This is an archive of discussions about articles that were promoted to featured status. This archive covers articles discussed in October 2004. The discussions are organized in chronological order. Newer discussions go to the bottom of the page.

Contents 1 Representative peer 2 Goomba 3 Baseball 4 Shrine of Remembrance 5 Battle of Jutland 6 Lake Burley Griffin 7 Athanasius Kircher 8 Ziad Jarrah 9 Attalus I 10 The Adventures of Tintin 11 Dred Scott v. Sandford 12 Shroud of Turin 13 Japanese toilet 14 Victoria of the United Kingdom 15 John Millington Synge 16 Coconut crab 17 Regular polytope 18 Geography of Ireland 19 Air Force One 20 Margin of error 21 Breastfeeding 22 Cristero War 23 William IV of the United Kingdom 24 Cathedral of Magdeburg 25 William I of Orange 26 ROT13 27 George Moore (novelist) 28 Smile 29 A Tale of a Tub 30 Parliament of Canada 31 George IV of the United Kingdom 32 Cyclone Tracy 33 Strategic management 34 William Butler Yeats 35 William III of England 36 History of Buddhism

Representative peer

This is a sentinel FAC for the 3 October 2004 promotion of Representative peer. This page was merged with peerage [1], and later unmerged and restored to FA status.[2] Raul654 15:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Goomba

--[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:26, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Have all the previous objections been addressed? →Raul654 00:34, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, pretty much. The old nomination was defeated for being too short; since them, much more information has been added, as well as several high-quality images. --[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. jengod 02:04, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Never knew there was such an amount of info on these little guys. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)] 11:19, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. There was one thing unclear to me (as one who only played the orginal Mario Bros....) What is "Bowser" (in the "Goombas in Mario games")? That could do with an explanation or Wikilink, I think. Mpolo 12:43, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. They have names? :) Once again, can you cite references? Zerbey 16:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Andre (talk) 17:24, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• 1.) Lead section is very short and could stand to be expanded to several sentences instead of three. And it is still a little choppy and repetitive. 2.) Also there are still too many one or two sentence paragraphs. I fixed one, but the others would take someone knowledgeable in the subject. 3.) The two sentences on word origin seems a little innapropriate as an entire section. - Taxman 18:28, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I like it. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Agree fully with taxman: needs lead section, no single sentence paragraphs. Jeronimo 06:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Definite support. --Golbez 06:50, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --Locarno 15:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It would be nice if some of the above issues were addressed, however. pie4all88 20:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I agree with Taxman's objections. Here are some objections I have after reading the article:

1. The word origin section needs more expansion, like what source states that the basis of the character's name came from the Italian-American slang word, rather than just being a coincidence of having the same spelling? The word origin paragraph needs more cohesion. It talks about Italian-American slang then abruptly jumps to a sentence about a Hungarian word.
2. The first paragraph in the "Characteristics" section doesn't flow evenly. It starts out describing the general appearance and transitions into their traitor status. Then, it suddenly goes back describing their appearance.
3. Several paragraphs in the "Goombas in Mario games" need to be expanded with more information about the goombas in those respective games. These include the first paragraph, which talks about the original Super Mario Bros., the paragraph about Super Mario 64, and the paragraph about Paper Mario. Just stating a sentence or two without more detail isn't helpful to someone who isn't familiar with goombas in those games.
4. The "Goombas in non-Mario games" section needs more details about goombas in those games. Like what are the differences in appearance, behavior, etc. between a general goomba from a Mario game compared to a goomba from those particular non-Mario games? Were they integrated in those game plots or just allusions to the Mario games?
5. In the "Goombas in other mediums", more information needs to be provided about the goombas in the movie, like how were they different compared to the video games?
6. Most of the external links are all going to one site. Instead of providing a link to every possible goomba page on that site, only one link needs to be provided with a description of what information can be found on the site. Sixpence 08:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Those who object: how's it doing? Andre (talk) 05:28, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral, its pretty good. Still too many one sentence paragraphs (one is too many) and almost no references. There has got to be more than one external link about. Something in print perhaps? - Taxman 23:42, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: It looks like only a microscopic portion of my objections were satisfied. When changes were made to fix some of the objections, it created other problems. For example, the fixing of the first paragraph in the "Characteristics" section created a one sentence paragraph on their traitor status. Plus, I have a new objection. I agree with Taxman on the lack of references cited. Those vague "according to the xxxx manual" may be okay in other written work, but it's insufficient for an encyclopedia article. Try looking at most of the other featured articles. There's a consistent format when it comes to citing printed materials, like those game manuals. Sixpence 04:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How are we doing, now? Andre (talk) 00:36, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Baseball

Partial self-nom. This article has been nominated three times before (Apr 2004, May 2004, Sep 2004), and we have addressed all the concerns from all those objections, as well as all the concerns on its talk page. Many others supported it, so I'm hoping it will make it through this time. I think it is excellent, and we got the advice of a non-baseball guy (Nichalp) to make it clearer to those who don't know the game. Plus, it would be good to get this featured soon if possible, due to the relevance, with the World Series starting this Saturday, Oct 23. --Locarno 14:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. You addressed my concerns as well. Now, can you go back in time and fix it so that the Yankees are in the World Series this year? :) Zerbey 15:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support --- though I had no idea there existed such a creature as a Yankee fan. Smerdis of Tlön 15:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support - even a British cricket person can understand it ;) Thanks, Nichalp et al. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:04, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- Timely? I don't understand. The season ended when the Braves lost. Good article on a significant thing. Geogre 16:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- ObDeclaration. I started this article, a very very long time ago indeed. .. (How long? Clue: it was called BaseBall then, for CamelCase reasons) -- GWO
• Support. caveat: I've done work on the article as well. - jredmond 16:55, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. But would like some more pics in equipment section. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)] 18:20, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Added a mitt pic in the equip section. jengod 22:12, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. jengod 22:12, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, just note that I've done work on this page as well —siroχo 23:58, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It's wonderfully comprehensive and well written.Dr Zen 03:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I never understood the game before reading this. Filiocht 10:16, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great article. Mpolo 12:41, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Would support if I had not worked so much on that article. Has evolved nicely. Might be a good idea to fast-track it as a featured article to get it ready for the "World" Series. Kosebamse 11:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • In light of the MASSIVE CHOKE by the Cardinal offense and starting rotation (grumble grumble), the fast-track suggestion is, alas, moot. Maybe instead we could have it ready for MLB Opening Day 2005? - jredmond 18:36, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Minor point: the diamond-image should have metric units listed as well. This is not a big problem as they are mentioned in the text. Jeronimo 13:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  Just a remark; it was near impossible making it readible with any units at all. I only put in standard because I figured, like you said, the metric were in the article, and baseball distances are always measured in standard units, I believe. (: —siroχo

Shrine of Remembrance

Excellent new article. Not a self-nom. Ambi 07:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1) No references. 2) Needs a slightly expanded lead section. For both, see Wikipedia:What is a featured article. Jeronimo 08:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll see if I can get Adam to track down his references, but what is wrong with the lead section? It seems to me to be quite appropriate for the size of the article. Ambi 09:10, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The lead doesn´t really summarize the article itself, so I'll remain neutral until it does (not objecting).
• Object: Only for citations. When there are other references beside the official site, I'll support. Geogre 14:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Adam said he only used the one book reference, and I've added that in. I've also moved all the pictures around so they're not in one big messy slab. Ambi 15:16, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support now, although it would be a nice addition if there were other external links. The official site is one thing, but surely there are anniversary commemorations, discussions of its part in protests, etc., that would give a fuller picture. These things aren't needed, just desired. Geogre 17:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Adam did a great job on this! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. (I moved the categories, so they're not on top of the reference.) [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)] 15:37, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I like it. :) Nicely written, and the photographs are wonderful. func(talk) 20:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support, I also agree with Jeronimo's suggestion on expanding the lead section - it would round off this article nicely. Zerbey 04:41, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support Dysprosia 06:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support T.P.K. 06:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Alphax (talk) 02:50, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Fifelfoo 06:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Chuq 23:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Would it be possible to get an aerial photo of the new sections of the shrine? Might be hard to find, I know. Psychobabble
• Support. Borofkin 03:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland

This was a featured article before the current system of voting was adopted. It was de-featured following a short discussion in January and February 2004. It's much improved now, and might deserve featuring again. Note: partial self-nomination (I drew the maps, found the pictures, and wrote much of the lead section and §4, §7, §8). Gdr 21:20, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

• I was looking at this article and was just about to nominate it myself! Full support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:33, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A model battle article. jengod 22:07, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Me gusta. Troppus. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman 22:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly support. (Note, most of the bit I wrote has now been separated out into the Order of battle at Jutland article). -- Arwel 22:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Brilliant! Zerbey 22:54, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Geoff/Gsl 23:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great stuff. One tiny remark: the sidebar mentions that the "Battle after" was the Brusilov offence, but this is mentioned nowhere else in the article, and seems to only follow this battle chronologically. If there is no direct connection otherwise, I would leave it out; if there is, it should be mentioned in the article. Jeronimo 12:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The "battle before" and "battle after" are purely chronological. This is a consequence of the "battlebox" design agreed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battles. I think the idea is that once all the battles in a war have battleboxes a reader will be able to go through the war chronologically stepping from battle to battle. There's certainly scope to argue about whether this is a good idea. (N.B. It was purely a coincidence that Verdun is mentioned in the text, and I think the statement is dubious, so I removed it; see Talk:Battle of Jutland#German plan prompted by Verdun?). Gdr 20:47, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
• Support. Just out of interest, does the ❷ (❷) character in the 'battleship action' section meant do anything? It shows up as a blank on my browser (edit this to see what it is).
  • Unicode characters U+2776 to U+277E are DINGBAT NEGATIVE CIRCLED DIGIT ONE to NINE (❶❷❸❹❺❻❼❽❾). The article uses them to refer to the corresponding circled digits on the maps. Gdr 11:40, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
    • Should probably be changed to (1), (2) style or similar. The characters render as ^][´_abcdef in camino. ✏ Sverdrup 22:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Very odd! There is nothing wrong with the XHTML entity, neither in the wikisource nor in the XHTML output, and my browser (OmniWeb) renders it fine. As does Safari. The Mozilla browsers on Mac OS, Camino, MozAppSuite and Firefox, all have the same problem, though. I don't have any other browsers to test with right now. — David Remahl 00:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Well written, appears comprehensive. Those particular Unicode characters should be changed to something else if there are compatibility problems. They look great on my machine, but not everyone uses "Safari, the Greatest Web Browser Know to Humanity©" ;-) func(talk) 21:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support when more interlinks are added (to words like battlecruiser and many others). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lake Burley Griffin

Excellent work! Detailed and interesting. What can I say. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:03, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. However, the article needs to be expanded to cover the hazards of the Lake (its rather dangerous for recreational boating, and small changes in weather can cause large changes in safety.) Also might want a link to the homicidal hospital demolition explosion. Fifelfoo 05:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • There is no article about the demolition accident on wiki to link to, and I don't think this is the appropriate place to write about it. Martyman 10:13, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I am unaware of saftey concerns about lake burley griffin, are you possibly confusing it with Lake George? Martyman 10:13, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I have created a safety section now, the hospital explosion incident is linked to in the See also section. Martyman 01:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object, I'm afraid. There's a lot of small sections, and it just doesn't seem to be organised that well. I'm also not a big fan of having two panoramic pictures right at the bottom. A map would also be good. I just think this needs a bit more work generally, although it has improved a great deal lately. Vastly improved. Support. Ambi 05:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The article has been re-organised and now contains a map. Martyman 01:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) No references, no lead section (see Wikipedia:What is a featured article). 2) As Ambi points out, there are lot of small sections. I think more can be said on most of these topics. 3) Again following Ambi, this really needs a map. Additionally, dimensions of the lake are also necessary (not just the surface area). Jeronimo 06:43, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Some of these may be better suited to merging rather than expanding. Ambi 07:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Note it currently has a lead section. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)] 08:11, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • The following objections have now been addressed: Martyman 01:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    1. The article now has references, and always had a lead section.
    2. Some sections have been expanded other grouped under a single heading.
    3. A map has been added.

The lead section should give a summary of the article. The current is two sentences long, and doesn't say anything about the topics of most of the sections in the article itself. It is therefore not a summary. See also Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section. Other issues have been resolved. One new issue: units (km, liter, etc.) should be linked to the appropriate article on their first occurrence (see WP:MOS). Jeronimo 10:02, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looks good now, support. Jeronimo 09:53, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• No vote yet. I did some minor work on the article (wikification and section rearrangement). I'd like to see a few things added before I support.

1. a map that details the location of the lake and additional measures of the lake.
   • I am working on a map at the moment and will have it up tonight. Martyman 08:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. a way to incorporate the panoramic pictures into the article (and make sure readers don't have to scroll.
3. some more info on water quality and safety.
   • These areas have been expanded somewhat. Martyman 01:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)] 08:11, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

• The article has improved, but I still have some issues with it.

1. At least 2 pictures don't seem to be in the section they belong in.
2. The reference section is quite messy.

Clarification as requested:I feel the reference section is a big lump of text. I'm unsure of what link shows what info. Maybe the refs can be subdivided in minor sections? -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)] 12:15, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

I see this as a deficiency in thw Wikipedia Code. There is no easy way to work a proper referencing system. For example the references in this scientific publication [3]. The reference links after each paragraph should have numbers that correspond to the entries in the refernce section. Martyman 11:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

After some thought, I've come to the conclusion blank lines won't work as well as I'd hoped. The rest of the article looks fine to me. Support. -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)] 11:53, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Support - I used to live in Canberra and I didn't think much could be written about Lake BG, but this article is very very good. AlbinoMonkey 14:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support Dysprosia 06:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support The bellman 06:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support Chuq 23:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support ZayZayEM 01:47, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support Securiger 15:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support, but there are a lot more things that can be wikilinked in this article. I did a few, but it will take more than one person working on it. - Taxman 02:19, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Athanasius Kircher

As one of the sources puts it, "just about the coolest guy ever". Self-nom, ignored on Peer review (which I optimistically take as a sign that it's perfect). Markalexander100 08:16, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Web references should be listed with date of retrieval though (see Wikipedia:Cite your sources). Jeronimo 13:10, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Done, thanks. Markalexander100 02:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Zerbey 16:07, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Securiger 12:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. (I have edited this article in the past.) Smerdis of Tlön 16:34, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Suport. (After I made a few tiny changes.) L33tminion 05:34, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. But very. Filiocht 08:37, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Fascinating person, and -as far as I can determine- a comprehensive article. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)] 11:04, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Two minor objections I would like to see resolved before featuring. 1) The article appears to imply that Kircher joined the Jesuit order in 1618, but then states that he joined the priesthood in 1628. This is either contradictory or else the difference between the two events is inadequately explained. 2) The caption for the "ears" illustration fails to establish for someone casually scanning the article why this picture is relevant to the subject. --Michael Snow 17:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Number 2 is done. As for number 1, I don't understand. The Jesuit Order has never been solely for priests; the article makes this clear by saying that he joined the two institutions at different times (I think it would be overly patronising to say it more explicitly). Markalexander100 02:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is made clear at all, except perhaps to those well-versed in Roman Catholic procedures. I would guess that the average reader here associates Jesuits with the Catholic priesthood, without much thought as to whether the former necessarily implies the latter. In this situation, it is easy to read the article and wonder if we have our facts straight. I note that not even the Society of Jesus article will provide you with the information that Jesuits are not necessarily priests. --Michael Snow 02:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Since, as the article says, Kircher became a Jesuit before he became a priest, you can be a Jesuit without being a priest. I don't know how much clearer it can get. Markalexander100 09:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • The Jesuits do have "lay brothers" (which ought to be mentioned in the Jesuit article...). However the explanation of this case much simpler: when Kircher joined the order, he became a seminarian, studying for the priesthood. What about saying (to the effect) "Kircher joined the Jesuit order in 1618, entering their seminary to prepare for priesthood in the order. He was ordained in 1628." That avoids over-patronizing and clarifies for those who assume that anyone who walks in off the street and says "I want to be a Jesuit" is ordained on the spot. Mpolo 10:19, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
          • I just added the words 'as a seminarian'. Is this OK? Filiocht 10:29, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
            • Fine for me. ;) Markalexander100 10:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
            • Certainly an improvement, so I'll withdraw the objection. Personally I would lean toward something like Mpolo's suggestion. --Michael Snow 16:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ziad Jarrah

My first self-nom. I see "Remember 9/11" stickers all over the place, but very few people know anything about the perpetrators. This is a detailed biography of one of the more interesting of the hijackers. Info culled from the 9/11 report, Congressional testimony, and several conspiracy sites for good measure. I listed this on Peer Review several weeks ago, and no one had any improvements to suggest. What do you think? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 12:21, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Some of the spacing looks funny on Mozilla Firefox (notably at the second image, where there's a giant gap between two paragraphs). No references, either. 219.93.174.110 13:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Can anonymous users vote? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • There are three external links, which are basically references. Is this good enough? (I'll fix the spacing problem presently.)
    • Sorry, that was my vote. Seems I got logged out by accident. The problem with spacing seems to be fixed; as for the references, I will support once they are converted to conform with Wikipedia:Cite sources (a task which shouldn't be too hard). For now, neutral. Support. Johnleemk | Talk 08:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:16, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, as long as the spacing problem is fixed. (and references) Ambi 13:38, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support Neutral. I guess that he came from a Muslim family though he went to a Catholic school. This should be stated explicitly, I think. It confused me. Andries 16:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, you're right. I'll make that more clear. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 22:06, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now. The lead section needs expansion. It should present an overview/summary of the article, but currently misses parts of the article (such as the identity issue). Also, a little more context would be good. See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section. Other than this, support. Jeronimo 18:23, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay, this is done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:09, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Surprisingly NPOV for such a controversial figure, excellent work. Zerbey 00:41, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)] 11:22, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I expected to see POV ranting, but this is a good NPOV article! Anárion 13:56, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Wow. Well written, very informative and fascinating. func(talk) 21:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Attalus I

Sort of a self-nom, since I created the first stub ages ago. Fantastic new work by Paul A.; now feature-worthy. +sj+ 23:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Egads, that's a good reference section! Support! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:59, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Support; the footnotes are mindboggling. Makes me feel inadequate on my own articles. :) --Golbez 01:16, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Shorne 03:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Lead section does not even tell who he is to someone that does not already know what Pergamon is, much less why he is important, notable, or what he did or accomplished. Otherwise seems well researched and written. I certainly prefer inline citations (it makes it so you don't have to move to the bottom of the page and back to check the footnote every time), but that is definitely not something to object over. - Taxman 03:14, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I thought about that, but how different is it from saying Babylon, or Crete, or Rome, or Gaul? It's an extinct kingdom. But I agree, it could be phrased just a tad bit better. --Golbez 03:22, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten the lead section and added an "Early life" section Paul August 18:43, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but still object on basically the same grounds. Is who his second cousin is really one of the several most important things about him? Why was the fact that he was the first in his dynasty to take the title king important? Also, what was important about the victory over the Gauls? Did it have any impact? A two paragraph lead section summarizing all of the most important things about him would not be out of the question for an article this size. - Taxman 17:07, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • No need to be sorry, I think your comments are constructive ;-) His relationship to the previous ruler Eumenes I (he was also his adoptive son - which I've now added) as well as him being the first king of Pergamon, are in my opinion fairly important. Do you think these facts should come later in the article? I've added some content regarding the significance of his victory over the Gauls, do you think this is sufficient? I'm hesitant to add much more content which would essentially duplicate what comes almost immediately below. Paul August 20:08, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't know if they need to come later. I just don't know what is important and why and the intro certainly doesn't tell me. It should. Any good intro needs to be a summary of the most important points of the subject with an eye towards why they are important. That neccessarily will duplicate some information. Nothing wrong with that. Having the overview eases the reader in, then the details in the article are more comprehensive. And yes the significance of beating the Gauls is helpful. - Taxman 03:13, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
          • Ok I've considerably expanded the lead section. Is this any better? Paul August 06:09, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Good article, needs a few changes to get my support though. 1) As Taxman indicated, the lead section is inadequate. Instead of telling why Attalus I was so important, it adds unimportant facts about who his mother may have been. The lead section should give a short summary of the article, and introduce the subject of the article. See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section. 2) It is hard to understand the article, or even the lead section, without some context. This doesn't take a lot of work or text. E.g. "ruler of Pergamon, a Greek city state in present-day Turkey" makes the article much more readable. Adding such context is necessary for the entire article. 3) I don't think it is necessary to footnote each and every fact mentioned in the article. Any fact coming directly from any of the listed references (Livius, Polibius, etc.) shouldn't need footnoting, since these it is silently assumed that most information in the article comes from these sources. Furthermore, it makes the article look overly "messy" in my opinion. I would say to only footnotes when quoting sources otherwise not used (such as note nr. 7) or when sources are contradictory or exceptional in their remarks. 4) The article, after mentioning his relatives in the opening, immediately starts with Attalus's victory over the Galatian Gauls. I would like to see some more about his early life, or how he became king (he was not the son of his predecessor). I can image there's little information about his childhood, but I would expect something available aobut how he succeeded Eumenes I. If there's nothing known about that either, I think mentioning that is also useful. 5) I don't mind using direct quotations in articles, but the entire "Wife and sons" section consists of quotations. I personally prefer more of Wikipedia's own prose here. (This is not part of my objection.) 6) Another image would be nice as well (Again, not part of my objection). Jeronimo 06:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten the lead section and added an "Early life" section Paul August 18:43, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that the text would look cleaner without the footnotes. But I'm opposed to removing most of the footnotes. I think the "messy" look is far outweighed by the value of the information contained in the footnotes. (for example, I can't tell you how many times i've referred to the text mentioned in these footnotes when editing other parts of this as well as several other articles.) Yes, without the footnotes, the reader would still know that the article was based on the sources listed in the "references" section, but they wouldn't know which part of the article was based on which part of which sources. These texts comprise a couple of thousand or so pages, and believe me, it's not particularly easy (for me at least) to find the text upon which a given statement in the article is based. I think there is a strong analogy here with regard to links. I also find links visually distracting, but this is, of course, more than compensated for by the information they provide. I think that one of the reasons, the footnotes look "messy", is because they are so uncommon on Wikipedia (but I don't think they should be), and I think, just as in the case of links, one can, with familiarity, train one's eyes to ignore them. I believe that Wikipedia is weak in the area of source citation. And I think we should encourage citation of sources (the more detailed the better ;-) rather than discourage it. If the consensus is that a "featured article" shouldn't have so many footnotes, then I'd vote to keep the footnotes and have it be an "unfeatured article" ;-). (Bias alert: I'm the main contributer to this article ;-) Paul August 20:01, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Besides, how do you think I keep my edit count so high? If we do decide to remove all my precious footnotes please let me do it, one-at-a-time ;-) Paul August 20:11, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • As to footnotes, I want to say two things. 1) I believe strongly that we should have as much detail in footnoting as possible -- see the recently started fact-checking project for a discussion of why highly granular references are useful. 2) A well-footnoted article is more beautiful to me than its counterpart; like a little stamp of guaranteed information density. There will eventually be better footnote support, allowing users to jump directly to them, to show/hide them, etc. I would hate to see the work that went into these lavish footnotes undone for the sake of temporary aesthetic. +sj+ 06:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Re footnotes: I agree (now) that these should not be removed because they look ugly, they should only be removed if they are unnecessary, and I currently think many of these are unnecessary. Personally, I think that we only need footnotes when: 1) directly quoting somebody 2) when listing somebody's opinion on the article's subject 3) when the fact mentioned is disputed by other sources.

For example, it seems to me that "Attalus was the son of Attalus and Antiochis" needs no footnote, just like there is no source for the information on who his brother was. However, the sentence "According to Pausanias "the greatest of his achievements" was the defeat of the Galatian Gauls" should get one.

If there is a problem with the fact that the references works are very large (thousands of pages), mention the page numbers or chapters that were used to narrow it a bit down. Jeronimo 12:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, that "Attalus was the son of Attalus and Antiochis" doesn't need to be footnoted, but I still find it useful to have the footnote. Every statement in this article is a summarization and/or an interpretation of someone else's words. I think it is useful to let the reader know whose words, and where they were written, so they can judge for themselves if the summaries and interpretations are accurate. (The reason I haven't yet included source information for the newly added content is because I wanted that content and this issue to be settled first ;-) by the way you haven't yet said whether the new content is satisfactory. Is it?) Paul August 17:19, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

As for the other objections: they are solved. Jeronimo 07:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. This is the kind of article I always hope to find when browsing the 'pedia. {Ανάριον} 11:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Markalexander100 05:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could Taxman, and Jeronimo please respond as to whether any of there of their objections have been addressed by the recent edits? Or if they haven't been addressed adequately, could they please say what else needs to be done? (Jeronimo: I realize that the footnote are still there, I'm still pondering that question and I'll have more to say on the matter - I don't suppose you've been swayed at all by my last comment have you ;-) Thanks in advance Paul August 15:18, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

• Ok the lead section still needs some work. The sentence "He was the second cousin and the adoptive son of Eumenes I2, whom he succeeded, and was the first of the Attalid dynasty to assume the title of king" seems like it could be removed since the second part is now repeated later in the intro and the first does not seem all that important (and is covered later in the article). 2). There are a number of one sentence paragraph, which need to be expanded or merged with another paragraph. 3.) Overall the article has the typical ancient Greek POV that the Greeks were good and everyone else was bad. An example is "Galatians had posed a problem for Pergamon, indeed for all of Asia Minor." So the conquests of Attalus are glorious, but the other side is a problem for everyone? The section headings of defeat and conquests promote this too. 4.) Overall the writing is very difficult to follow, but because it is mostly due to apparently correct, albeit complicated sentence structure, I will not object only on a basis such as that. Specifically the Early life section though, has too many clauses in each sentence and would not lose anything if it were simplified a bit. - Taxman 16:09, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

• 1) As I said above, his relationship to the previous ruler of Pergamon, and his kingship are of considerable importance. He became important because he was king, and he became king because of his relationship to Eumenes. Encyclopedia Britannica and The Oxford Classical Dictionary seem to agree. Both, include this information in their first two sentences in their articles about him. These facts are part of the "definition" of who he is. They answer the question: "Which Attalus was that?" (there were more than one); answer: "The successor to Eumenes I" or "You know, the first king of Pergamon"; response: "Oh yeah that guy." Yes the relationship to Eumenes is mentioned again in the "Early life" section, but as you said above "Any good intro needs to be a summary of the most important points of the subject with an eye towards why they are important. That neccessarily will duplicate some information" I agree the repetition of the phrase 'the title of "king"' (I've changed this slightly) in the first paragraph and second paragraphs, was not good. But the reason for mentioning his kingship in the second paragraph was to explain how he gained the title, and to answer, in part, your question: "… what was so important about the victory over the Gauls".

Some good points, but the intro still doesn't say who Eumenes is or why he is important to anyone that doesn't already know. But if it is that standard, fine. In general just because two sources do it one way does not mean it can't be improved to say why this guy is important.

But the intro does say who Eumenes I is and why he is important, specifically it says that Attalus I "was the second cousin and the adoptive son of Eumenes I, whom he succeeded,". Thus Eumenes is identified as the predecessor to Attalus as ruler of Pergamon, which is also why he was important. Paul August 16:16, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

• 2) I found two one sentence paragraphs, and have eliminated them.

• 3) According to Livy:

A large body of Gauls, induced either by want of room or desire for plunder … marched …into the country of the Dardani … Fighting with those who opposed their progress and exacting tribute from those who asked for peace …they went further into Asia. Out of the 20,000 men not more than 10,000 were carrying arms, yet so great was the terror they inspired in all the nations west of the Taurus, that those who had no experience of them, as well as those who had come into contact with them, the most remote as well as their next neighbours, all alike submitted to them. They levied tribute on the whole of Asia west of the Taurus, but fixed their own settlement on both sides of the Halys. Such was the terror of their name and the growth of their numbers that at last even the kings of Syria did not dare to refuse the payment of tribute.

The Gauls were a "problem" for Pergamon (as I am sure Pergamon was a problem for the Gauls). This statement is not meant to (nor as far as I can tell does it) indicate that the Pergamene were in any way superior to the Gauls. Would you please offer alternative, less POV wording for "Galatians had posed a problem for Pergamon, indeed for all of Asia Minor." As for the section titles "Defeat of the Gauls" and "Conquests in Seleucid Asia Minor" the first is meant to describe the event whereby Attalus met the Gauls in battle and won, the second is meant to describe the expansion of territory, (not at the expense of the Gauls by the way) in that part of Asia Minor previously controlled by the Seleucid empire. Why are these headings POV? Can you think of better ones? Paul August 01:52, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Well I couldn't think of much better titles right away or I would have changed them. Conquest connotes ideas like valor and superiority. Defeat is fine, it is more factual. I can't even figure out what is going on and follow who is who in the Conquests section, so I don't know what a better title there is. I think I fixed a bit of the "Gaul problem", by noting what made them a problem closer to the sentence in question. Don't forget Livy was a Roman and Rome had been sacked by the Gauls, so he is hardly unbiased himself. - Taxman 04:35, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the word "conquests" is anymore POV, than "defeat". Webster: Conquest: 1. The act or process of conquering, or acquiring by force; 2. That which is conquered; possession gained by force, physical or moral. In the section heading "Conquests in Seleucid Asia Minor", the word is being used in both the above senses (which I rather like). I don't think that "conquest" connotes a "valorous superiority" any more than it connotes a "brutal subjugation". Rather it's the action itself which is POV laden. In any victory or defeat, there are the victorious and the vanquished and they each will naturally enough have their own POV. Of course the word then inherits the POV, but it inherits both a positive and a negative one. In my opinion, the POVs are symmetric, and thus (more or less) balance out. To rule out the use of such words as "conquest" and "defeat" as too POV, is to impoverish the language.

Having said all that, if nevertheless "conquests" must go, then I propose: "Hostile takeovers in Seleucid Asia Minor". Just kidding ;-) this came to mind as i was considering the phrase "territorial acquisitions" as a possible alternative to "conquests". Seriously though, if you can't abide "conquests" how about "Territorial expansion in Seleucid Asia Minor"? It's less concise, dryer, more boring and contains (unfortunately) only the first meaning of "conquest" given above - but it probably is less POV.

Yes, of course, Livy is biased, but the collective scholarly judgment would be, I think, that he's not so biased as to fabricate that the Gauls were extracting tribute and plundering throughout Cis-Tauric Asia Minor. But anything's possible ;-), (Jeronimo: that's one of the reasons for citing the source of this in the footnotes ;-). I think his bias would extend only so far as to characterize such actions as "brutal" or "barbaric" say. Paul August 17:36, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Support: Livy is biased, and the view you hit in some historians is that Atalus was a toady of Rome who was really out to take Macedonia out of the picture and balance against Antiochus. At any rate, it's great to see a Hellenistic topic nominated, and this is a well researched article. Quarrels over minor wording are somewhat beside the point. This is a good balance to some of the contemporary events (which should be there, but as part of a mix) in the FA's. Geogre 18:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Adventures of Tintin

Partial self-nomination. A remarkable in-depth article on one of Europe's most influential comic series. It was previously listed but then did not get enough support, I hope that now it can. I believe all objections raised then are now adressed. {Ανάριον} 09:54, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Not bad! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support, I've used the article as a project reference before, and it was essentially the most concise and complete thing I found on the net. -- user:zanimum
• Support, good article. Grinner 15:39, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. zoney ♣ talk 15:54, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I have my doubts about the fair use of the image of Tintin. Without the explicit autorisation of the heirs of Hergé or the publishing house Casterman, fair use looks problematic. I'm under the impression that they are rather strict in protecting this copright and have done so in the past. This should be cleared up (see talk page of the Adventures of Tintin and talk page of the image). Otherwise, an excellent article worth featuring. JoJan 17:48, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I think we need to go through the fair use article and see if we can justify the use of this license for this article. Personally, I think it would be OK, I just think the image itself needs have a better page description of the license. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:39, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I think it qualifies as fair use: its use as such in the French Wikipedia is unquestioned. {Ανάριον} 14:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure about fair use. The image falls under the Belgian law, since it was created in Belgium. The copyright laws of the USA are not the same as on the European continent. I give an example (in French) : [4] where the intellectual property of the author is explained, especially (again in French) : "En vertu de la loi sur la propriété intellectuelle, diffuser les oeuvres de tiers constitue un acte d'exploitation qui n'est possible qu'avec l'autorisation de l'auteur. (Dissiminating the works of a third person constitutes an act which is only possible with the autorisation of the author) Une diffusion sans autorisation de l'auteur empêche, en effet, ce dernier de vivre de son travail et méconnaît les investissements des éditeurs et / ou des producteurs. Lors de la diffusion d'une de ses oeuvres, sans autorisation préalable de sa part, l'auteur est susceptible de demander des dommages (the author can ask for damages) et intérêts au titre du préjudice moral et patrimonial subi.". This has caused, among others, the Dutch Wikipedia to ban the use of "fair use". On the other hand, the servers of Wikipedia are situated inside the USA, but then the image originates from the French Wikipedia, which again refers to the English Wikipedia for the use of "fair use". It's a bit complicated, but, without explicit autorisation of the heirs of the author, I'm inclined against "fair use". JoJan 19:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • "I'm not so sure about fair use. The image falls under the Belgian law, since it was created in Belgium. " - wrong. Copyright itself is limited by what it is in the originating country (thus, the USA will not protect the copyright on a work longer than the country of origin does). However, that is the *ONLY* area in which origin matters. Everything else is determined by what country the exception is taking place in - for Wikipedia, that's the US because our databse servers are located there (we have squids outside the US). I suggset you read the Copyright FAQ that James and I wrote. →Raul654 05:15, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Fair use claim is tenuous at best, and not likely to be compatible with the GFDL anyway. - Taxman 15:44, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment to the above: I have replaced the image with one that is copy-right free: Image:Tt-casterman-01.jpg {Ανάριον} 15:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • It claims to be, but on what grounds is that claim made? I can claim anything is copyright free and put it on a webserver. Saying alone does not make it so. - Taxman 14:14, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • According to the site mentioned, the pin has copyright Casterman (= the publisher), which is even worse than the "fair use" JoJan 14:37, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • The pin has copyright by Casterman, a photo of it has copyright by the photographer, who released it for free. {Ανάριον} 10:02, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Reverted to other image: fair use is okay for the Wikipedia (see many other articles). {Ανάριον} 10:06, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Zerbey 13:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dred Scott v. Sandford

A surprisingly easy read for a potentially dense topic. Seems to do a great job of explaining the issues decided in the case, and how the result changed the country in the run-up the Civil War. A pic would be nice, but not essential, and I doubt there are any available of a relevant subject. (AFAIK, there are no photos of Dred Scott -- maybe one of Justice Taney?) Tuf-Kat 07:31, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Ambi 07:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support, but I'd like to see an image. There appear to be a number of images of Scott on the Internet, including one that looks very much like a sepia tint photo. Filiocht 13:45, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • There's an image now. Shorne 17:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • In which case, it was up to me to strike the comment. Filiocht 07:32, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Support Sayeth 15:56, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, now that I have done some minor editing. Shorne 17:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I observe two problems, both easily fixable. 1) The opening sentence is way too long and complicated, borderline run-on. 2) Spelling of Sanford/Sandford is inconsistent in the article; please determine which is most appropriate, and fix the article (and if necessary, the title) to reflect this. --Michael Snow 18:37, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Just a note about (2): Isn't this discussed in the introduction? Anyway, I'll leave Tuf-Kat to fix these; I've done enough editing today. Shorne 18:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • As explained in the article: While the name of the case is "Scott v. Sandford," the respondent's surname was actually "Sanford." The article seems to use the two spellings consistently, "Sandford" when referring to the name of the case, and "Sanford" otherwise. Paul August 18:52, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Think I've dealt with (1), though perhaps the (now) second sentence could still be split further. --195.11.216.59 12:48, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin

This was the subject of one of the more lively FAC discussions of September [5]. During the last FAC nomination, the article was completely rewritten, largely by me, with lots of NPOV prodding and editing from User:Eloquence. In the past few weeks User:JDG and others have also edited the article, hopefully rounding it out to be informative and NPOV. I think the "dust has settled" now, so that we just need to list the outstanding objections...

Objections from first nomination [6]:

• An "Oh, what a great mystery this shroud is" POV assertion. But counter-arguments are given for (seemingly) every theory. (It's a unique, strange artifact with no universally agreed-upon explanation, and the article reflects this.)
  • Gone with the rewrite
• An "ongoing dispute as to which language should be used to describe the nature of the shroud." What does this refers to?
  • The dispute seems to have died down, whatever it was originally.

Objections from second nomination

• It needs more information about the research and findings of the scientific investigation of the Shroud, by scientists who aren't actively looking for a way to argue that it's authentic.
  • I think this is addressed. McCrone receives more space than before and it is also indicated that dissenting scientists tend not to have samples to work on.
• Eloquence listed 22 objections. These were all addressed, except for " The shroud is in the public domain - why do we only have a face portion, and a negative rendering instead of both? Surely one of the shroud enthusiasts can provide a high resolution scan and then we can look at specific portions, like the hands, to highlight things like stains so that the reader can get an impression of the so-called 'wounds'."
  • Unfortunately, the photographers consider their photos to be copyrighted and follow this up with court action. There have only been 6 professional photographers in history permitted to photograph the thing without protective glass, etc. We now have reproductions of the original photos, which are the only ones definitely outside of copyright.
• I don't think it's particularly well written and the image may be a copyvio.
  • Completely rewritten. The old image dated from 1933, so could be argued as a copyvio. This one dates from 1898.
• It should be clearly stated that modern methods could date the shroud with fair certainty, but the owners refuse to permit access.
  • This is mentioned.
• I didn't even get to the end. You know it's POV when a section on scientific analysis gives a brief description of the method (one line) followed by a long refutation (three paragraphs). Especially when the refutation involves resurrection-related neutron bombardments. By all means report on people's beliefs but keep the pseudo-scientific babble for your church picnic.
  • Complete rewrite. I think this is answered.
• This is clearly too controversial to be promoted now. The rewrite is much better, but I think it should have some time to settle, maybe a spell on Peer review then re-nominate.
• Agreed (and super work). Wait two weeks, perhaps.
  • It's been three weeks since the failure of the old nomination.

This would be at least a partial self-nomination. Mpolo 13:52, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I have one issue though: the history section extensively discussed the Shrout of Edessa, although it is not established that these two are the same. Perhaps this should be mentioned more clearly, notably at the beginning of the history section. Jeronimo 21:55, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I added such a note. (In addition to the section title "Possible History") Mpolo 08:51, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Well written, and NPOV. {Ανάριον} 11:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now. Far too much space given over to the Image of Edessa, 'which may or may not be related to the cloth now known as the Shroud of Turin', to quote the article, and which already has a reasonable article of its own. Given that there is no certain relationship, I fail to see how more than a passing reference in this article can be justified. Filiocht 12:59, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC) I still think there may be too much material in this section, but now change my vote to neutral in the light of what has been done. Filiocht 07:27, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • I merged most of the history specifically on the Image of Edessa to that article. The portions discussing traditions of a full-length image of Jesus connected with the Image of Edessa are highly germane to the discussion here, however. Is that enough? Mpolo 13:37, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

***I'm afraid I can't agree. The first paragraph of the section discussing the Edessa image seems to me to be enough. By extending the discussion of that other image, the article reads like it is slanted in favour of accepting the identity of the two shrouds. Filiocht 11:25, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC) See above. Filiocht 10:21, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

• • • • I'm not sure what can be done. The paragraphs beyond the first paragraph about the Edessa Image are specifically there to provide what evidence exists that the two cloths might be the same -- that John Damascene spoke of an oblong cloth, that the sermon at the transfer to Constantinople mentioned the image, the testimony of a Crusader of the burial shroud with image there. They don't really have a place in the article on the Image of Edessa, because that article is not concerned with its relationship to the Shroud of Turin. Mpolo 12:06, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC) -- O.K. I've made another attempt. I added a sentence to make it clear that the common view is that the image of Edessa has nothing to do with the Shroud. I then prefaced the following three paragraphs by the statement that this is the evidence presented by shroud supporters for the identification of the cloths. I removed a sentence of history that wasn't particularly germane as well. Mpolo 12:36, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Much more NPOV than before. The lead section is a bit short for an article this size though. - Taxman 17:00, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • I expanded the lead, but it should be checked over for POV issues.Mpolo 16:49, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:13, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I nominated this article in September, the improvements made are excellent. Zerbey 11:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Japanese toilet

Absolutely fascinating article mostly by User:Chris 73. A great example of the sort of thing that Wikipedia collaboration comes up with. Yelyos 02:36, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive comments! Guess I must have found a good topic ... but then with me being in Japan you could say that I am sitting at the source. I was planning to polish the article a bit more and then nominate it myself, but Yelyos beat me (and others) to it. Will add a reference section soon. Also, hopefully I can visit the Toilet museum by Inax in Tokyo this weekend, and get some more info. -- Chris 73 Talk 05:36, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Why do Japan and scatology always seem to go hand in hand? Zh 03:04, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support, with reservations. I almost nominated this myself a couple of days ago. But I want to see the spelling and all cleaned up. Shorne 03:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Run through spellchecker. [7] Yelyos 03:26, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Now, if there are no non-Japanese interested in such topic as scatology and Japanese don't keep a good record of everything and keep inventing great products, surely one wouldn't see such articles. What you see is a reflection of what you wants to see. Revth 05:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I meant to nominate it myself, but was lazy. --Golbez 05:20, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. (Contributor) -- Chris 73 Talk 05:36, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Object barely. There is no explicit references section. There are several external links mentioned, but is it unclear if they are references. In addition, please use the style at Wikipedia:Cite sources. I would also prefer to see written works added, or to a "further reading" section if none were used. Consider this as my support when changes made. Jeronimo 06:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Comming soon, as mentioned above. -- Chris 73 Talk 07:00, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Added a reference section with about 6 references. Yet, there is little literature about the japanese toilet, and some of the documents are company advertising. I will keep on looking, but I hope for now this is enough for Jeronimo's support -- Chris 73 Talk 12:30, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

• I think we should also have a "further reading while on the toilet". - Ta bu shi da yu 22:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support -- Sundar 04:53, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Another brilliant example of why Wikipedia is such unique treasure. Zerbey 00:37, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think I've voted here before, but this article makes me want to move to Japan. Dori | Talk 23:42, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. My friend had told me about all this but I'd only half-believed it and never seen photos! eterata 04:37, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• yes! kickass! i am glad someone else shares the same fascination as i. woohoo! Natelipkowitz 04:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Tiny objection - the line: "Currently, over 50% of the Japanese households have high-tech shower toilets worldwide, and Japanese companies currently produce some of the most advanced high tech toilets worldwide." (in the intro) doesn't read quite right to me. Grinner 13:47, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Victoria of the United Kingdom

This self-nomination will be my last on British monarchs, at least in the short term. For now, I will keep myself interested by turning to some non-royalty topics. -- Emsworth 14:14, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Brilliant, as usual. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:14, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Strong support. Johnleemk | Talk 16:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Well done. Shorne 21:48, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support, as always. Ambi 06:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Jeronimo 07:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great work. GeneralPatton 01:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support, as ever. Hope your new direction of editing is as fruitful! James F. (talk) 11:36, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. But the "legacy" section appears to be dominated by (someone else's,?) morbid stuff.Sfahey 01:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Very well done. Ctrl_build 03:44 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great stuff.--Crestville 16:31, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Looking forward to seeing the fruits of your next project. Zerbey 00:41, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Millington Synge

Self nomination. I know this is my second live nomination, but this is not an ICOTW. I've rewritten this over the last few days from a short existing article. Going for an Abbey Theatre set! Filiocht 13:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent. Ambi 14:08, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. At the risk of sounding like Montgomery Burns: excellent. Jeronimo 17:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Another excellent article relating to the Abbey CGorman 19:12, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Even if he (Synge, that is) constantly misnamed one of the Aran islands :-) Kiand 14:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Noted: Added to FA on October 16, 2004; nomination text recreated from here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Coconut crab

(self-nomination) I believe this is a well rounded article on a very interesting animal with a good potential for feature status. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:14, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

• Very good. Support. --ZZ 08:38, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support - William M. Connolley 16:31, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Johnleemk | Talk 16:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent. Ambi 06:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support, if you put in English units as well as metric.
  • Dear User:Quadell, for you I will do that even if your comment is not signed ;-) -- Chris 73 Talk 12:28, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • It looks great now. Thanks! (And yes, that was me.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 13:40, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Revth 05:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Terrific article. Filiocht 12:33, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
• Support - great article. Mark Richards 17:23, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Good article on interesting creature. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 06:36, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. jengod 19:05, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Regular polytope

Self-nomination. The article has a section tracing the history of regular polytopes from prehistory through the initial mathematical descriptions of the platonic solids, to the modern abstract regular polytopes of today. There is also a section on their occurrence in nature. --mike40033 06:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object barely. I'd like to see the lead section and a couple of paragraphs below that clarified - they're a little confusing to the non-mathematician. Apart from that, its very good. Ambi 07:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've reworked the initial paras. Take a look? --mike40033 01:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Much better! Support. Ambi 09:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Terrific. This is a textbook example of a featured article. Jeronimo 17:17, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The intro is much better, nice work. - Taxman 20:43, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Highly interesting, good examples. Great work -- Chris 73 Talk 09:40, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - William M. Connolley 17:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Geography of Ireland

Partial self nom. This was a recent Irish collaboration of the week and seems to have come on nicely. Filiocht 13:22, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I also had a hand in this article. —Rory ☺ 14:30, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Good article but there are too many red links. I don't think this is grounds to object but it needs attention, imo. violet/riga (t) 14:39, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In fairness, it was necessary to work on the overall article to see what sub-topics are lacking. Have no doubt that these are on our (probably fairly long) personal mental "to do lists". In any case, having the red links on such a prominent page should ensure more attention for them. zoney ♣ talk 15:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• While I agree that making it featured may help towards getting the articles written I still think that it looks a bit dodgy to have "one of the best examples of an article" linking to tons of missing articles. violet/riga (t) 19:46, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• A bit dodgy or just embarrassing? It doesn't reflect badly on this FAC in my opinion, as it's an entirely separate issue. zoney ♣ talk 23:38, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• The Red Links have been significantly pruned since the article was first posted here, anyway Kiand 18:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Well done. Dsmdgold 14:58, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I too helped a bit with the article. zoney ♣ talk 15:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• oppose, until someone explains why there isn't a human geography section. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I think a list of major cities and their populations would probably suffice, but anything else anyone can think of that comes out of that too. Then I would support. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The major cities are all in the political geography section. What point would there be to a section devoted to listing them again? Filiocht 07:35, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I think this objection has been adequately addressed. No? Shorne 07:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Good article. Dunc - as someone with Irish Leaving Cert Geography, I can't see much not covered there that we'd call "human geography" in Ireland. Its a grey area as to what it is, I see the page here is just a redirect. Kiand 17:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article, and a great example for others to follow. Ambi 09:35, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Ambi, and hope the Aussies will use this as an example for our own country. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I like this article, and I would support it but for two things. 1) This article just screams for more maps. Readers need to know where they can find all (or at least most) of the mountains, rivers, cities and other features mentioned in the article. This could be done either by a good - large - natural map of the island, or having specialised maps for some features, like the county map. 2) The climate section could also use a bit more info. Maybe a simple table with climate data would already do the trick (a table displaying the noraml min/max temperature and precipitation for each month of the year). This should not be too difficult to find. Jeronimo 10:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I have tried to address these objections. Filiocht 12:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Great! Support. Jeronimo 12:58, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. There are far too many red links. Please supply stubs (at a minimum) for, say, half of these; then I'll be glad to give my support. Shorne 21:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) Support. Shorne 07:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I've stubbed-out around 8 of the red links, mainly those from my native area, Donegal. I'll work through some of the rest whilst my kernel recompile is still ongoing, but I can't supply more than stubs, although the info will be correct. Kiand 22:29, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I did 4 on top of those. Bit more, Kian, and we're there! JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 23:59, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks to both of you. I'll remove my objection if a few of the links in "Mountains" are filled in. Shorne 00:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • I'd like to see two or three of the mountains filled in with stubs or better, but I'm satisfied with your efforts and trust that this will be done soon. (I'd do it myself, but I don't know beans about the mountains of Ireland.) Thanks for your fine work. I've changed my vote to support. Éire go brách! Shorne 07:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I had but a small input into this article but I think it is good with plenty of data and nicely presented and organised. Support. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 00:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Air Force One

Self-nomination. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 14:27, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Interesting and well-written. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:33, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - a good article, my previous objection being mostly dealt with. I wouldn't mind some comparison with what other nations do, but I'll still support. Jongarrettuk 18:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)Oppose. I wasn't really sure whether the reference to the 'two Boeing 707-320B-type aircraft ? tail numbers 26000 and 27000 ? had operated as Air Force One starting in 1962' was meant to imply that Air Force One started in 1962 with these planes, or whether the date Air Force One began wasn't stated in the article. Also, it could be compared with what happens in other countries - are Presidential planes unusual, or relatively common? By the way, I'm not looking for much, just a couple of extra sentences. Jongarrettuk 18:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]

• not an objection, but maybe mention presidential planes before the call sign was invented? --Jiang 04:48, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]

• Support, very interesting and informative article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think Eisenhower used a Loockeed Constellation. This should be complete to be featured IMO. Ericd 21:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]

• • Eisenhower???? This article doesn't recognise anything before 1962! If Air Force One existed before then, then the article should cover that period (it should at least say when it started). Jongarrettuk 21:40, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]

• Support. I voted before--I asked for a bibliography, which has now been done--but as I find no trace of my vote on this page's history or my own contribution page I can only conclude the computer swallowed it completely. So I'm voting again on a good concise fact-filled article. Kudos, Neutrality. PedanticallySpeaking 18:14, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

• Hmm. 1) It's quite short, I would have liked it to be longer. 2) The history section could be more kept together, and less like "In 1997 this happened. In 1998 this happened." (You know). 3) There is a comparison which tells me nothing: "150-ton 747 was an 85,000-pound Gulfstream V corporate jet"; we could use unit conversion here. 4) There is no mention of the movie with the same name in the article, and nothing about possible other appearances in film (Independence Day, perhaps). 5) "Tom Harris" could need a (short) presentation, is he a military guy, journalist or fiction writer? 6) Other questions: How often does the plane fly, and how much time does the president spend on the plane? I guess the plane is often, if not always escorted. By what? What is the number of security, staff and total people it usually carries? ✏ Sverdrup 19:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Good article Cyopardi 21:48, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I found one occurence of bad grammar, but I'll fix that ASAP. I read the article last night and I found it quite informative and complete. Support. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)] 10:47, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

• Support --ZZ 08:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Brilliant article, excellent work Cyopardi 22:09, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support, but could you add something about the September 12, 2001 announcement that the White House had "specific and credible information" that AF1 was one of the "intended targets of these attacks"? (The interviewer asked Ari Fleischer "So then why did the President go to Nebraska and not back here to the White House?", an apparent embarrasment, and Fleischer answered "Because the information that we had was real and credible about Air Force One.") According to the 9/11 Commission Report (p.554), the White House says that this was false, and that it originated with a simple mistake by the watch officer in the White House Situation Room (although the director of the situation room says this is not true.) It seems notable to me that AF1 was allegedly under attack, even if this turns out not to be true.

Margin of error

--Fadethree I am self-nominating this because I have seen some amazing misinterpretations of this concept by both members of the press and the voting public. I think the topic is particularly germane given the election seasons in the US and elsewhere, which is why I am rushing to self-nominate. That said, I am very, very open to feedback, especially relating to how to make the page more accessible to the interested reader. I hope that the Do-It-Yourself Excel heading is appropriate; I think it would be useful. (<--edit: moved to Wikibooks.) I look forward to hearing from you all. 23:59 03 Oct, 2004 (UTC)

• Certainly it is timely during a presidential election campaign. The article still needs some work in some of the "displayed" TeX. Michael Hardy 00:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Michael. I have replied to explain the TeX, and the TeX you mention has been moved to Wikibooks. Best, Fadethree 19:12, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. An overall good article that has a big problem. It uses an overly conversational tone (eg "Let us use an running example..."), much of the article must be rephrased. Keep in mind that wikipedia is not a textbook but an encyclopedia. Also the do-it-yourself section needs to be removed, put that on Wikibooks if desired. Support. —siroχo 06:34, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the excellent recommendations, Siroxo. I prefer the conversational tone to make the topic less intimidating, but I understand that it is informal, so I have changed it. I have moved the do-it-yourself section to Wikibooks and provided a link in this article. Thanks again for your comments; let me know if you have other suggestions. Fadethree 08:19 04 Oct, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - much better! Object because it is written from the point of view that everyone is wrong about margin of error. Perhaps if the misconceptions section was moved downwards then that would sort out the POV problem. Also, I don't know what margin of error until about halfway down the article. Again, moving the first section to after the second section might solve this problem. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Mgm, for your support. I agree with ta bu shi da yu (big fish??), however, that there is sufficient POV to try some changes. I have shifted the misinterpretation section down and kept the example in place. I was going for a pedagogical approach by addressing readers at the level of their misconceptions, but this may indeed come off as POV. (continued...)
  • Your point about not knowing what the margin of error is until halfway down... this is a bigger challenge. Many difficult concepts cannot be truly understood until at least halfway down. The problem with "margin of error" is that it sounds like it should be much more than it is. Really, all it is, like I noted in the opening, is a transformation of the sample size that tries to reflect sampling variance. It picks a random percentage (50%) and reports the 99% confidence interval radius at that point regardless of whether that percentage is actually reported by the poll. Many users then take the margin of error and apply it to other reported percentages, though this is inappropriate. There are thus many opportunities for confusion that I am trying to address. I have made changes to the opening paragraph that I hope make this clearer. Let me know what you think. Fadethree 10:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC).
    • I'm feeling a little dense when reading this article, because I still don't know what margin of error is and why it is important. I'm no statistical genius! What would be helpful for me would be if you could try to sum up what margin of error is, and why it is important (without referring to misconceptions, as I have none as I don't have the first idea what it's all about). - Ta bu shi da yu 04:57, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks again for the comment; it is helpful. I added these lines to the definition: "The margin of error is an expression of the extent to which a poll's reported percentages may vary if the poll were to be taken again. The larger the margin of error, the less confidence one has that the polls reported percentages are close to the "true" percentages in the population.." I should have thought about saying it like this before. Let me know if you like how it reads now. Fadethree 06:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Sorry for taking so long to strike my objections. This is very much better, and with the new graphic I most definitely support this article! Good work on a difficult subject (well, for some people like myself). - Ta bu shi da yu 05:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It made a confusing mathematics topic easier to understand. I don't think the article suggests "everyone" is wrong about the margin of error. It only says it's often misinterpretted. And I think that could be considered a fact instead of POV, especially when Fadethree can prove it by linking a news article. That said, the article's language might benefit from some less loaded word choices. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)] 09:44, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
• I did not peruse the article entirely, so I will not vote at present. But I did notice that "margin of error" is in bold at every instance: I would imagine that using bold in the first case alone would suffice. -- Emsworth 01:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Emsworth. Neutrality took care of this and made some other very helpful edits. I kind of like having the phrase in bold