Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Here the community can nominate articles to be selected as "Today's featured article" (TFA) on the main page. The TFA section aims to highlight the range of articles that have "featured article" status, from Art and architecture through to Warfare, and wherever possible it tries to avoid similar topics appearing too close together without good reason. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling the TFA (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with the TFA coordinators: Wehwalt, Dank and Gog the Mild, who also select TFAs for dates where no suggestions are put forward. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not necessarily mean the article will appear on the requested date.

  • The article must be a featured article. Editors who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it for TFAR.
  • The article must not have appeared as TFA before (see the list of possibilities here), except that:
    • The TFA coordinators may choose to fill up to two slots each week with FAs that have previously been on the main page, so long as the prior appearance was at least five years ago. The coordinators will invite discussion on general selection criteria for re-runnable TFAs, and aim to make individual selections within those criteria.
    • The request must be either for a specific date within the next 30 days that has not yet been scheduled, or a non-specific date. The template {{@TFA}} can be used in a message to "ping" the coordinators through the notification system.

If you have an exceptional request that deviates from these instructions (for example, an article making a second appearance as TFA, or a "double-header"), please discuss the matter with the TFA coordinators beforehand.

It can be helpful to add the article to the pending requests template, if the desired date for the article is beyond the 30-day period. This does not guarantee selection, but does help others see what nominations may be forthcoming. Requesters should still nominate the article here during the 30-day time-frame.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

 – Check TFAR nominations for dead links

 – Alt text

Shortcuts

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to post a new nomination:

I.
Create the nomination subpage.

In the box below, enter the full name of the article you are nominating (without using any brackets around the article's name) and click the button to create your nomination page.

II.
Write the nomination.

On that nomination page, fill out as many of the relevant parts of the pre-loaded {{TFAR nom}} template as you can, then save the page.

Your nomination should mention:

  • when the last similar article was, since this helps towards diversity on the main page (browsing Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs will help you find out);
  • when the article was promoted to FA status (since older articles may need extra checks);
  • and (for date-specific nominations) the article's relevance for the requested date.
III.
Write the blurb.
Some Featured Articles promoted between 2016 and 2020 have pre-prepared blurbs, found on the talk page of the FAC nomination (that's the page linked from "it has been identified" at the top of the article's talk page). If there is one, copy and paste that to the nomination, save it, and then edit as needed. For other FAs, you're welcome to create your own TFA text as a summary of the lead section, or you can ask for assistance at WT:TFAR. We use one paragraph only, with no reference tags or alternative names; the only thing bolded is the first link to the article title. The length when previewed is between 925 and 1025 characters including spaces, " (Full article...)" and the featured topic link if applicable. More characters may be used when no free-use image can be found. Fair use images are not allowed.
IV.
Post at TFAR.

After you have created the nomination page, add it here under a level-3 heading for the preferred date (or under a free non-specific date header). To do this, add (replacing "ARTICLE TITLE" with the name of your nominated article):
===February 29===
{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/ARTICLE TITLE}}

Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. More than one article can be nominated for the same date.

It would also then be helpful to add the nomination to the summary chart, following the examples there. Please include the name of the article that you are nominating in your edit summary.

If you are not one of the article's primary editors, please then notify the primary editors of the TFA nomination; if primary editors are no longer active, please add a message to the article talk page.

Scheduling:

In the absence of exceptional circumstances, TFAs are scheduled in date order, not according to how long nominations have been open or how many supportive comments they have. So, for example, January 31 will not be scheduled until January 30 has been scheduled (by TFAR nomination or otherwise).

Summary chart

Currently accepting requests from July 1 to July 31.

Date Article Points Notes
Feb 12 History of evolutionary thought 2 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth
Feb 14 300 (film) 1-2 2-year anniversary of being shown at Berlin festival
Feb 19 Third Battle of Kharkov 1 Anniversary start of battle.

Requests

February 12

History of evolutionary thought traces the history of the idea that species change over time, which has roots in antiquity, in the ideas of the Greeks, Romans, Chinese and Muslims. However, until the 18th century, Western biological thinking was dominated by essentialism, the idea that living forms are unchanging. This started to change when, during the Enlightenment, evolutionary cosmology and the mechanical philosophy spread from the physical sciences to natural history. Naturalists began to focus on the variability of species; the emergence of paleontology with the concept of extinction further undermined the static view of nature. In the early 19th century, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, which was the first fully formed scientific theory of evolution. In 1858, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published a new evolutionary theory, which was explained in detail in Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859). Unlike Lamarck, Darwin proposed common descent and a branching tree of life. The theory was based on the idea of natural selection, and it synthesized a broad range of evidence from animal husbandry, biogeography, geology, morphology, and embryology. Darwin's work led to the rapid acceptance of evolution, but the mechanism he proposed, natural selection, was not widely accepted until the 1940s.(more….)

Nominated as part of an effort ( see HoS newsletter) by the History of science wikiproject to get suitable content on the main page for Darwin day 2009. Because Feb 12 is the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, and because the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species is coming later this year there will be a lot of press attention to related topics around this time. For an early example see the January issue of Scientific American. I think it is important that we have an appropriate article for Darwin day this year, and both Charles Darwin and Evolution have already appeared on the main page, and natural selection and Origin of Species are not yet FA. Hopefully Origin will be FA by the 150th anniversary of its publication in November.

Points = 2 - 1 for basic subject matter and 1 for relevent date. (Note this issue was resolved on talk page)

  • Support for this excellent article; and support for its highly appropriate date. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The main happenings of Darwin Day, it should be noted, are more oriented around Darwin's legacy (i.e. evolutionary biology) than just the life of Darwin himself.--ragesoss (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it was nominated as 2 points. The date of Darwin's birth would only get centennial points for an article on Darwin. If it is claimed as a 7 point article it needs to get off the page, as a five plus article, it is still ineligible to be run.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have returned it to 2 points as that was the consensus from the talk page after an extensive pre-nomination debate. I still believe it probably should be 3 points because I don't consider Alfred Russel Wallace to be a truly similar article. However, given the importance of the date I would rather just have this up here to get peoples reactions to the idea of using this article for that date rather than having yet another pointless argument about points. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless point arguments? What else would we have to discuss on this page if we couldn't argue about points? Seriously though, I think Wehwalt's use of "ineligible" is grossly over-interpreting the new wording which begins "Please consider waiting". To me "please" denotes a request, which if it is not appropriate can be ignored, rather than an order or a rule, which cannot be ignored. Smallbones (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some suggestions are stronger than others. If there were a consensus that this was a 5+ (or even a 4 point) article I wouldn't have nominated it this early because I would have been certain there would be no problem. However, since it seemed like the only number we were going to all agree on was 2 points, I wanted to nominate it as early as possible, because I do believe it is essential for Wikipedia to pick an article with a tie in to Darwin day this year. Points do matter, but I think reaching a consensus on the right article to honor an important 200th anniversary matters more. Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline or rule, it is new, and this is the first article to fall under it, and I don't think it would be a good idea to start out by ignoring it. There's no need to. Right now, there's a lull on this page, I rather doubt it will be replaced, and why not respect the rule until it becomes a problem? I'd hate to see it fall to a dead letter on day 1.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the importance of the suggestion, and if a 5 point article is ever nominated this early I will join you in recommending that the nomination be withdrawn until the appropriate time. However, unless you are going to change your mind about the points :) I don't see that argument applying to this nomination. Also I hope you don't mind that I indented your previous comment one level more for clarity. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind in the least. As someone had changed the points to 7, I felt it appropriate to start the discussion. I tend to read the points strictly, as we know, but I feel taking that position is useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is a wonderful article and the date is highly appropriate as Darwin permeates the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm trying to get away from typing "Strong Support" all the time, otherwise it would be "Strong Support" for an excellent article on an appropriate and important date. Smallbones (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - This article contextualizes Darwin's contributions, showing that they had earlier sources, nor are they the final word on evolutionary theory. The article in an important contribtion to what could otherwise become a one-sided celebration.StN (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as best Darwinesque FA that hasn't yet been main page. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Excellent article, good date connection. Awadewit (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for all of the reasons expressed by the other supporters. It is likely that some non-Wikipedians who become aware of the anniversary on the requested day will turn to Wikipedia, and it is appropriate (and beneficial to Wikipedia) that the first article they will see on the Main Page is one that puts Darwin's influence and accomplishments into historical context. Kablammo (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late support. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • support since Lincoln isn't a FA. Empire3131 (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Macdonald-ross (talk · contribs), Mattisse (talk · contribs), and Awadewit (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – there's going to be a lot of interest in the context of Darwin's ideas. . dave souza, talk 19:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a very good choice to note this important anniversary. The topic has already received extensive coverage in other media,[1] and (agree with Kablammo) people will likely be looking to wikipedia for additional information on this topic. This article provides very interesting information that I have not seen covered in other sources. --mikeu talk 15:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per everone above really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article on an important topic with strong date relevance. There has been coverage outside wikipedia of the various anniversaries that fall this year, and it is appropriate that our front page should reflect this topic of broad interest. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Casliber. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, a big year, and this a big day, for lay education on evolution with lectures all over the world. -- Jeandré, 2009-01-25t09:28z
  • Support. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 14

300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel of the same name by Frank Miller, and is a fictionalized retelling of the Battle of Thermopylae. The film is directed by Zack Snyder while Miller served as executive producer and consultant. The film was shot mostly with a super-imposition chroma key technique, to help replicate the imagery of the original comic book. Spartan King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and 300 Spartans fight to the last man against Persian 'God-King' Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) and his army of more than one million soldiers. As the battle rages, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to rally support in Sparta for her husband. The story is framed by a voice-over narrative by the Spartan soldier Dilios (David Wenham). Through this narrative technique, various fantastical creatures are introduced, placing 300 within the genre of historical fantasy. 300 was released in both conventional and IMAX theaters in the United States on March 9, 2007, and on DVD, Blu-ray and HD DVD on July 31, 2007. The film broke box office records, although critics were divided over its look and style. Some acclaimed it as an original achievement, while others criticized it for favoring visuals over characterization and its controversial depiction of the ancient Persians.(more….)

1 pt for age, 1 pt for relevance - worldwide release was 2/14. Not sure what else to say, other than this is a notable comic book/graphic novel film adaptation which was directed by the comic's writer. Was successful at the box office, and spawned some funny (and not-so funny) parodies. This is Sparta! :) BOZ (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query points It looks like the release date was 3/7 or 3/9 of 2007. I would think this article should be renominated for then. Feb 14 was the anniversary of it being shown at Cannes. I think it only gets one point for 2/14 but would get 2 points for 3/7 or 3/9.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't appear to mention Cannes, but I might have read more into a screening at the Berlin International Film Festival than I should have. :) Ah, well, if it fails to gain support here, I will re-nom for the 9 Mar release date, with my North American bias and all. ;) BOZ (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shows what I know about films. I assumed that meant Cannes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, the Cannes Film Festival is in France, but that's not a major difference (except to the French and the Germans, I suppose!) BOZ (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - surely something better could be found for Valentine's Day? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hahahaha LOL'ing...great points below. Support per Maria. :D —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for appropriate premiere anniversary of a kickass movie. Besides, I like the idea of having something particularly anti-cute on such a horribly manufactured "holiday". Who needs chocolate roses when you have screaming, blood-drenched Spartans? María (habla conmigo) 14:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was watching a Mythbusters re-run the other day, and I heard Adam use the line "This is Sparky!". The fact that he could do that without even explaining the joke suggests to me that the movie has had enough cultural impact to make it a reasonable candidate for the main page. This makes a convenient excuse for me to support this nomination besides the fact I liked the movie. The article is quite good also and it did a great job of coverting the controversies around the film. It is a pitty that Valentine's day is not FA. It is a pretty good article itself. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per BOZ (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Missing an associated free-use image to run with the blurb... Cirt (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Movie poster's a no-go? What else could we use, then? BOZ (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles often run on the main page with no image. But if you want an image to go with the blurb when it runs (assuming it runs), it has to be a free use image. Policy. As to what to use, hm, maybe a photo of one of the actors? Oh, my bad. Never mine.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like this? BOZ (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you can find a free one like that. We can't do fair use.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 19

File:Ger Inf Russia 1941 HDSN9902655.JPEG

The Third Battle of Kharkov was a series of offensive operations undertaken by the German Army Group South against the Red Army, around the city of Kharkov (Kharkiv), between 19 February and 15 March 1943. Known to the Germans as the Donets Campaign, and to the Soviets as the Donbas and Kharkov operations, the German counterstroke led to the destruction of approximately 52 Soviet divisions and the recapture of the cities of Kharkov and Belgorod. As the German Sixth Army was encircled in Stalingrad, the Red Army undertook a series of wider offensives against the rest of Army Group South. These culminated on 2 January 1943, when the Soviets launched Operation Star, which between January and early February broke German defenses and led to the Soviet recapture of Kharkov, Belgorod and Kursk. Despite the success of the Soviet offensive, it also resulted in participating Soviet units over-extending themselves. Freed on 2 February by the surrender of the German Sixth Army, the Red Army's Central Front turned its attention west and on 25 February expanded its offensive against both Army Group South and Army Group Center. However, months of continuous operations had taken a heavy toll on the Soviets and some divisions were reduced to 1,000–1,500 combat effectives. On 19 February, Field Marshal Erich von Manstein took the opportunity to launch his Kharkov counterstroke, using the fresh SS Panzer Corps and two panzer armies. Although the Germans were also understrength, the Wehrmacht successfully flanked, encircled and defeated the Red Army's armored spearheads south of Kharkov.(more….)

1 pt. due to date relevance. My contributor history point was shot since Verdeja was featured, even if I didn't nominate it. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, that blurb is prob. too long. But Raul tends to re-write them, regardless, right? JonCatalán(Talk) 18:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - great article, good date relevance (for the topic). —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - not a milhist buff, but it is an interestng and engaging article, whereas some battle articles can be deadly (pun intended) dull.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - this should go a long way toward countering the commonly held idea (in the US) that the US won WWII in Europe simply by invading Normandy. On the other hand, I see some issues in the article (which I've put on its talk page) the main one involves the seeming reversal of 25 February and 19 February in the blurb above. This really isn't the best place for these criticisms, but if something jumps out at me, I feel I should mention it. Smallbones (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • support date relevance is good with the 19th being the start of the battle, I do have a concern of the imagery the choice in the blurb is a generic image not directly attributed to the battle where as ther are other images in the article that were taken in Kharkov. It'd be nice to see some Russian photos in the article as well. Gnangarra 02:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those images are not in public domain; they are fair use images for the article. JonCatalán(Talk) 03:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I used to be a bit of a military history buff when I was younger, but I wasn't really familiar with what happened between Stalingrad and Kursk. This is a very well written informative article and the date tie in is good. I realize military history is an over represented topic, but at least this isn't another boring article about a ship that didn't actually do much in the war. Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&oldid=267559966