lokshin 18:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support a marvelous, important and thorough article. I agree with Kirill Lokshin that I don't believe the See Also section is really needed. I have seen the same section questioned on a number of articles here. Great job! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 18:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well done. --Lysy ^(talk) 18:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Balcer 19:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article is written in a wonderful style, is easy to read, seem to be comprehensive and is very interesting. I have found the term "Kahal" which should be explained in the text. I have however a quite strong objection. I have the feeling the article has a weak non NPOV. The lead and the last section (1989–present) are in my opinion a bit too positive with respect to the anti-semiticism in Poland. In the lead: " immediately prior to World War II it had a vibrant Jewish community" I wonder whether "vibrant" is the correctly chosen term: is this really NPOV? Is the expression "the increasingly anti-Semitic Russian Empire" really NPOV? From the lead one gains the impression that, if the Jews in Poland were victims of anti-semiticism, that was due to foreigners and not to the Poles themselves. I wonder whether this is not a trend towards minimizing the Polish participation to anti-semiticism and the holocaust. I think if the Poles did not participate actively to the holocaust that should be said explicitly. On the other hand if they did one should mention to which extent. This impression of NPOV is destroyed later on in the article but it should be mirrored in the lead. The last section ignores to discuss the anti-semitic movements in Poland in the 1990s. I have made a bit of google with the keyword antisemitism poland and found the following article on http://www.axt.org.uk/ : Nonetheless, the existence of xenophobic or ultra-nationalistic sentiments remains evident, to a lesser or greater degree, among large sections of Polish society. The parliamentary elections of 2001, in which a number of far right candidates were elected, show that ultra-nationalist and populist rhetoric—used particularly by candidates of the ultra-conservative Liga Polskich Rodzin and the protest party Samoobrona—is still able to attract support. The fact that Poland’s economic situation has visibly worsened recently almost certainly contributed to this electoral outcome, as did the ongoing cultural and political effects of the Polish bid to become a member of the European Union. While many mainstream political leaders willingly express support for initiatives that promote tolerance and that combat xenophobia, those on the far right continue to use xenophobic discourse in pursuit of their parties’ political goals.Furthermore, despite a certain amount of ‘good will’ among more liberal political circles, actual manifestations of prejudice are often downplayed, passed over in silence or even denied. At the same time antisemitic and xenophobic attitudes are demonstrably present to some degree among the young generation of Poles, and to a very high and visible degree among football fans and ultra-nationalist skinheads. Verbal and physical attacks on immigrants and members of 'visible minorities', as well as numerous cases of the desecration of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues, are of course the most spectacular evidence of these problems in Poland. I therefore think it would be a good idea to add a paragraph about antisemiticism in the 1990s in Poland. Vb
  • Thank you for your comments and providing the sourced quote - you do make a good point about the anti-Semitic propaganda of some elements of modern Polish society. And you make another good point that it should be stressed that Poles did not participate in the Holocaust (with a few, tragic exceptions) - instead, they were its victims. Be bold and suggest/edit in exact changes to the lead and other paragraphs that would satisfy you, I have already made some changes. Oh, Kahal is linked to its own article on the first occurence of this term. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know a lot about 1990s anti-Semitism, but that should be covered, perhaps some of the other editors could help, I will do some digging as well. As far as the participation in the Holocaust, it was more complicated to assign blame in Poland than elsewhere since the Poles were targeted by the Nazis, there was little direct cooperation with the Germans despite growing anti-Semitism in 1930s -- at the same time, there were some horrible pogroms like Jedwabne, and also acts of heroism. It is difficult to figure out how to make this much clearer in the article, since these interactions were at a much smaller level than the wholesale participation of countries like Romania, or even countries with many collaborators, like Lithuania. I don't find "vibrant" or "increasingly anti-Semitic" POV -- do you have any specific objections to them? --Goodoldpolonius2 16:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I have added a para about anti-semitic right-wing propaganda in modern Poland. I would polish it more (no pun intended), but need to go offline now. Let me know if you think it needs further expantion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• I would like to see just a word of explanation after Kahal and the newly introduced Sejm (like "Oświęcim (the site of the Auschwitz camp)") because clicking on the link is a strong flow break. Maybe changing "(called "Żydokomuna", or the belief in a Jewish-Communist conspiracy)" into "(this conspiracy is alled "Żydokomuna", or the belief in a Jewish-Communist conspiracy)" would be clearer but I am not sure. I simply think the new paragraph should be a bit copyedited but that its content is good and raise my objection with respect to the 1989–present section. I think this paragraph and others exemplifying the participation of the Polish people in anti-semitism should be mirrored in the lead. A sentence such as "Poles did not participate in the Holocaust (with a few, tragic exceptions)" could appear in the lead but also the section "Rising Anti-Semitism" could be summarized in the lead. I think this must be done because the lead as it is now provides the reader the impression of non NPOV, a trend to embellish the relationship between the Poles and the Jews. To the question why I object to the use of "vibrant". I have the feeling (but I am no native English speaker) this adjective provides the impression of a positive atmosphere (a happy Jewish community playing klezmer music in the street in a Chagall's painting) which contrast with the information in the section "Rising Anti-Semitism". My objection to "the increasingly anti-Semitic Russian Empire" is because I think one cannot say of a state (except Nazi Germany) that it is anti-Semitic. One can say that it has strong anti-Semitic political or popular movements but usually no state is explicitly anti-Semitic. The same objection is for the wording "the state-sponsored "anti-Zionist" anti-Semitic campaign". Since everybody knows the communist government was some kind of Russian puppet, this sentence seems to advocate for an intrisically non anti-Semitic Polish society. It sounds like the responsible ones for the antisemitism were not the Poles but the Russians. I think a good way to counterbalance this overall impression is to introduce some contra balancing arguments in the lead. Vb 08:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• I have found another source at the US gov which could help you http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35477.htm describing current concern about antisemitism in Poland. Vb 12:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I tried to address the issues with the introduction, Sejm, and Kahal. I left in the state-sponsored anti-Zionist campagin, because it was exactly that (you may want to read the article). The "increasingly anti-Semitic Russian Empire" also makes sense, semi-official attacks on Jews (pogroms) grew rapidly throughout the Empire, as did official anti-Semitism, it really does work as a description. I would also defend "vibrant" -- the community may have been poor and somewhat persecuted, but culture and learning florished in the pre-War years. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I appreciate the changes you performed. However I think what is still missing is a sentence in the lead about the current concerns (you can find such sentences at both [2][3]). Those concerns are not very strong but they should be cited in order to improve the NPOV of the lead. I still believe "anti-Semitic Russian Empire" is not correct. Another way to describe the situation should be found. As far as I know only Nazi Germany can be qualified as "anti-Semitic". On the other hand I agree with you on the wording "state-sponsored anti-Zionist campaign" and with "vibrant": my point was not that these words were not correct but that they should be counterbalanced (this is what you did). The claims about Liga Polskich Rodzin and Samoobrona in the last section should be supported by references because they will lead to edit conflict as soon as the article get featured. However I still wonder whether the situation from 1918 to 1945 is well described. I quote from http://www.axt.org.uk/ : The first wave of antisemitic pogroms in independent Poland took place soon after independence had been regained in 1918. Antisemitism became particularly visible after 1935 when the extreme right and radical Catholic circles began depicting Jews as a foreign element and a threat to the Polish state and nation. Right-wing parties and militant groups pressed the government to impose anti-Jewish measures, including economic restrictions, such as the 1936 laws limiting ritual slaughter. As a result of pressure to introduce the numerus clausus law, after 1937 universities were allowed to create separate places for "national" and for Jewish students, and in 1938 the parliament voted in legislation regulating the number of new attorneys, which affected Jewish applicants. The same year a law was passed that aimed to deprive Jewish emigrants of Polish citizenship. Orchestrated by the extra-parliamentary nationalist opposition and supported by a large section of the Catholic Church, pogroms and boycotts of Jewish shops became frequent. (...) Although some Poles did help Jews to survive the Holocaust, most remained passive in the face of Nazi terror. Poland was the only country in Europe where the death penalty was imposed for assisting a person of Jewish origin. Some groups and individuals of Polish nationality were openly hostile to the Jews. Polish police (so-called policja granatowa) as well as some civilians collaborated with the Nazis by denouncing Jews who escaped the ghettos. A number of Poles acted as blackmailers (szmalcownicy) demanding that Jews pay ransoms, and threatening both Jews who were in hiding and gentiles who were assisting Jews. Among the anti-Jewish pogroms and other incidents initiated by fractions of the Polish population that occurred during the Nazi occupation the most violent and tragic took place during the summer of 1941 after the Nazis had entered the eastern territories that were annexed by the Soviet Union in September 1939. Some Poles, who opposed Communist rule and, inspired by the Polish nationalist and Nazi propaganda, associated Jews with the Soviet persecutors, felt encouraged by the presence of the Nazis and took part—often voluntarily—in pogrom-type killings of Jews. Several such cases have been documented, the most well-known, recently made public, being the Jedwabne pogrom of 10 July 1941, in which at least several hundred Jewish inhabitants of a town were murdered by a group of their Polish neighbours. Of course the Poles were victims of the Nazi and of course they collaborated to a less extent than some others but depicting them as ...with a few tragic exceptions, the non-Jewish Poles themselves did not participate in the destruction of the Jewish community, and some Poles protected their Jewish neighbors is maybe a bit of embellishing, isn't it? Vb 16:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I wonder whether ...with a few tragic exceptions, such as the Jedwabne pogrom, most of the non-Jewish Poles did not participate in the destruction of the Jewish community, and a few Poles protected their Jewish neighbors would not be better, more NPOV Vb 16:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Just a quick note. In the above quote, the sentence: Although some Poles did help Jews to survive the Holocaust, most remained passive in the face of Nazi terror. is misleading, as it implies that the only people who were not passive in the face of Nazi terror were those who were actively engaged in helping Jews. What about the millions who opposed Nazi Germany by participating in or supporting the huge Polish Underground, fought in the Home Army, or went to great lengths to join units of the Polish Army formed outside of Poland?Balcer 17:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I would invite you to compare the State Department warning about antisemitism in Poland with their information on : France, United Kingdom, and Germany, to give quick examples. This will put the problem of antisemitism in Poland in a proper perspective. In particular, desecration of Jewish cemeteries is a crime occuring all over Europe. In short, I would be really careful to avoid giving the impression that anti-semitism in Poland is (or was) somehow unique and exceptional. I would especially dispute the claim that it is somehow "rising". What is the quantitative evidence for that? Balcer 16:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You are fully right. I have already had a look. The warning of the State Department are not really NPOV. But they are an officially recognized POV which can be cited. I agree with you that one should not overestimate this testimony. However I know pretty well the situation in both France and Germany and the informations there are all exact. In both countries there is a real concern with respect to anti-semitism. Usually this antisemitism is interpreted as a respons of Muslim minorities to the Israelo-Palestinian conflict though the case of a CDU politician in Germany sounds more like an intrisic anti-Semitic case. I must admit this is a reason why I am surprised that the situation in Poland with respect to antisemitism is so positive. However since nobody's perfect depicting a to perfect situation often leads to the opposite result because one doubt about too perfect pictures and gains the feeling of a biased article -- what is not the case of this article: I insist. My only point is that the lead could have a better NPOV. Vb 17:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Vb, you may want to read the Talk:History of the Jews in Poland page, and especially Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#1918-1939 where there is a really detailed back-and-forth about prewar anti-Semitism, and in which many of these points are debated. I generally started from the same angle that you are coming from, but as I have done more reading on the Holocaust, I have moderated my views quite a bit, as the official cooperation by Poles (outside of the pogroms) was much lower than elsewhere in Europe. Perhaps I am being too moderate about WWII, but we do discuss Jedwabne in great detail, and the general story is one of the destruction of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis (with Lithuanian and Ukranian help), rather than at the hands of the Poles. Still, I think your suggestion makes sense, let me try it out. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Urgh. I had a look at Talk:History of the Jews in Poland. You are crazy men! I am really impressed by such a level of discussion and research. However, I think after such a discussion this maybe a good i