Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2004

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

Contents

Louis XIV of France

-- Emsworth 18:37, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. James F. (talk) 13:08, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Giano 13:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - but seems rather text-heavy, perhaps another image or two? Etaonish 14:30, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but with two suggestions for improvement. 1) the section on his children stands out a bit, especially since they are already mentioned earlier (in "Death"). Perhaps the table can be moved there as well. 2) a picture of his arms would be a welcome addition to the "style and arms" section. Jeronimo 07:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cricket

I nominate this thorough and comprehensive guide to a subject foreign to most of us Yanks. PedanticallySpeaking 20:02, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Support
  • Support. Having now met most of Emsworth criticism. Objecting on the grounds that cms should be cm seems over critical. GWO 12:01, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. An inexplicable subject clearly explained Giano 13:20, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk] 20:46, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support enthusiastically -- I've been attempting to understand the game for years, and now I finally feel as though I do. Jwrosenzweig 21:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 07:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. By way of full disclosure, this was completely rewritten recently by nichalp with substantial comments from me, dmmaus and Lord Emsworth amongst others. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*Object: too many half-true or ambiguous statements. Some examples) ***'Players on the fielding team take turns to be the bowler and to bowl six consecutive balls (an over) at the batting player.' Really? All the players? One over each at a time? Or just the specialist bowlers and allrounders bowling spells of overs?) ***'When both teams have completed their innings, the team with the most runs wins, although games can also be drawn or tied.' But what if it is a three or five day game and each team has 2 innings? And one does not complete their second innings before the end of the last day? ) ***'The more wickets the bowlers manage to take, the fewer runs the opposition will score.' Really? So a bowler with figures of 35:2:126:5 has done more to limit the score than one with figures of 35:16:40:1? 145.36.24.29 14:39, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

    • Removing resolved objections. Now support. 145.36.24.29 09:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks. The brief intro (where two of your examples come from) was meant to quite general - it is not the place to explain bowling spells, how the bowling is rotated, etc; and both teams have completed their innings when the second innings is over in a two innnings match. A team may not complete its second innings for many reasons: time may be up (so a draw) or they may win, but again this is not the place to explain. I hope I have dealt with your third point by changing it to read "Generally, the quicker the bowlers manage to take wickets, ..." Does that satisfy you? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Object

Objections. 1. One of the images uses "cms," but just "cm" should be used. Perhaps the creator of the images could be contacted; I believe that they were drawn using MS Word, and can therefore be easily changed.

Modified the image, although the thumbnail used still appears to be the older version. Cached somewhere?? GWO 12:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2. The article does not mention why the Lord Protector banned cricket in England.

Fixed GWO 12:01, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

3. I suggest a different structure, because some sections have just a single subsection, which makes the ToC look awkward. Furthermore, this would help reduce the length of the ToC:

  1. Origin of name
  2. History of cricket
  3. Objective
  4. Players (Note: incorporate "10 Other roles" into this section)
  5. Officials (Note: separate from "4 Players and officials")
  6. The playing field
    1. The pitch (Note: incorporate "5.2 The Wicket" and "5.3 Creases" into this subsection, as those two are only single paragraphs and properly appertain to the pitch itself)
    2. Parts of the field (Note: presently called "Field divisions")
    3. Field placements
  7. Match structure
  8. Play of the game
    1. The toss
    2. Batting
    3. Bowling (Note: incorporate "8 Dismissal of a batsman" into this section)
    4. Fielding
    5. Wicket-keeping
  9. International structure of cricket
  10. Forms of cricket (Note: incorporate "13 Variances in international cricket" into this section)

Same for the rest.

I've restructured the article substantially, using some of your suggestions and some of my own. GWO 12:01, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll see what other suggestions I can make later on. -- Emsworth 20:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Object - No ==References== section. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. The TOC is also overwhelming. I suggest converting many of the subheads to ; like so
Subhead
--mav 03:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Would it suffice if some of the external links were renamed as References? I know the TOC is large, but the page is also quite large and I'm not sure which headings you think should be removed. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not unless there were really used as references. --mav
  • Object. As someone wholly unfamiliar with cricket, I find the order of presentation somewhat confusing. Some fine details are presented before the big picture is complete. The reader gets a long way down in the article before it becomes apparent that one guy is hurling a ball at another, and that the latter should try to hit it with a bat. The reader gets even further down before it becomes apparent that the batsmem run back and forth between the wickets. --P3d0 20:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Also object. I would certainly have to agree with the above. I am in a similar position, and while I am not expecting perfect understanding after reading the article and never having seen the game, the article does cry out for a general introduction to the gameplay. Without it the more detailed description is incomprehensible. - Taxman 22:45, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks - I think this comment was made in Peer review but wasn't dealt with before the article was proposed here. I've added a brief introductory paragraph in the header. Does this deal with your objections? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's a great start. That's just what I'm looking for. I think you could trim even more details from that, and briefly mention what "out" is, and what "runs" are. However, I'm still going to object, as described below... --P3d0 14:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Perhaps I can clarify my objection with a thought experiment: Suppose I know nothing of Cricket and want to get the jist of how a game is played. So I start to read the article, and find that it's launching into the history of the game, and I don't really care about that. No problem: I take a look at the table of contents for the article, and where do I click? Well, in the current structure, I might click on Play of the Game, but being section 10, it requires a lot of the previous ones in order to be intelligle. For instance, one of the first sentences I encounter is "If the bowling is slow, and the opposing wicket keeper is standing close to the stumps, the batsman will usually have their back foot behind the crease in order to prevent being out stumped." Huh?? At this point, I probably give up.
The sections themselves look like they have been through a blender. Why do we have Players in section 3, separate from Player roles in section 9? Why is Objective in section 2, separate from the Play of the Game way down in section 10? I think we're trying to give the jist early, before the details, but (a) it's not working, and (b) we should say so explicitly, with sections roughly like these (but with better names):
  1. Introduction and History
  2. Gameplay Overview (eg. bowler throws ball at batsman; batsman runs between wickets; etc.)
  3. Gameplay Details (eg. field dimensions, 8 ways to retire a batsman, where the batsman typically stands, etc.)
  4. Variations
  5. Organizations
  6. Related articles and references
Sorry to be the only objection in a sea of support. --P3d0 14:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Again, thanks for that: no need to apologise! The article was written by people who know the subject well, and it can be difficult to put oneself in the position of starting from scratch: your objections are precisely the sort of thing we need to know. The subject is laden with terminology, so it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Given that the article as it stands is pretty much an agreed position, I'll leave it alone for a bit and see if a consensus emerges. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Further objections: The article fails to cover a few points: forfieture of innings, alternating innings/ follow-on, lost ball, colour of the ball, Test v. ODI strategy (pace of scoring, etc.). -- Emsworth 14:59, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Do you consider these items sufficiently egregious to prevent this from becomming a Featured Article? --P3d0 15:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I've added a brief note on forfeiture, declaration and following on to the captain section. Colour of the ball should be apparent from cricket ball, which is referred to. I believe the Test cricket and ODI articles refer to strategy, as does batting (cricket). Someone may need to add lost ball somewhere. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • A lot of those things are quite complex in their own right (particularly strategy!!) and I think are better addressed as linked-to secondary articles, which already exist. The page is already a long one. --dmmaus 09:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have made some structural changes, pertaining to the objections made above. All changes are mentioned in the Talk:Cricket page. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉] 19:53, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Galveston Hurricane of 1900

Self-nomination (mostly). I think I've addressed the few complaints it got while on Peer Review. I'd probably give it another round on Peer Review if the anniversary of the storm wasn't approaching on September 8. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I'll second this. I've read the fascinating book Isaac's Storm and this article covers the topic well. I'd quibble with the article title. I realize that this happened before we started naming hurricanes, so there is no definite name, but wouldn't just "Galveston Hurricane" be better? PedanticallySpeaking 19:45, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • As far as I know, no one refers to it as the "Galveston Hurricane". There's been a lot of unnamed hurricanes to hit Galveston (including the powerful 1915 storm), so some sort of qualifier is necessary. "Great Galveston Hurricane" and variations using the year are common. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:03, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Comprehensive, well written. I would however, prefer the title of 'Galveston Hurricane of 1900' as being more neutral and descriptive, unless the current one is clearly the more popular one. - Taxman 12:59, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • It isn't. It's actually about a factor of three less popular (by Google test) than your sugggestion (which is roughly as popular as '1900 Galveston Hurricane'). Enough that I'll probably move it, but not enough that I was going to bother for my own purposes. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:38, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Done. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:23, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Extremely well-written. • Benc • 15:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - a very nice piece of work. Denni☯ 16:59, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)
  • Support - Extremely well-written. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:21, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article --Zerbey 18:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article looks good to me, though I would try to write full-sentence captions for it (see Wikipedia:Captions). -- ke4roh 18:58, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd try, but I don't know what to write for them. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:23, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Done. I wanted to mention the destruction in the first one and bring in the bit about people being trapped in the second. I don't think it's any less accurate now. I thought about swapping the photos as well, but the first image is so good, with the church in the background, that I decided to leave them where they were. --195.11.216.59 10:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • An article I'd intended to expand for a very long time -- I mentioned it to Cyrius in the hopes he'd write a few paragraphs and help get me started. To my mild shame (and his great credit) he's done an exemplary job to which I can add nothing but my support for featuring it. Bravo, Cyrius! Jwrosenzweig 22:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Even better than it was while on PR. Great work! --mav 03:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 07:08, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Coronation Street

Aside from the gratuitous use of italics, an excellent and comprehensive account. I never thought I'd read such a long article about a soap opera. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Cubaflag15.gif] 04:21, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Entertaining and informative, especially for those of us on the other side of the pond. Gregb 04:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Speaking of which, could there be something about the programme in other countries? For instance, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, on whose network it has long been the most popular daytime show, have recently moved it into primetime. Just had another thought - how about the straight-to-video spin-offs, such as the Russell T. Davies-penned Viva Las Vegas! I'm afraid I know next to nothing about the programme (can't stand it, sorry!) so I can't add such info myself! Otherwise, support. Angmering 09:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I went ahead and added that. I made sure to mention the airing of episodes in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (and the lack of airing in America). If anyone can add more, please do so. Mike H 16:41, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
I never saw the one-offs but that would be very important to note. For example, they tracked down Neville Buswell in America and asked him to do a cameo as Ray Langton for the Las Vegas special. Mike H 18:24, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I have added a paragraph on this myself, which hopefully those with more knowledge will be able to add to! Angmering 20:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. However, there's two problems with the "Most Controversial Storylines" section - it displays strangely in my browser (Firefox), and some of the writing could do with a little work (particularly towards the end, where there's about five dotpoints in a row beginning with "In *year*..."). That said, it's such an excellent article I'm supporting anyway. Ambi 09:19, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I figured someone else could add to those. I wanted to but I haven't watched Corrie on a regular basis since we lost the ability to receive the episodes in America via satellite in 2000. Mike H 16:48, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, although I'm worried about the purported Fair Use status of the images. Granada are quite protective of Corrie, as its their major cash cow. GWO 16:51, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The material was released for the consumption of the American market. From what I understand, I was allowed to get those but someone in Britain would not. Mike H 16:54, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. FWIW, at least in the USA the chief issue for "fair use" is whether the material used diverts the monopolist's market to the copier. Since many in the USA are still unaware of the series, and they are unlikely to substitute for watching it, we have some latitude. Smerdis of Tlön 18:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - No ==References== section. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. The lead section could also be expanded a bit. --mav 03:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I didn't write a whole lot of this article, so can you tell me what needs to be cited? Mike H 03:32, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • Everything in the article must have some basis in another source. One need not list all the sources, but only those that have provided important information for the article. -- Emsworth 13:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I know the show summaries and such come from...watching the show. I can cite things from the controversial storylines, and Deirdre/Ken and Charles/Diana ratings thing from the 40 Years on Corrie book. Mike H 17:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Iraqi resistance

This was listed out of order by User:Colinrorr. This should eventually be a featured article nominee, both for eloquent prose and relevance to current events.

  • Support. I like how it rejects the view of "the resistance" as a singular entity, unlike most journalists on the topic. --Tothebarricades.tk 04:00, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, the best resource I have found anywhere on the resistance. --Alxt 05:43, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - heaps of info! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fascinating article. Mostly tallies with what I've read about previously - but in a very coherent and less scattered fashion than in the media. Here definitive groupings are pinned down and set out. zoney ▓█▒ talk 18:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Covers pretty much everything. --Zerbey 22:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Qualified support. I have two concerns though: firstly there were some rather dodgy unattributed or incoherent parts, which I've moved to the talk page. I think what's left is very good, and feature-worthy, but if the parts I removed were restored without being cleaned up, that would be a Bad Thing. I also worry a little about how well the article is going to be watched; given that this is an area subject to a lot of change, the page could go downhill very quickly. Markalexander100 09:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seabiscuit

Self-nomination. GWO 15:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Picture needs a caption. Move the first paragraph of the "retirement" section to the end of the previous section, retitle "Retirement" as "In popular culture" or something; put the section in chronological order. Gdr 17:48, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
    • Fixed GWO 21:58, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Elf | Talk 00:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Gentgeen 07:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Roche limit

This article really takes an abstract concept and makes it concrete with some mind-bending examples and thought-experiments. Hats off to User:Bryan Derksen --P3d0 13:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The commentary on this article fails to note that when Weisstein's equation is quoted, the negative sign before the second term in the numerator has become positive at Wikipedia. Probably it is best to do it all over or consult Chandrasekhar's "Ellipsoidal Figures of Equilibrium." User:pdn


  • Support - wow, I should go away for a week more often! -- ALoan (Talk) 14:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) Object - it is good, and I have had a further tweak myself, but it seems a bit short for a featured article. At the very least, it needs a diagram or two. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - not very clear discussion, especially in the intro. It took me reading the whole article to decipher which clauses in the first sentance go with which concepts. An inline explanation of tidal forces is needed, or else the concept doesn't make any sense. Also too short, there's got to be more to say about it. - Taxman 15:23, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok. I don't exactly understand the "decipering" objection, since the first sentence seems clear enough to me, but perhaps it is confusing to the lay person. Anyway, I agree the article could use a diagram, and perhaps some sections. --P3d0 18:14, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Don't worry, the added dashes make what I noted more clear. But the explanation of tidal forces needs to be worked in more cohesively now. The one sentance notes the term tidal forces, then the next notes what appears to be the definition (but maybe not exactly, as it is not made explicit) of the term tidal forces. Needs to be combined for clarity. I didn't want to add incorrect physics by reworking it myself. - Taxman 18:34, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, primarily on the basis of length. It will be the Roche limit which, a few million years hence, may make Earth a ringed planet. I'm also concerned that the Roche formula appears so early in the article. This is quite enough to scare away the casual reader who has no mathematics or physics background. Denni☯ 01:56, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC) Support enthusiastically. I applaud the effort which has gone into creating this first-rate physics article. Wonderful illustrations, Theresa!! Denni☯ 18:15, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)
    • I agree. The formula appears early on as if from nowhere. I would like to see an explanation of where the formula comes from. (Presumably the gravitational forces and tidels forces are equated plus a bit of algebra) As an aside I am happy to draw a diagram if someone cares to explain what they want drawn. [[User:Theresa knott|Image:Theresa Knott Sig.gif] 12:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I've moved the formula down the page into the second section. The article is now split into two halfs, with the first half being sutable for the casual reader and the second half with the "scary" equations. Theresa Knott 01:46, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • If you need suggestions for a diagram: Google is your friend ;-) -- Chris 73 Talk 14:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • OK well I could draw something similar to some of those. [[User:Theresa knott|Image:Theresa Knott Sig.gif] 15:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Also see [1], [2], [3] and [4] for some ideas in context. The text of these is also quite good - perhaps worth checking whether the article covers the same points. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • OK I've uploaded Image:Roche limit (two spheres).PNG which is basically an adaptation of the diagram found here I haven't actually put it in the article yet because it needs an explanation and it's late (When I'm tired I make even more mistakes than usual) Feel free to add it in for me, otherwise I'll do it myself later. [[User:Theresa knott|Image:Theresa Knott Sig.gif] 23:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) Done Theresa Knott 20:00, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • That image explains the theory very well, but do I ask too much if I want an image of satellite approaching, stretched by tidal forces until it disintegrates, like this or this. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞] 10:52, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • Yep I spotted that image too and intend to add another similar one to the article as well. In fact that whole web page is fascinating and it's well worth incoorporating some of the ideas from it into our article. I'll try and do some work on it this evening, if I get time :-( Theresa Knott 14:29, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
              • Ive done the additional images. Theresa Knott 01:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
                • Great. Thank you. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:23, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Holy smokes. Linking the article from here was the best thing that ever happened to it! --P3d0 15:51, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There seem to have been 3 objections, at least two of which have been properly answered. I assume that that will get it approved, with the time limit being up within the next 24 hours. It's a worthy article, and I'm not going to kill it this late, so—

  • Neutral. The derivation at the end is a fine idea, but is much too sketchy to be held up as an example. See the talk page. Dandrake 18:00, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC) Support. It's fixed, so far as I can see, and there was still time to change my vote. Great article. Dandrake 07:40, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wuzzeb and I independently fixed the equations. It is now a more detailed step by step explanation based on the gravitational and the tidal force. I also removed the image that went with the old equations, since the new equations need an updated image. I could do it, but Theresa's images have a nicer feel. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:56, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • I fixed the image and reuploaded it. Wuzzeb 03:44, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can we hold off on this article for a few more days until we get the problems with the derivation sorted out? We shouldn't feature an article with incorrect mathematics, yet I don't think it'll take too long to sort it. (I'll get it right eventually) Theresa Knott 00:50, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) <sauf London accent>sorted</accent>. As far as I can see - all objections have now been addressed. Theresa Knott 08:41, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I've done a few final tweaks and checks: looks good to me. -- The Anome 20:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • (not a vote) Two more points: According to the external link, the formula we have is the easy one, and there is a second, more rigorous approach. Could we work this in, too (not necessarily the full derivation, just the different asumptions and the equation)? Second: A list of examples would be nice, e.. what is the roche limit of the moon to the earth, earth to the sun, etc. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:04, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC) Support -- Chris 73 Talk 17:08, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • The Earth-Moon d apporx. 9,500 km which is only around 3,122 km above the surface. The Sun-Earth d approx. 556, 689 km, which is actually less than the radius of the sun! A better comparison would be the roche limit for different comets, as seen on this page [5]. Wuzzeb 00:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I just added a significant chunk of text, second approach with different assumptions (although not completely derived), and a table with example results. Please check my text for accuracy. Chris 73 Talk 01:23, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
        • Also added an animation. Not sure to where exactly the satellite disintegrates, though. Chris 73 Talk 03:35, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
          • Ironically, I have to object now. The animations are a nice idea, but I think they detract from the article. First, the rigid body version is incorrect. The analysis computes where a rigid object would be lifted from the surface of a rigid body, not where the rigid body itself would disintegrate. Second, animations don't work on printouts. Third--and this is just a personal opinion--they are about as visually appealing as the <BLINK> tag. --P3d0 15:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • I agree as well. The pictures in the top section give the idea, and the animation doesn't really add anything. As well, the animation shows the body crashing into the planet, when sometimes the body will still orbit the planet, just not in one lump. As soon as you see the animation, it is pretty jaring since the style is different, blue sun instead of yellow, etc. Wuzzeb 21:25, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Still and all, Wikipedia (though being drive space) is not paper. We should not constrain ourselves to still images when it comes to demonstrating a point. While the animated graphics may leave something to be desired in some eyes, I find far more positive than negative to say about them. Denni☯ 18:15, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)
    • Ok, then what remains objectively is that the rigid body one is incorrect, and that both of them show the body colliding with the planet instead of orbiting it. But I see nothing unclear, that the animations make clear. --P3d0 19:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - both still and animated pictures show an incorrect distortion away from a prolate spheroid shape. As is, they are deceptive. With the new version of the still pictures some other changes I can now support the nomination. Noren 06:49, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Hi Noren - you can sign your name by typing four tildes ~~~~. I've changed the still image, and adapted you explanation from the talk page as a caption. Let me know what you think. Theresa Knott (The token star) 23:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I finally went ahead and axed the animation. It didn't really contain any information not already in the other diagrams. That plus the other problems listed above makes me think the article is better without it. --P3d0 03:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article has undergone a lot of growing pains recently. I don't know the normal procedure for this kind of thing, but it seems reasonable to remove it as a featured article candidate for the time being, and possibly re-nominate it some time in the future. Does anyone feel that it should be accepted at this time? --P3d0 17:00, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Growing pains? The growth was in response to the objections. The whole point of doing all the extra work was to get the article in shape for featured status. I believe that the article is now in good shape, the objections have largely been addressed, and so it should not be removed from this page. I am happy to support the nomination for featured status. Theresa Knott (The token star) 20:38, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but the article has increased in size by a factor of four since this hurricane of editing started. There is more new text than old. That's growing pains. I think we all need some perpective on the article before we're qualified to decide if it's in good shape. I'd like to have some time to forget about it a bit and then re-read it in a week or two before we find our freshly-mined gem on display for the world to see. However, this is not an objection. I'll abstain. --P3d0 18:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I support. Great article. Good topic, good info, well-explained. The kind of thing we need more of. Alteripse 22:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support. The collaboration and content shine. Congratulations. Ancheta Wis 15:42, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Object, until somewhere in the non-technical section there's some explaination of the magic phrase "tidal force" the lay user won't understand. -- Kop 00:28, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Golden age of arcade games

I don't know if I can call this a self-nomination, since several people worked on and improved it since I started it. Interesting article and subject, with supporting graphics (actually, more are available if deemed necessary). — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:40, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Recently expanded and modified this article a great deal. Take another look if you haven't already. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:05, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Great article, took me a while to find anything it didn't cover. - Taxman 13:25, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • The technology section is intermixed with the only discussion of many of the most popular games of the era. That seems a little awkward. Maybe a separate section discussing the most popular games would be better. Leave the technology section to cover only the games the specifically impacted the development of the tecnology.
    • The discussion of the games should include Q-Bert, missed in the current article, and devote a bit more attention to the Pac-Man (and Ms. Pac-Man) phenomenon. The stat on the number of quarters played in those two games is some ridiculous number that would really help with the impact and interest of the article.
    • Was the golden age of arcade games affected by the Video game crash of 1983?
      • Added a short mention of this, but the consenses is, it impacted the home video game market more than arcade games. Arcade games weren't effected very much at all. — Frecklefoot | Talk
{The above few suggestions were written by Taxman, not me.)
As regards whether the Golden age was affected by the crash, I remember this point to have been included when I last contributed to the article. However, the relevant sentences have since been removed. Ropers 06:51, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I put the info back in, though I always thought the crash affected home video games and not arcade games very much.— Frecklefoot | Talk 07:10, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This is probably a self-nomination as I've put a lot of work into the article, but so have other people, and I think it's turned out really good. - Brian Kendig 14:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ridge Route

Another self-nomination that has been expanded since its original nomination, withdrawn over a disagreement over another subject. Photos are from Caltrans and are used as public domain material per their own terms of use. More photos of the road as it appears today are coming courtesy of Avnative who lives at the route's southern tip and just finished driving it specifically to photograph it for this article. - Lucky 6.9 00:59, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. . . Avnative's actual living location is not the southern tip. He lives in an undisclosed, secure location in the Antelope Valley in an otherwise unremarkable structure in the manner of Dick Cheney, though! --avnative 00:00, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. zoney | talk 10:35, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Wow, this is really impressive compared to what it was! Definitely support! zoney ▓█▒ talk 13:58, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Witholding support until the Beale's Cut/Swede's Cut situation is checked out (please see Talk:Ridge Route). I'd also like my pictures reviewed by User:Lucky 6.9 (and I'd also appreciate having zoney take a look see as well). Once these issues are resolved, I'd say we have an outstanding article and will support. --avnative 13:56, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, almost there I think. The article claims - "was one of the largest and most daunting feats of road engineering ever attempted up to that time". That is a large claim that either needs to be substantiated or removed. Further, there is next to no information on the engineering feat itself. What made it large?, or especially - larger than other road projects like railroads over mountains? There is one picture and short explanation of Beale's cut, with a vague reference to there being other cuts. In summary, expansion of the engineering project itself and the contruction of the route would be in order. - Taxman 14:25, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
Taxman, after doing some reading of Scott's excellent book at the library, I made copies of some pertinent pages of it. The "was one of the largest and most daunting feats of road engineering ever attempted up to that time" quotation in the article actually reads on p. 243, paragraph 1 of Scott's book in this way: "On one hand the Ridge Route was declared one of the most remarkable feats of highway engineering on the continent, and on the other it was said to potentially be the most dangerous road in the world bar none!" The citation number in the book, 366, leads the reader to the following source: "All Aboard for Ridge Route - But Watch Your Step!" Touring Topics November 1919, p.11. Touring Topics is the former name of the member magazine of the Automobile Club of Southern California, now referred to as Westways. If the sentence under discussion in the article is changed to reflect that - stating "According the Automobile Club of Southern California, the Ridge Route was one of the largest and most daunting feats of road engineering ever attempted up to that time" I think we have a solution at hand.

On "what made it large? or especially - larger than other road projects like railroads over mountains?": I don't think Lucky and I are trying to say the project was large - I think instead we're trying to get across the notion that the construction was a remarkable engineering feat similar to other engineering feats as noted in the current edit of History of California.

To that end, here's a quote from Scott's book on p. 77 (last two sentences): "The San Francisco Chronicle reported: 'One of the most remarkable engineering feats accomplished by the State Highway Commission(sic). It is Southern California's Magnum Opus in mountain highway construction.'" The citation, number 197 in Scott's book, is for "The Great Short Cut over Tehachapi Mountains," California Highway Bulletin, July 1, 1916, p. 2. My solution is to answer Taxman's question under discussion to say "The San Francisco Chronicle was reported to say in a 1916 edition of the California Highway Bulletin that the Ridge Route was "one of the most remarkable engineering feats accomplished by the State Highway Commission. It is Southern California's Magnus Opus in mountain highway construction."

Soooo. . . do you like my solution for wording the article? I think I've met your objections. Let's work on getting the wording agreeable to all concerned here, alright? (smile) --avnative 23:09, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
I like the additions very much. But now you've got even more detailed information in the above discussion that is not in the article. Also citing the statements is good. Once some more of the above references are in the references section, simply put (Pool 1997, p197) or some such. I will try to do that myself, but I may not have a chance until as late as tomorrow. - Taxman 14:35, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Consider it done. Please check the text once again and see if you like it now! --avnative 00:36, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Fixed the mix-up regarding Swede's Cut and Beale's Cut. They are different cuts. The ruggedness of the mountain range, the sheer length of a highway across the ridge and the level of engineering technology of the time are what had deemed the task to be impossible and led to the discussion of splitting California at the mountains. I'll see what I can do to clarify that. - Lucky 6.9 17:35, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I've just clarified the reasons why the task of building the road seemed impossible. Hope it's OK now. - Lucky 6.9 17:46, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Good start, but I was looking for more along that same path. It's clear, I'd just like more material. Do you have a source for the statement "such a road had never been attempted" or "was considered (by whom?) to be the greatest feat of road engineering to date"? I know, sources are tough, but good ones are what make articles great. Also, what made the cuts, tunnel, and bridge "major"? How big were they, in comparison to other bridges and tunnels done in the US or elsewhere? How many miles of cuts, tons of rock removed, etc.? Railroad tunnels through the Rocky Mountains were commonplace years before the Ridge Route was made, why was this considered special, and who thought it was impossible? - Taxman 20:57, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
        • I think a Westways Automobile Club of Southern California article from their archives or perhaps something from KCET public television, Los Angeles - perhaps from Huell Howser's staff or Huell himself - would cure this. A good USC history professor wouldn't hurt, either. In any case, I believe Taxman's concerns would be able to be met. It might be useful to qualify the claim some more, and state that "the road had never been attempted" over these particular mountains and "was considered" by California state government road authorities (Sacramento) "to be the greatest feat of road engineering to date."
        • I think Taxman misses a critical point: in that time period considering the technology available (horses and blades with steam shovels) getting these items to the work site - even today an isolated place - was a tremendous effort, comparable to the building of the Central Pacific Railroad building its roadbed over the Sierra Nevada Mountains. They didn't build things quickly with those now-antiquated tools compared to today. We need to consider that in the story, and recognize the decision to build the road (with a 50 year state bond) was a big deal. Let's also consider the fact that before the Ridge Route was built, one either went along the coast along the general path of US Highway 101, or traveled up the San Gabriel Mountain range's canyons to the Antelope Valley and through Tehachapi Pass to get to the San Joaquin Valley from Los Angeles. Either route took an extra day to do this - which at the time of the early 1900's in using early day automobiles, was killing commerce and driving up transportation costs for Californians. Hope my take on history here is useful to this discussion.
          • No, that's my point. If it is comparable to the building of the Central Pacific Railroad, which was successfully completed 50 years before the Ridge Route, why in the world would the Ridge route be considered impossible? I guess we could just end it with saying the California Road commission thought it impossible... Is there any evidence for who it was that thought it impossible? In any case, because of the above, I still take issue with "was considered to be the greatest feat of road engineering to date" - by whom? It had already been done 50 years before, albeit for a railroad. I do like what's being added very much though. Just have issues with a few overly broad, unsupported statements still - Taxman 16:22, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
        • Again, Taxman's concerns should be able to be met by consulting the above sources, and even Caltrans might be able to come to the rescue regarding specific amounts of rock removed, etc. etc. They well could have some old records - they have the Pasadena Freeway construction records and photos from the late 1930's for example - I've seen 'em! --avnative 00:00, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Man, that's something I'd like to see! In the meantime, I've expanded that section in question even more. - Lucky 6.9 04:00, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, buddy! I found a treasure trove of info on the early history and pre-history on ridgeroute.com from the Scott book! I've expanded that section tremendously. Off to add some of Avnative's new photos! - Lucky 6.9 04:04, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I stayed up until two in the morning tweaking this article, adding pictures, etc. I don't know how much clearer I can emphasize the scope of the project. I used all the online info from the Harrison Scott book. - Lucky 6.9 16:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Further clarification: The construction of the road was deemed impossible by the engineering standards of the day which in turn led to the discussion regarding the division of the state. I've outlined that in the article. - Lucky 6.9 18:15, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • As commented above, that is odd considering such a similar engineering project was completed 50 yrs before for the railroads including tunnels through rock more solid than sandstone if I'm not mistaken. - Taxman 16:44, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellent article, but the photos that originate from the state of California should be labelled (on the photo pages) as { {PD-CAGov} }. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Fair use implies these are copyrighted, and may restrict others from using the photos. These are public domain photos. Ydorb 20:18, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ah, thanks for the tip. I've tagged the Caltrans photos, but I'm claiming fair use on the speed limit sign photo given its age. Got that one at ridgeroute.com. - Lucky 6.9 22:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Again, whew! I found a smidgen more info regarding the difficulty of building a highway as compared to a railroad. I just don't know how much clearer I can make it. You have to see those mountains to get an idea of how rugged they are. I think they just dynamited through to build 99, but that probably wasn't an option for the original roadway. - Lucky 6.9 19:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I spent some time reading old LA Times articles about this. I added these to the sources section when I saw facts metioned in the article. A few points: 1. Almost every article makes a very big deal about how the whole route has no grade greater than 6%. It's even written on the map I uploaded. The wikipedia article says the Ridge Route required grades over 30%. 2. The comment about "adding as much as a day to the trip" is misleading. I saw one article that said something about how a loaded truck that required two days to make the trip to Bakersfield, could now do it in one. Apparently the alternate route had some steep grades that drastically slowed heavily loaded trucks. For passenger cars, it saved several hours. There should be a mileage measure of the new shorter distance LA to Bakersfield via the Ridge Route compared to the old way. 3. The postcard image has three lanes. The Wiki article says "Mostly bypassed by 1933 with the coming of the three-lane "Alternate Ridge Route". Is the postcard of the alternate ridge route or the original. 4. The "speed limit strictly enforced" seems questionable. The LA Times had an article about speed records on the LA-Bakersfield run. One guy did a round trip in 7 hours. The best averaged 70 mph one-way! 5. The article, overall, could use some reorganization. I'd suggest the following based on the observation that its history ran through an arc. The Need (Why was it proposed? Who supported it? Who opposed it?) The Construction (What challenges did it pose? How long did it take?) The Features (Similar to current section, but it should also include Notable Stops section). The Demise (What superseeded it? Why? How did the alternate Ridge Route come about?) The Remains (same as the Today section). Ydorb 21:46, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Very thoughtful points. 1. Those steeper grades were found going south from about Owl Garage into Castaic, and especially going north from Ft. Tejon to Grapevine (the town). Check out Deadman's Curve in the Grapevine mountain grade and see what the grade was for it there. 2. You made our point - commercial trucks could save a day's travel by taking the Ridge Route. True, for passenger cars the time savings was not as great. I read the mileage measures you refer to on ridgeroute.com and will try to get those inserted into the text ASAP. 3. I believe the postcard is of the Alternate Ridge Route - the road which later became US 99. 4. You're right about the "speed demons!" My dad has told me about them. . . but he also remembers hearing law enforcement cracking down as fast as they could to prevent unsafe driving. A losing battle some days, others not. The reorganization proposal and outline seems good to me. Good considered thought on your part. I would support such a reorganization of text for the article. --avnative 23:44, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • I misunderstood a line in the Harrison Scott description regarding the steepness of the grades. Frankly, I thought thirty percent was way too high, especially for cars with vacuum- or gravity-fed fuel systems. I've fixed it. Info regarding enforcement of the speed limit, time it took to skirt the mountains and such was posted online. I can't find any mention of the supporting groups beyond that of the Auto Club. The need was apparent because of the talk of divding the state and the cost of transportation. As far as supersecedence and demise are concerned, the alternate route and US 99 pretty much did it in since it was straighter and faster. Good point regarding the postcard. That's certainly the alternate. - Lucky 6.9 21:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Added Avnative's excellent 1916 quote about the scope of the project. - Lucky 6.9 03:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Nice work, everyone. I believe we have the single most comprehensive article on this subject anywhere on the internet! - Lucky 6.9 04:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Casablanca (movie)

Self-nom. I think it's fairly complete, but I'll try to correct any problems. Markalexander100 07:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, a quick look shows it rather complete. --Gamingboy 14:52, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Definitely support: a bloody good (and very comprehensive) article about one of my all-time favorite films. — OwenBlacker 23:45, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Comprehensive article, good layout and a balanced point of view MarkS 13:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Comprehensive and highly readable. GWO 16:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written article, covers all bases. Zerbey 17:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Filiocht 11:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Not just another popular subject: a model for Wikipedia movie entries. Wetman 00:53, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Mpolo 19:22, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Mary II of England

Yes, it is short, but Mary II was not, in reality, the ruler of the realm; just about everything was done by her husband. -- Emsworth 19:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, but I think a few details should be changed. Her husband was not "the stadtholder", since he formally was only stadtholder of 5 of the 7 provinces of the Netherlands (although these provinces included the most important one, Holland). I would not call him a "Dutch Prince" either, since the Netherlands had no royal lineage at the time, and the principality of Orange is in fact in France. The stadtholdership became inheritable during his reign, though. I'll leave it to you to include these minor points or not. Jeronimo 07:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Addressed. -- Emsworth 20:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 16:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Zerbey 17:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Mpolo 19:56, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Samuel Beckett

Again a partial self-nom, although a lot of people have contributed to this. I suspect there may be a problem with the photo, but otherwise I think it's quite complete. Filiocht 11:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • FWIW, Waiting for Godot has some pictures of the play that could be added. Can we get a portrait from the publisher's website, and use it under fair use? Markalexander100 01:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The Beckett estate are very jealous of their rights and like to charge for everything. I'll use a Godot image for now. Thanks. Filiocht 07:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Image changed now. Filiocht 10:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't know much about him, or the area, but it looks really comprehensive and well put together. zoney ♣ talk 13:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Markalexander100 08:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Kiand 15:35, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Djegan 21:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. CGorman 18:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Infinite monkey theorem

This article has a little bit of everything: Popular depiction, formal math, pop culture references, anecdotes and trivia. It exhausts the topic's possibilities without descending into inanities. Pretty humourous too. -- Deepak 23:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • That a great percentage of the 'infinite number' of monkeys chose to defecate on the keyboard rather than type anything is reason enough for this self-effacing article to find feature status. This myth is long overdue puncturing. Denni☯ 01:23, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:30, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose: great story, off the wall, fantastic topic, obviously people have done a lot of good work in research and attempts to copyedit, but the prose doesn't flow that well. For instance:
Subsequent restatements by other people have replaced the National Library not only with the British Museum but also with the Library of Congress; a popular retelling says that the monkeys would eventually type Shakespeare's plays.
<newline>
There need not be infinitely many monkeys; a single monkey who executes infinitely many keystrokes suffices.
This seems disconnected. In fact, there are many sentences that seem that way!
There are also no references. The monkey simulator was reported by various newspapers and has online references at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/3013959.stm and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/12/national/main553500.shtml. I'll be more than happy to support once these issues have been resolved, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Done --Deepak 14:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • OpposeNeutral: there is still room for improvement pedantic, well beyond the Pedantic usage note junk. Ejrrjs 14:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • What stuff in the article is pedantic? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've added to the pedantic stuff I've identified some suggestions to improve the article
# The Pedantic usage note, by its own confession. Rename it Proper usage of the term infinite or whatever. Instead of to the mathematician use in technical terms or technically since the mathematical fact is certainly known to anyone with a college degree on science or engineering, or aware of the dictionary definition of infinite. On the other hand, a few more words on *why* a single monkey suffices might be interesting
  1. The disgression on dactylography. If the word does not belong to proper English usage, just drop it and do not perpetute the translator's mistake.
# The whole paragraph on Huxley's debate. If it is not true, just say it and move forward. Or is it just a space filler?
I think the new format helps
  1. Gian-Carlo Rota's quote of Whitehead. It is not one of Whitehead famous remarks [6] [7], its meaning is obscure and adds nothing to the subject matter. Drop that sentence.
Ejrrjs 15:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have now changed the title of the usage-note section to usage note. I think the usage note contains useful information for anyone who wants to learn mathematical terminology. I find some charm in the quote of Rota, who quotes Whitehead, and I think it would be unfortunate if it were deleted. (That text on probability that Rota died without finishing was sold in a draft form by MIT's Copy Technology Center; it was required reading for students in the course on probability that Rota taught every year. Quite possibly it's still sold there in that form; I'll check. Birkhauser Boston has asked another professor to try to put it into a form to be finally published more generally than by the Copy Technology Center, so maybe it will be seen on Amazon.com some day.) Michael Hardy 21:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Seriously, what did Whitehead mean? Is that a well known quote in some philosophy or math circles? Ejrrjs 22:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Could someone check the reference to Borel's 1909 book? I've

seen the English translation of the second edition; could someone check the original 1909 French one? (Maybe I'll do this at some point soon if I can.) Michael Hardy 23:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support- but maybe there should be more discussion of the probability of such events occuring. BrokenSegue 01:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, if only for this brilliant, brilliant sentence: "not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five pages consisting largely of the letter S, they started by attacking the keyboard with a stone, and continued by urinating and defecating on it." [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif] 22:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • That was taken almost verbatim from the Times newspaper. Pretty funny though! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, interesting and reasonably well written. On a side note, Michael, you don't mess around do you. Not only did you check the english translation, but you want to check the original French too? It does make sense, so maybe we could ask someone on the French wikipedia to look for it? - Taxman 03:02, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article. Cyopardi 13:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a serious theory? I thought it was something DNA invented! Zerbey 19:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The bellman 03:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Mpolo 12:19, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support --Phil | Talk 13:36, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Attila the Hun

Self-nomination; I and others have done a great deal of work to bring this article out of its previous stubbiness. —No-One Jones (m) 15:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. [[User:Norm|Norm] 15:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I like it, but it needs more of a lead section that summarizes the important points about him and the image needs a better caption and source info. Also, as noted on the talk page, the manner of his death is too authoritatively written given the age and reliability of the sources, especially given a footnote describes a different method that is not explained in the text. Anyway it's great to have a former collaboration of the week nomination be nearly featured quality. - Taxman 16:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
    See the talk page for the latter objection. —No-One Jones (m) 16:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    All it needs is the information you wrote on the talk page about who made the claims and which is more reliable. A great article should cite every important fact by source, not state them as fact. - Taxman 19:00, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
    Done. —No-One Jones (m) 19:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Ok, but now I just don't understand your citation. The text says Priscus is the source for the conventional account, but the footnote says Marcellinus. Which is it? And now there is no mention of the conflicting account that had been in the footnote before, which even if not true may be worth noting if it was a widely accepted rumor. - Taxman 22:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
    My mistake; I forgot to remove the initial footnote reference when moving the alternate explanation up into a body paragraph, where it is now (at the end of #Invasion of Italy and death). —No-One Jones (m) 00:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Looks good, now the image caption as source info are the biggest issues. - Taxman 13:32, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • object. lead section too short. image needs to be framed, not thumbed --Jiang 18:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Check again. —No-One Jones (m) 19:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    good job. --Jiang
    The lead section makes the claim that it was Europe's largest empire. Is that generally accepted as true? For all history? Also the link to saga is to the disambig page so it is not clear what meaning you have in mind, and it should be explained a bit in the sentence anyway. Finally, the link to a section is problematic. If someone changes that section name, the link breaks. It is better to create an article, even if it is a stub at 'Migrations Period', or whatever is the correct article title. - Taxman 22:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
    Fixed; disambiguated "saga," noted that his the largest empire at the time (which it was), and took out the problematic link, which wasn't entirely necessary anyway. —No-One Jones (m) 00:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Object. The description of Attila's European history is very well done, but the article lacks historical context: the Huns were not just "a group of nomads living to the east of the Volga River in separate tribes". 1) How about a sections on origins: migrations of Asian population to the West, Xiong Nu connections, place of Attila in the Hun dynastic line. 2) Isn't the depiction of Attila as a Caucasian (photo) very debatable? Even the contemporary description by Priscus seems to be in contradiction. PHG 21:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    This is an article about the life of Attila; the history of the Huns belongs in their article (which I'll get to eventually. . .), though a short summary of it would be useful, yes, and I'll add one.
    All that is known about his place in the dynastic line is in there: he was Rua's nephew, and beyond that sayeth no source that I know of.
    The depiction is indeed debatable, however, as far as I know there are no first-hand portraits of him, so one guess is as good as another; some depictions even include horns.
    —No-One Jones (m) 22:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, this is good stuff. Two things: his birthyear is estimated as 406. What is this estimate based on? Also, it is mentioned that "names "Attila" and "Ildikó" remain popular to this day". It is not very clear that Ildikó (Hungarian for Hilda, IIRC) is the name of his last wife, and not the Hungarian or Turkish form of Attila. Jeronimo 07:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I actually don't know where the estimate comes from, so I took it out. The inclarity has also been corrected. —No-One Jones (m) 12:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. +sj+ 20:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, new images are great. Nice work. - Taxman 04:28, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fantastic article! Zerbey 16:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work! Securiger 12:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Though I did add a couple of small quotes. Wetman 01:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Simon A. 09:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anne of Great Britain

-- Emsworth 19:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Zerbey 16:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. ---Rednblu 17:07, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Object on only one grounds. I thought the beginning of "Early life" was unnecessarily dense. I worked out a suggestion that I put on Talk:Anne of Great Britain; I am sure you can devise some fix that is even better. It seems to me that the key for clarity in this "Early life" section is to pull key features of the "succession problem" into one paragraph. ---Rednblu 21:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Addressed. -- Emsworth 12:30, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Mpolo 19:12, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Fanny Blankers-Koen

Self-nomination. I nominated this article before (see [8]) , when it was only rejected because of the lack of a (decent) image. I now added one which I think is fair use, but I'm not at all sure about this. Please have a look. Jeronimo 17:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. I could not stop reading. Denni☯ 01:17, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with Denni. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, on the grounds that the three footers at the bottom are ill defined and too bulky. Convert them into categories. The relation among the women are too minimal. --Jiang 02:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • These footers have been added to many articles already, and I think they add interesting information to the article. The relation between the women is similar to that of the countries of a particular continent, clubs of the MLB and several other topics that have similar footers. I could make them less "bulky" by giving them a smaller font size, just like f.e. the country templates. Would that be sufficient? Jeronimo 06:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It's a tricky one. I like the information they give to the article, but they do look kinda bulky. Not sure how you'd fix this, maybe the reduced font will work. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • That would help, but I still believe the listing would be better served with a category. It would only be just another click away. Countries of a particular continent often share similar cultures and have to deal with each other more frequently. These women won in different years and could have never met each other. What does a category fail to accomplish? --Jiang 07:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
* 1) I don't like categories. For example, I could put Fanny Blankers-Koen in: athletes, track and field athletes, female athletes, Dutch athletes, Olympians, Olympic medallist, Olympic 100 m champion, died in 2004, lived in Amsterdam, and so on and so on. While this may be ridiculous, I've seen several of such category schemes develop. But that's another topic. 2) If your complaint is that such footer templates shouldn't exist because there's no relation, I think most of these can be removed. Really, what do Belgium and Bulgaria (Europe template), Canada and Turkey (NATO) or Uruguay and the British Virgin Islands (Americas) have in common? It's not much more (or less) than Fanny Blankers-Koen and Marion Jones. 3) I agree that having three of these templates makes it a bit ugly, yes. So, I'll remove these templates from the article, since I'd rather see the article being featured than having the article with the footer buth without featured status. Jeronimo 21:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Other bad templates existing certainly does not constitute some sort of excuse for these bad templates. I've put these bad templates on WP:TFD; I suggest you do the same for those bad templates - David Gerard 21:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not doing anything with these templates save from removing them from this article (already done). The whole topic is confusing. Reading the article on article series boxes, it seems that these footers ARE appropriate here. I can answer all four questions with "yes". However, I don't want to be involved in a debate about these or other boxes and categories, just in a debate about this article. There are no boxes in it now, so I'd like to continue with other issues with the article (if any). Jeronimo 06:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • 1, 3, and 4 are all "no". Is there guarantee that these aren't coming back? --Jiang 02:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 15:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object while those footer boxes are templates. As per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, they're all natural categories. I realise this will require the article to be pending here while it's dealt with on WP:TFD - David Gerard 21:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The objections of Jiang and David Gerard have been resolved several days ago, and I've taken the liberty of striking out their objections. Jeronimo 06:49, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Henry Moore

Mostly a self nomination - but I like it. It has been through Peer Review where it only attracted one comment, 'who did he influence', which I haven't been able to address — its a bit like asking 'who did Newton influence', where the answer is just about every physist after him. I would prefer some better images, but now it has at least one really good example I think it is ready for the big time. - Solipsist 18:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. With the first graphic, I knew who I was going to be reading about. While this work needs a little editorial attention WRT punctuation, and while "Knife Edge - Two Piece" needs Photoshopping to straighten it out, this is a sound story on a seminal 20th century sculptor. Denni☯ 01:12, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
  • Support. Ta bu shi da yu 07:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Filiocht 15:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It would be great if someone knowledgable could clear up some of those red links. Cyopardi 17:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (William M. Connolley 21:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)).

Rondane National Park

An article about the first national park in Norway, which I know very well. I've written all of the text. It has been on Peer review for almost a month; the only comment has been addressed (adding of table). [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞] 18:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • A comment, as I know anons can't vote. It really needs copyediting by a native English speaker. There are a few points where it reads rather awkwardly at present. --80.41.235.202 08:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I've had a partial attempt. Much more needed before it's Featured quality though. --80.41.235.202 09:08, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I would have to agree with the above. every awkard part I knew of is fixed. - Taxman 15:51, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - the above concerns have been addressed. --mav 00:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: try clicking on "Hide" for the contents page... the images overlap the table. Not sure if this is something that can be resolved! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:40, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I thought I had solved this with <br clear=right /> , but apparently not. After some experimentation, I just moved down the image a bit. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞] 08:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, now that the contents page is fixed. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I wanted to Support, but the first sentence in the biology section needs some work. Most important what? Also, what support is there that the reindeer are the most important anything in the park? Needs to be fixed for grammar and cited for factual support. Then I support - Taxman 16:24, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have tried to address this, and also inserted a quote from DirNat's material. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞] 13:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I like the attribution, but I removed the sentence "Wild reindeer are particularly important in Rondane." because the DirNat quote says the reverse, and thus seems sufficient. Now if you have some specific evidence that the ecosystem of Rondane requires the reindeer for some reason, then the above sentence or similar can go back in, with attirbution of course. - Taxman 12:17, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

The Long and Winding Road

Self-nom. Raul removed this and a few other nominations, so I'm renominating a couple that I think are head and shoulders above the rest. Johnleemk | Talk 01:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support: Same reason as for the other Beatles article. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 08:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but same as before - can we make sure there's no copyright violations? Zerbey 17:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Same primary reason (tertiary references) as other Beatles song articles. Other nitpicks: I don't think any article that needs to use the word "arguably" in the lead is a FAC. The Naked album cover should not be bigger than the original Let It Be cover; in fact I don't know why we need album covers in a song article. The article itself would be crisper if it stuck to the song rather than the whole Get Back/LIB project. Jgm 18:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • All objections have been resolved for this article. Half the quotes are from a newspaper linked in the references, and the others either have their source directly mentioned in the text (Macdonald's quote, and McCartney's interview with the Evening Standard) or are in the book I just added to the references. I'll try to get to work on the other nomination tomorrow. Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • See the "A Day in the Life" nomination for my response. Better to have some references than none. I don't write anything which is contradicted by another source unless it's a sufficiently major urban legend. The article does not even begin to cover the Get Back project. Details are mentioned where necessary to provide context. If you're referring to the court case, McCartney specifically named the song as one of six reasons for dissolving the Beatles (it's in the article). The word "arguably" is used because some would disagree with the assessment. If you disagree with my opinion, can you provide a better word to replace it with? Johnleemk | Talk 08:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I also think the word "arguable" and its derivatives are a little over-used in the article (in the lead and the image of the single sleeve). It's not a show-stopper, but maybe it should be rephrased. Also, I added some wiki links to music theory articles in the Lyrics and melody section. - Karl Ward 14:34, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The awkward sentences have been rephrased, and I reworded the caption a little to make it clearer. I withdraw my objection. - Karl Ward 17:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Maybe we need a List of words not permitted in featured articles? ;-) Filiocht 08:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. +sj+ 20:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

George II of Great Britain

This article may seem a little short, but I think it is adequate. George II was not as significant a monarch as, say, his successor. Just about every political decision in his reign (except the war with Spain) is attributable to his ministers. -- Emsworth 22:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. You do excellent work Emsworth! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 09:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent as always. Zerbey 16:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow, you really do write exceptionally well about our monarchy, Emsworth! OwenBlacker 23:55, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. My taste for these royals changes every time one of them ends up the subject of an Emsworth-flavored article. +sj+ 20:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Charles II of England

Not as politically important as his father, but still very interesting. -- Emsworth 20:05, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. James F. (talk) 22:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't know why, but I've always liked this guy. Maybe I just like the word restoration. ;-) func(talk) 23:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. When I become King of England, I want to be just like him. Smerdis of Tlön 17:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. One of our more eccentric monarchs :-) Zerbey 16:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I really do hate to say it, as it's a fantastic article, but oppose for now — it doesn't feel right that there's absolutely no mention of the very good recent BBC docu series (is it out on DVD yet, btw?). Though I think, politically, he was pretty important, given he was the first monarch to follow the Commonwealth. — OwenBlacker 23:53, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. -- Emsworth 20:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Helicobacter pylori

Captivating pictures, interesting article. Chadloder 21:54, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. However, a brief glance at this page shows that the popularity of the subject counts more than the thoroughness and quality of its treatment. Wetman 22:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, although I agree, the Popularity is very much in question.--Gamingboy 22:27, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Cag pathogenicity island? cagA? Tell us what they are, and I'll support. Markalexander100 05:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 16:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Regrettably, I can't tell you if the facts are