Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut WP:FAC Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing Shortcut Wikipedia:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

Bicycle

re-nom. this has now been fully overhauled, specifically re wikifying, captioning, and rewriting and annotating external links as suggested. still trying to stay a step ahead of the vandals. thanks. Sfahey 19:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Blackadder

Previously nominated in April 2004 [1] where there was very little response. Seems quite a good article to me. violet/riga (t) 22:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Object, but only slightly. 1) Needs references, 2) I noticed a few minor errors which I'll endeavor to fix tomorrow (it's 1am right now :-)). Zerbey 16:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Not sure if the author(s) of the article used them but the only possible references are mentioned in the Tie-ins and External links sections. Perhaps these could be rearranged and called references, but is it right to do that when they may not

actually have been used? violet/riga (t) 09:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support - this is excellent. I've had a tidy as well. My only caveat is length - currently 39k after I moved the list of characters to a separate article. Perhaps the episode lists should be moved to a separate article, or main articles written for each series and summarised here? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • A good point and a good idea. Doing that, however, would probably render the main article not feature-worthy. violet/riga (t) 15:27, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not so sure (I've had a further tweak) - all I am suggesting is either (i) List of Blackadder episodes, to contain just the episode lists, or (ii) The Black Adder, Blackadder II, etc., as main articles, with decent summaries in Blackadder. The former may be sufficient. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Obviously this is the result of someone's cunning plan. Baldrick, is this your doing?!? --Modemac 14:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It's fuckin' ace. (also I've done loads on it - ha ha ha)--Crestville 19:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jonathan Wild

Self nomination, and I promise not to argue with anyone who objects. While the approved A Tale of a Tub was the most comprehensive article I've written on Wikipedia, I always thought Jonathan Wild was the one that provided the best read and the most interesting text. Geogre 20:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support: riveting!--Bishonen 23:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Very interesting read. Zerbey 04:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now - this is an excellent read and I want to support; unfortunately, however, I have a few nit-picky points: (i) Section 2 says "Hitchens, the city's top policeman, would himself end at the gallows, and his testimony was in connection with his criminal conspiracy" (emphasis added) - perhaps I am being dense today, but what does the emphasised bit here mean?; (ii) there is some repetition in sections 2 and 3 ("Wild had an ingenious method. He ran a gang of thieves...", "Jonathan Wild's unique scheme was to operate a gang..."; (iii) the text is very light on wikilinks - playwrights, 1720s, corruption, apprentice, Mohocks, and many others could all be usefully wikilinked (of course, some may think the minimal linking an advantage...); (iv) section 4 ends "(see the reproduction of the gallows ticket, left)" - first, left-alignment is (in my experience) usually deprecated for layout, second, in my browser it is mainly above not left: I think the reference is unhelpful; (v) Wiki-style is to avoid headings starting "The" and Unnecessary Capitals In Headings; (vi) the references are outstandingly good, but I am surprised there are no "external links" or "see also"s. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Response: I will make the changes. Indeed, this morning I noticed the repetition in the text and resolved to change it. In pieces, then: i) I didn't want to go too far in this and digress onto Hitchens too much, but Howson reveals that Hitchens took bribes from thieves and was indicted (and hung) for essentially being corrupt, so the "criminal conspiracy" was somewhat literal: he was conspiring with his thieves; ii) Agreed, absolutely and will be corrected; iii) Will correct, and I even thought about researching and writing about the Mohocks, who made a stink at the time but are a relative footnote; iv) I wanted to vary the layout somewhat to prevent a sort of gallery running on one margin, but I will correct the textual reference; is left-alignment sufficient for objection, or would it be ok with just a correct reference? I'm not in love with left align and only wanted to vary a bit; v) Did know know, will change, as I was under the reverse impression; vi) See also is possible, though I tend to think that the wikilinks function that way and personally don't do them. As for external links, it's remarkable because, in fact, Wild is just flat out under-represented in his own right. It's surprising. Every 18th c. scholar knows about him, but Gerald Howson remains the only biographer who doesn't fictionalize. He's a really difficult figure for research, being a criminal and probably the beneficiary of a cover-up by Walpole (Howson talks about court records that are complete except for Wild's statement, etc.). The problem is that Howson is pretty much it, so all external links are either going to be about Defoe or Fielding or derived from Howson or Defoe. I can probably find an e-text of Defoe's life of Wild. I'll see what I can do. (The best see-also is Jack Sheppard, probably.) Geogre 16:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Changes made. I hope the objections have been answered. Geogre 17:38, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll check. The "see also" is not really for things that are already linked (rule of thumb is that other articles should only have wikilink per page) but really for tangentially relevant things that are not specifically mentioned (say [tries to think of a good example ... erm ...] Gallows humour). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

H.D.

Self nom. Picked this article up as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Our article on this key figure in 20th century English-language poetry was not much more than a stub when I started working on it, but now it is one of the better articles on women writers that we have, IMHO. Filiocht 11:45, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Support: Looks pretty good. I did a little copy editing. I have my own views (feminists and specifically lesbian feminists have distorted HD to meet their own template to make her a "good queer" and a "good feminist"), but it's a representative survey of views and a comprehensive view of the poet. My only suggestion (not objection) is that Imagism be reiterated to some degree here. It's vital to the reader to know what Imagism was, since HD invented it more than Pound did and stayed true to it longer than he did. Inasmuch as she alone among the major poets kept slugging in that vein, it's reasonable to assume that an educated reader doesn't know it well. Also, I rather suspect the Imagism Detractors. It either shouldn't be there, or it should be played out more fully. There were plenty of folks who thought it was nonsense and quite a few (Edmund Wilson and Yvor Winters) who thought the entire raiding from the East of the Pound-group was misguided and useless ("a barbarian in a museum"). The superficial criticism that the poems are too short is almost a parody, and its appearance in The Egoist makes me wonder. Geogre 13:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The criticism quoted was specifically of H.D.'s early poems, not of imagism itself. While I agree that the reader may want more background on Imagism, I think the material is best left in the article on the movement. Now the thing is to improve that article! Filiocht 14:08, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Zerbey 04:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Bravo. Brilliant, as always. Ambi 08:49, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Mpolo 14:54, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, excellent article.--Bishonen 17:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gunpowder Plot

or alternatively Guy Fawkes Both self nominations; one or other of these would be nice for the week of November 5th (or maybe just even for the day!) and it would be really outstanding if these could be in really good shape for the 400th anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot next year. Sjc 08:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object (for now) - at present there are two medium length and scope articles, neither of which seem to me to be sufficiently comprehensive to be Featured. Most of the information in Guy Fawkes seems (hardly surprisingly) to be about Guy Fawkes' involvement in the Gunpowder Plot rather than about Guy Fawkes, the person. I would suggest that most of the information about the Plot in Fawkes should be moved to and intergrated into Gunpowder Plot. When that is done, I may be able to support. We certainly ought to have something for 5 November 2005.-- ALoan (Talk) 11:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The information in the Guy Fawkes article needs to be merged into the Gunpowder Plot article and vice versa to make them consistent. 2) Next, the Guy Fawkes article needs to be expanded to give more information about the man. 3) The Gunpowder Plot article is a little short, can we go into more detail on the political background? 4) Who was responsible for the trial and eventual execution of the plotters? (surely Thomas Knyvet is not the only person involved in this?) 5) The article briefly mentions a "what if the plot had succeeded " scenario, can we go into more detail? 6) No references. 7) I declare "contemporaneously" as the word of the day. Zerbey 13:37, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested: The history section of BBC Online has a page that mentions several other people involved in the conspiracy. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 19:54, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Object for the present, but I would be very happy to support this well-written and interesting article if most of Guy Fawkes were merged into it and references provided (avoid saying "many modern historians think", please specify).--Bishonen 21:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object: I don't mean to be mean, but the article seems stitched together, and we see one of the problems of Wiki-production: the opening section is scholarly and complete, referring to the other plots and the motivations. Then, though, it gets tacked on stuff that's like a tin can tied to a cat's tail. We have Modern Theories that provides only a single sentence. The Aftermath section is far from enough (yes, I will try to sofixit as best I can), as the plot resulted not just in delaying Catholic "emancipation" (odd word) but actually justified a raft of new anti-Catholic legislation that would stay in force through to 1842. Then we get Macbeth tied to a single graphic novel and a link to that alternate history? It's a radical mismatch. The external links and references are stunted. Again, I apologize if it looks like I'm unloading, but it's the second half of the article that seriously disappoints. Geogre 00:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Addendum: "Some scholars" argue that Macbeth is from the increased interest in evil. Who are these scholars? Also, what has that to do with this? James I of England had written a book on demonology and witchcraft, and he was known to believe that witches and demons and the devil trying to snare him. Since Shakespeare wrote for the court, a witch play makes perfect sense, especially one set in Scotland, where James was from. The connection to the Gunpowder plot is extremely weak on that basis, and, since Shakespeare was likely a Roman Catholic, I can't see his doing anything to fan the flames of the anti-Catholic mood. In fact, witch trials have a big spike in England during James I's reign, and it's reasonable to think that the people performing such trials were trying to rise politically by appealing to the King's own beliefs. As soon as James I was off the throne, witch trials fall precipitously. Geogre 13:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I take on board the objections and I think I agree with 99.99% of what has been said. I will rephase this and get these two moved into the category of articles for improvement. I was really putting these up as a straw man to see if I could capture what the substantive objections were likely to be since my real goal with this is to get something really good for the 400th anniversary next year. Thankyou for your opinions, they will help us get this in good shape. Sjc 07:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pascal's Wager

A clear, precise description of a philosophical argument, accompanied by various criticisms and interesting wiki links. I have not worked on this article. P3d0

• Qualified support. Besides it lacking a picture, I'd like to see support/references for the statement "dismisses research suggesting there might be medical or socio-cultural benefits of belief and prayer." Psychobabble
  • My understanding is that pictures are not necessary for featured articles; only for the article of the day. Please correct me if I'm wrong. P3d0
    • What is a featured article: include images (pictures, maps and diagrams, with good captions) where appropriate. I'm not sure that it needs anything more than the existing image of Blaise Pascal. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Right, so featured articles only need images as appropriate while front-page articles always need them. P3d0
• Object. This seem to have been shorn of its historical context. (1) What work did Pascal described the wager in? How did he phrase it? (2) How was the argument received at the time? Did anyone really think it was persuasive? (3) How did Voltaire criticize the wager? Can you quote him? (4) Who made which criticism? (5) Have famous philosophers and apologists commented on the wager? What did they say? Gdr 02:54, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
• Neutral for now, but it needs an explanation of Variations of this argument can be found in other religious philosophies, such as Hinduism. Tuf-Kat 02:59, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Object: all the above reasons, plus more on the religious context in which Pascal was working and, crucially, references please. Filiocht 08:58, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral: Pascal was a Jansenist, so he was personally quite, quite radical. I had always thought he created the "wager" as a near-joke. He was merely making a point that narrow self-interest indicated theism, not arguing that that was/is a valid basis for faith. My problem is that this one philosophical argument is blown out of proportion only because it seems to be difficult for empiricists to refute. Geogre 13:31, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support provisional on references: References would be good, but web references would be enough, really, as I don't think the summaries are particularly POV or out on a limb. Support after more external references are added. Otherwise, it's a pretty fair presentation of something that people take far too seriously. Oh, a pointer to an e-text of Pensees would be a good thing, too. Geogre 00:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. no references. Only a single external link that is of a one sided POV. Get some references, print preferably. They will likely help add valuable material anyway. Also, I agree with much of the above. - Taxman 14:53, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The lead section fails to mention that the argument is fallacious. -- Emsworth 19:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Marginated Tortoise

This is a translation of a German article, apparantly written by an expert. I found it to be very interesting and informative with clear prose. I have not worked on this article in any way. Eudyptes 00:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Basically support, though it could use a copyedit as there are some clumsy wordings, probably relics of the translation. Tuf-Kat 02:57, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have given the article a moderate copy-editing. I hope this helps. Eudyptes 03:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support, but I'm the translator, so may not count. Mpolo 18:50, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

-- Emsworth 22:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Zerbey 01:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I think the article ought to say something about the controversy of 1974. (Labour won a plurality of seats but Heath did not resign immediately; see United Kingdom general elections) Gdr 03:05, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
  • Addressed. -- Emsworth 22:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Lead section too long. Page is 39kb so List of PMs should probably be split off. PoliticsUK should be made a footer and a relevant image be moved to the top.--Jiang 03:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • A while back, PoliticsUK was in fact made a footer; but there were objections (from me, inter alia) and it was returned. Both this issue and the length of the lead section have been a topic of discussion on the talk page, Jiang; please give us some more detailed advice there! Doops 04:02, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm just trying to enforce some standards here. This article has to follow established standards and conventions to become featured. There is no argument against spitting off the list. As for the lead section, fluff like Tony Blair's full name and the "sucesses of his Labour Party in the 2001 election" are not relevant since this is an article on the institution. If it's not introductory, it does not belong. --Jiang 04:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I've removed the "fluff" (I'm not sure that's really the best word for it, but whatever) about the 2001 election. But we've trimmed the intro considerably over the last few days and I wonder what's left to cut. (As far as the list of prime ministers and Tony's full name/titles are concerned, I happen to agree with you, Jiang.) Doops 04:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I split off list of PMs to List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. HTH, Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Inconsistent wikification of names. Georges I and III are wikified, but II is missing. Fifelfoo 07:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) Support. Fifelfoo 23:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Addressed. -- Emsworth 19:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now: the lead section is far too long. Filiocht 08:34, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Addressed. -- Emsworth 22:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. However there is some duplication (the Prec and Priv section has much that has already been said) that could be addressed -- William M. Connolley 08:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC).
  • The section in question, I think, does not duplicate when it comes to precedence—it applies not only to precedence in England and Wales, but also to precedence to Scotland and Northern Ireland, which are not covered in the rest of the article. -- Emsworth 22:09, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- ALoan (Talk) 09:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) Object for now - lead section is too long, but the information can be incorporated or repetition reduced; no reference to Prime Minister's Questions; nothing about Spencer Perceval, the only PM to be assassinated; nothing about First Ministers in Scotland and Wales; seemingly no link to prime minister. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • All addressed. -- Emsworth 19:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I have addressed the lead section objections (which I incidentally do not agree with, but will comply with anyway). Some of the information which is to be found elsewhere has been removed from the lead, including that about current controversies (sorry, Doops). -- Emsworth 19:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It still has a very full three-paragraph lead: although it was all good stuff, the previous lead of four long paragraphs was just excessive (according to lead section, the lead is meant to be a brief summary with at most 3 paragraphs). But much better now. Excellent. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Eifel aqueduct

This is a translation (by me) of a German featured article (though the lead was rewritten to fit with EN standards, and some English books and websites on the subject were added to the references section). A week on Peer Review produced only the comment on the references, which has been addressed, hopefully. Mpolo 19:24, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I liked it on peer review and I like it more now that the English further reading has been added. - Taxman 19:39, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Tuf-Kat 20:03, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Minor object, I'm afraid. The article is excellent, but I think the map needs to be translated into English. After all, this is the English Wikipedia (my German is fine, though). Jeronimo 20:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I basically agree that the map should be translated, but my graphic editing skills are so meager, I ruin it every time I try. I'd be happy to provide someone with the translations, if they are able to do it... Mpolo 06:59, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've emailed the creator and requested that he sends me the source documents. With your help, I'll be able to translate it (if he is willing to license the source documents to me under the cc-by-sa or GFDL). — David Remahl 07:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Zerbey 21:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Gdr 22:16, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Lake Burley Griffin

This is a beautifully illustrated and thorough article on a large recreational lake and it's surrounding area in Canberra Australia.Pedant 17:50, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

• This article is already nominated on this page. See below. Jeronimo 20:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

This is the current album of the Featured Album Project. More than a dozen editors have worked on it in the past couple days to make it ready for nomination and in line with WikiProject Albums standards. Tuf-Kat 15:39, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose It just doesn't seem very well written at the moment. Don't mean to be harsh, but the language needs a lot of improvement. Immediate observations are:

1.'The album also launching what we know today as the Classic Rock radio format.' The sentence doesn't make sense. Do we know it as the Classic Rock radio format, or do just some Americans? (I've never heard of the term.) Why did this album launch that format and not other bands of the era?

Removed.

2.'is often called' Weasel words, who does the calling?

That's credited in the intro to Rolling Stone, and that is all that is need for the first paragraph. Others are mentioned elsewhere, such as in the section entitled "critical reception" and in the infobox.

Perhaps just quote Rolling Stone if the other critics aren't going to be named there.

There's no nice terse quotable phrase from the review that says it, unfortunately. It's really not necessary for the first paragraph. The goal of the intro is to get the most important facts across, and one of the most important facts is that Sgt. Pepper's is more critically acclaimed than most any other album, with Rolling Stone being given as an example. I don't think there's any need for a quote there -- if someone wants to know the details, there's a link to the review just a few inches down in the infobox.

3.'is sometimes described' These are weasel words.

Removed.

4.'titular song' What's wrong with 'title song'?

I think of a "title song" as applying specifically to the titular song of a movie or musical, not a song with the same title as the album it was released on. In any case, "titular song" is perfectly acceptable English.

Acceptable, but unusual. Titular in that sense is listed in dictionaries as the fourth meaning of the word. May be better to describe it as the "first" song anyway. "First" imparts information, "titular" or "title" are tautologous (anyone can see that a song called "Sgt Pepper" is the same as the album title:) )

The most precise word would be eponymous, I think, but that's a bit obscure for the intro. Reworded a bit: One song, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", appears twice in slightly modified forms at the beginning and end, giving an overall theme to the album.

5.', in slightly modified forms,' Don't need commas around this phrase.

Reworded.

6.'In addition, several songs are cross-faded into one another, or joined by sound effects and unusual transitional elements.' Unclear sentence. What does 'cross-faded' mean? What are 'unusual transitional elements'? Why 'several songs' (I thought it was the whole A side and the whole B side)?

Reworded, may be more clear now. I'm not sure which songs are cross-faded, but I don't think there's any pattern to it. Don't have a copy to check right now.

7.'The duplication of "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" was produced to create the illusion that the recording was a concert performance by the resident band of the aforementioned club, which was Paul McCartney's original idea for the record.' Unnecessary complicated sentence. No need for long words like 'duplication' and 'aforementioned'. 'Reprise' would be better than 'duplication', 'by a resident band' would be better than 'by the resident band of the aforementioned club'.

Second part reworded. First part not touched -- though long, duplication is a frequently used and commonly understood word. Reprise is shorter but less commonly used, and I think, less commonly understood. In addition, I believe a song can only be reprised if it is identical both times, though I could be wrong.

Could go with "repeated" (with rephrasing). The song is identified as "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)" on the sleeve. And you're wrong, it doesn't have to be identical, it can be a shortened (and slightly modified) version of the original.

Changed to Repeating the first song at the end of the entire album helped establish the illusion that the recording

8.'The Beatles had grown tired of touring and had quit the road in late 1966, burned out after the dramas of the "Bigger than Jesus" controversy (with its resultant deaths threats and record burnings in the United States, due to the widespread disapproval of this message from the Beatles) and the tumultuous tour of the Phillipines which saw them virtually frog-marched out of the country at gunpoint.' Very long sentence of little relevance to the album.

Long sentence shorted, but of great relevance. It explains why they retired from touring during recording, and the importance of this is the point of the next paragraph.

9.'an effectively unlimited period'; 'virtually unlimited access' Don't know who used a thesaurus (badly) on this article, but it doesn't have many synonyms for 'unlimited'.

Reworded.

10.Still slightly unsure on this one, but changed enough for me to remove it. 'one of their greatest strengths as a recording unit was drummer Ringo Starr, who was highly creative, stylistically adaptable and extremely reliable, rarely needing more than one take. In fact, in their entire recorded archive, there are fewer than twenty major takes that break down because of a mistake by Ringo.' Do we need a puff piece for Ringo?

Toned down somewhat. I don't see the problem with it. The paragraph says that the Beatles were efficient in the studio, then mentions an author who pointed specifically to Ringo as being especially efficient. This seems appropriate to me, but I have removed the bit about Ringo only failing a take twenty times in their career, as that should be in his article, not here.

11.'By the time they came to record the album, The Beatles' musical interests and abilities...' I didn't realise that 'musical interests and abilities' could record albums.

The entire sentence was By the time they came to record the album, The Beatles' musical interests and abilities had grown enormously from their simple pop beginnings. Its been re-worded slightly, but your interpretation is mistaken -- the verb is clearly "had grown", not "record".

You miss my point. The subject of "came to record" in the opening clause is "musical interests and abilities". :)

I'm afraid I still miss it. In any case, I changed it to By the time The Beatles recorded the album, their musical interests had grown from.... Is this less confusing?

I'll stop here. I'm afraid it's just too poorly written at the moment.

Do you want me to read on now?

If you like, though if no one else votes, there will be no point as the article can't get featured.

jguk 18:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Simpsons

Self-nominated, I think that this is one of the reasons we have TV. The long-running series deserves to be a featured article.- B-101 11:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Definitely worth featuring. Ornil 13:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I love it, but I oppose because of no references. Johnleemk | Talk 13:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Please expand the lead section and cite references and I'll support. Zerbey 14:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• What do you mean with no references?- B-101 15:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Cite sources. Johnleemk | Talk 16:17, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The lead section is insufficient. See Wikipedia:Lead section. 2) The main characters deserve more discussion than just a single sentence per character. Wiggum and Skinner even get longer descriptions! 3) There are a lot of lists and single paragraph sections (e.g. "Guest celebrities") in this article. Other sections, such as "Memes", are close to being a list. This should be improved by writing better prose, or moving the lists off to separate articles. 4) There need to be less "trivia" facts, and more general statements. For example, the part about the 3D world in the Halloween section is not of general interest. The history section also has several of such trivia which do not even seem to belong in that section. 5) We are not informed of the popularity of the show. How many watch it? How are the ratings? It's a US series, but is it also broadcast abroad? 6) The article seems internally inconsistent. For example, "Trivia" mentions that many characters where named for persons in Groening's life, but an entire list section is already dedicated to that early in the article. Jeronimo 20:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the 3D world not needing a mention - I think it was an important and highly anticipated part of The Simpsons. I remember seeing it and being quite impressed by how well it was done and there was quite a bit of hype surrounding it. However, there may well be other trivia there that doesn't need discussion. violet/riga (t) 09:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Jeronimo. - Taxman 20:55, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
• I too believe there are too many lists. →Raul654 01:40, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Object, not nearly complete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 02:21, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Needs at least some mention of Phil Hartman. violet/riga (t) 09:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Totally agree with the nominator that the series deserves to have a featured article, but that's not the same thing as saying the existing article deserves to be featured. With more work it could, but I agree about the many gaps detailed by Jeronimo. A problem like the references hiding under a non-standard headline like Academia ought not to be hard to fix. The requests for references made by voters here highlight the reason for standardizing such matters: readers need to know where to find things.--Bishonen 13:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Celtic Tiger

Partial self-nomination, i've spent quite a while doing up this article with the help of a few others, I think it now meets FA status, it details the main causes, the resurgence of the tiger, the 2001 downturn, challenges ahead and much more. CGorman 10:14, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support, disclosing the fact that I made a couple of small edits. Filiocht 10:23, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article. Seabhcan 10:53, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Well researched. Zerbey 15:10, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Good, just one or two little quibbles:
  • The lead section says it refers to Ireland during that time, but didn't it refer to the economic growth?
    • Althought Celtic Tiger is mostly used to describe Irelands economic growth, the Celtic Tiger can also refer to Ireland in a more general manner in just the same way as people call Ireland The Emerald Isle. CGorman 17:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The graphs could be improved on - they're slightly unclear. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 16:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I would disagree - they are quiet clear, if someone really finds them difficult to see, then they can always click on them to see the orignial sized graph - but I maintain that there very clear. CGorman 17:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice. Tuf-Kat 17:31, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - some minor comments, not worth objecting over: (i) CamelCase headings need addressing (in fact, should the article be celtic tiger?); (ii) I think the graphs and images are a bit blocky - do they need anti-aliasing?; (iii) the headline tiger image is a bit monochrome to be "green striped" - could someone colour it? -- ALoan 18:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support - detailed, original material, also good referencing - good mix of images and links to other relevant things. Djegan 20:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I want to support because this is great stuff, but the focus on so much material in an article under this term seems a little missaplied. For example, much of the article like the entire 'Challenges and threats ahead' section is not really about the term 'Celtic Tiger', but instead general material that should be in the much poorer article Economy of Ireland. I fixed the capitalization in the headings. I think the graphs are fine. The links to this article are buried in the places that I would go to look for information on the economy of Ireland, which seems to support the idea of this term being off a bit or even a bit misleading to what the article content is. - Taxman 20:51, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well the challenges and threats ahead are in reference to the continued resurgance of the Celtic Tiger 2, so I would feel that such material is necessary for this article. The term Celtic Tiger really is used as a description of the Irish Economy from the late 90's onwards, so in reality this article is about that economic period - not just a brief description of the term Celtic Tiger. CGorman 18:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm somewhat swayed by that argument, if you want to have this be the focus article on the Irish economy during the time period. But that then brings the question of is the Celtic Tiger II, really a widely agreed upon phenomenon, or widely used phrase. If not, then much of that and the material I referenced above is out of place and is what makes this article awkward on what subject it does and should cover. Also "The challenge is to spread the new wealth nationwide to remote areas such as Connemara and Donegal." is a value judgement, that needs to be attributed to someone or some group specifically or removed/more factually stated. - Taxman 03:07, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes it is agreed that the Tiger has returned (see RTE report July 04' as an example), so since this article deals with the Celtic Tiger period of Irish Economic history - then the content of the article is applicable to this topic. Also I have attributed the point "The challenge is to spread the new wealth nationwide to remote areas such as Connemara and Donegal." to an IDA report (click on the link beside the comment in the article and read the last section of the report). Have I addressed your concerns fully yet? CGorman 17:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• It would be much better for this kind of stuff to be at Economy of Ireland. "Celtic Tiger" is just a nickname. Gdr 21:03, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
  • As pointed out above, this article deals with the economy of Ireland during a period lasting from the late 90's till today, so all economic information for that period should be relevent. As also pointed out, it is unfair to criticise this article for the poverty of another. I plan on working on the Economy of Ireland article next - I plan to include a reasonable history section with see alsos to articles such as Celtic Tiger (which covers 1997-2004), the Lamass era (which covers the mid 60's), perhaps an article on De Valera protectionism (which covers the first few years of Irish independance) and maybe an article the Charlie Haughey's corrupt era (the 1980's) CGorman 17:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to agree. We wouldn't have an article on the asian economies at 'asian tiger', and so by comparison I don't think this belongs here either. →Raul654 01:42, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • We do have an article on the East Asian Tigers. Both subjects are academic research topics. I think it is unfair to criticise this article for the poverty of another, though obviously some of this material could pump up the economy article. The Economy of Ireland needs to take a longer time frame and cover different economic sectors. This article is a more detailed child article concerned with modern economic history, i.e. since the 1990's and is concerned with causes and derterminants of Ireland's economic miracle.  :ChrisG 18:11, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Oppose, until the POV on "causes" is eliminated. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 02:21, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have backed up the claims made by various reports and articles. I have rewritten and backed up the section at the end of causes relating to Charlie McCreevy, Mary Hearney and Bertie Ahern - which I felt was the main reason you objectd - I admit, it was biased and unsupported. I hope I have rectified your concerns. CGorman 20:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. ChrisG 18:11, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Formula One

Quite complete, well-written, and intuitively organized. It is somewhat of a self-nomination, though I am not by any means its primary contributor. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Previously nominated and rejected twice, the last nomination was in September. When renominating, it is probably useful to specify if and how previous criticism has been addressed in the meantime. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 09:36, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

• • Comment These are the objections from the September 2004 nomination and the ways in which I believe they’ve been dealt with: Biased towards the present; history summary deals only with technical regs. The history summary is now much improved and includes info on the dominant drivers and constructors of the eras. Some sections only link to a list. Sections have been re-arranged and short summaries of all topics have been made. Related topics section repeats too many links already covered in the main text. Fixed. Templates and categories should not be linked to in the main text. This was debated about, but cats and templates have been moved to talk page. No book references Book and internet references added. External links section need no be cleaned out. Done. No source info for Fangio/Moss image. "Copyrighted, fair use claimed" template added. Budgets and international attention not covered sufficiently. Info on the both has been added throughout the article. SamH 10:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I can't imagine how using the F1 logo in a series box can qualify as fair use. Markalexander100 07:25, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like we have a very strong case for fair use. The logo is being used in a highly original work, for non profit purposes, and will have negligible impact on the F1 brand name. Also, we're using just as much as we need to (since half a logo wouldn't exactly be sensible). So like I said, it looks to me like we have a strong case. →Raul654 08:04, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, we are using it rather indiscriminately (14 times, currently) on pages which directly compete with F1's official site. Using the logo once on this page to say "this is the F1 logo" would be analogous to quoting and fine; but what we are doing is using it as a logo ourselves for all of our own coverage. That's what other organisations pay a lot of money for. Markalexander100 08:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Is there a mention somewhere about Ecclestone's talk of pulling out the Silverstone track in the future? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 07:30, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

It was already mentioned on Bernie Ecclestone, but I've added a paragraph under the "Future of Formula One" section regarding future races, including those whose future is in doubt, and a few new ones which are due to appear in the next few years. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 22:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. SamH 10:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Género chico

Self-nomination, I suppose. This is the first article to come out of the Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week project. It is an article which already has featured status on the Spanish Wikipedia, and has been translated into English. Chameleon 09:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Please see Wikipedia:What is a featured article - no lead section, no references. In addition, context is needed. The average reader cannot be expected to know Género chico is a form of theatre, and will not know what zarzuela is.
  • The lead section is too short, but it does exist and it does say what género chico is a form of, and readers have only to click on the link to find out all about zarzuela. I don't think I've seen many articles with references. Chameleon 10:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, but a lead section's supposed to be an introduction. Can you try to at least fill it out to a full paragraph? And it's only a few extra words to provide a very brief summary of zarzuela. And last but not least, it was recently decided by consensus that references would be a mandatory basic requirement for featured articles. Wikipedia:Cite sources itself explains why we need references. I believe Wikipedia's best would have references. Johnleemk | Talk 10:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, the only source is the one given: es:Género chico. I've added a couple of external links though. The lead section is now longer. Chameleon 11:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • This is exactly why I've been hesitant to translate Spanish-language articles that lack cited sources. The fact that it was written in a foreign-language wikipedia is, indeed, part of the appropriate citation apparatus, but if that article didn't cite sources, you are still left with an article that, effectively, doesn't cite sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:41, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

The current lead is already better, but it still doesn't give a summary of the article. See Wikipedia:Lead section for more. As for the references: the external links are not references, as they do not contain the information in the article. References are a requirement of featured articles (see Wikipedia:What is a featured article). Many current articles may not have references, but all of the articles that pass through here have. Jeronimo 13:31, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. I just cleaned up the first several paragraphs, but judging by the previous state of those few paragraphs, this is simply not a well-written article at the sentence-for-sentence level. I added several rather obvious links, removed a lot of vacuous meandering, etc. If someone goes through and does something similar to the rest of it, ping me on my talk page when you are done and I will strike this comment. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:16, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Withdraw candidate. Chameleon 21:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

B-29 Superfortress

Self nomination. I have done most of the work on the article as it exists now. It is comprehensive on the aeroplane's history from its early origins to its current operability. It has references. Its up to WikiProject Aircraft standards. It comprehensively describes all variants. It provides references. It has a comprehensive set of statistics. It certainly deserves it. •→Iñgólemo←• 06:09, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

I bet ‘Enola Gay’ with (those kind of) quotes is against all the naming conventions. I'd write it Enola Gay. Anyway, those names are just a minor issue, so support. --ZeroOne 06:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1) The table at the bottom seems like a duplicate of the sidetable at the top. If there are any new values, these should either be include in the top table, or the table at the bottom should only list these. Also some of the values conflict. F.e., the "first flight" is more specific at the bottom than at the top. 2) The units in these tables (m, kg, etc.) should be linked to the corresponding article on first mention (see WP:MOS). 3) Values in this table that are not known (e.g. rate of climb) should be removed, or it should be indicated that these are not known. 4) I find the operational history rather short. Basically, there are only four sentences about their actual history. More detail is needed about their actions in WOII and Korea, especially about the former.

5) The "Units Using the B-29" section should be converted in a table mentioning more information (numbers used, f.e.), or be merged with the operational history. As it stands, this section is hardly useful. The use by the RAF is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. 6) The two footers seem partially overlapping, and some of them should be listed as categories. 7) The references seem incomplete. None of the mentioned sites seems to have the version history (for example), so additional sources must have been used. Please list them. There must also have been written books about the Superfortress. If you know of any, please list them (if only as further reading). 8) I'm curious about the name Superfortress; was it derived from the B-17? Did Boeing dub it thus, or did pilots name it such? The name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article save the captions - this really should be discussed. 9) The article could really use some additional photographs. (Not an objection) Jeronimo 06:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Response to 1)I noted the comment on the blue data table, and I figured I'd give it a trial deletion. Another user reverted it in less than two minutes. The blue data table is no longer the format endorsed by WikiProject Aircraft, but after a debate on the system to be used in the new format, it was agreed to leave the data table as it stands in the articles that use the blue data table. 2) Do you mean, literally link 22 m as to metre, in the form 22 m? WP:MOS suggests that the convention would be to link it to 1 E1 m. 3) Some statistics just aren't provided in any of the material we have come across. The reason rate of climb (900 ft/min) isn't provided in the blue data table is because it's provided in the statistics subsection. Since that subsection is the current endorsed format for statistics, the blue table hasn't been used to add new information for some time. 5) The recommendations are not within the standard formatting endorsed by WikiProject Aircraft; the section as it stands is. 6) I respectfully disagree about the footers being overlapping. As to listing them as categories, I don't think that that is a problem with the article, so much as it is with the titles of those lists that it links to. 7) I can look for other sites, but the references are as I found them, with the addition of those I used. The version history is compiled from each of the 25 articles the [USAF Museum] has on each of the 20+ listed variants. I'll work on the references 8) I'm not sure about the name. None of the references describe it. The only thing I know is the conjecture I have that it is related to its rôle as successor of the Flying Fortress. The reason Superfortress is never used in the article is because convention is to refer to it as the B-29, not the Superfortress. 9) Believe it or not, public domain images are hard to come by. •→Iñgólemo←• 02:39, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

1) I think duplication is bad in this case, since there are essentially two tables (it would be OK if some of the facts were mentioned in normal prose text, though). Either drop the sidetable or the bottom table. One of the requirements for a FA is that the article should conform to any applicable WikiProjects. If that says use the bottom table, you should lose the sidetable. (I would personally prefer the sidetable, though, the bottom one is very ugly). 2) I intended your first suggestion. 3) Another reason to drop one of the tables. This is just plain confusing and ugly. 5) If you want to feature this article, the section needs to get more content, or be removed. WikiProjects are important, but it is impossible to fit every topic in a tight harnass. If there is nothing more to be said than just this, it doesn't deserve a section for this article. I think that should be acceptable for the WikiProject, too. 7) There have previously been problems with footers, and I don't really care for them, but others may complain about them. 8) I think it would be interesting to add if you can find it anywhere. Not vital, though. Jeronimo 17:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• My, hasn't this article grown since I last looked at it... Support. Zerbey 02:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Folk music

I'm sure I've edited this a few times, but it's not really a self-nom. Still, I think it's a great article, and does a good job of communicating the different ways this term is used. Tuf-Kat 05:32, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Object: It's a fairly good article about modern folk music, but it more or less dances over traditional folk music. The "Defining" section is poor, as it gives too much attention to Sachmo and not enough to the key points to what makes a thing folk (e.g. anonymous composition, cultural dissemination (i.e. you find the same song in 4 places)). There is no discussion of the things that made/make folk music in many nations (legendary entertainments, moral tales, and commemorations of tragedy (Maid Marion, Captain and the Baker's Wife, any of the flood/wreck/battle songs). These characteristics are transnational. In the West, the balad revival of 1768 starts new awareness of the folk song, thus Romantics, thus early 20th c. interest in folk tale and folk song, thus the balad form as dominant. Anyway, a lot of the historical stuff would be a welcome addition, but, in particular, a complete absence of it is a reason for objection. Geogre 14:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object, overly focused on English-speaking world. The style of the writing may be "scholarly", but there's not much scholarship, in the sense that many controversial statements go without footnotes or balancing views. For example, a theory of a three-stage decline of folk music in the face of modernity is hardly uncontroversial and not attributed to anyone. Also, where sociological matters enter, there seems to be little attempt to distinguish folk music as such and folk culture in general. There is a lot of decent material here, but it doesn't look to me to be even close to featured-article level. I wouldn't be surprised if a featured article about some narrower topic could be made out of this without too much work, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:11, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I had my own rationale for it, but Jmabel put it better. Deal with those objections and I'll likely support. Ambi 23:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object, sadly. This has the potential to be a great article, but all these objections need to be addressed. I'd also like to see some coverage of the marriage between folk and popular music (Ireland being a strong case in point, e.g. Horslips, but also US and UK folk-rock, electric instruments in African music now, Reggae, World music, etc.) and more on the general revival in the west since the 1960s. Filiocht 11:24, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Object, with regrets. The relationship between folk music and other sorts of folklore is mostly unexplored. Agree that the "decline" thesis is stated a bit too strongly; the possibility (rather, documented fact) that antiquarianism and "authenticity" also distort traditions is unmentioned. The notion that garage band music, hip-hop, and similar trends represent live folk traditions might be mentioned. Smerdis of Tlön 01:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Optigan

Another self-nomination. I've had one of these, uh, organs quite literally from the age of twelve. I learned to play piano by ear thanks in part to the thing! - Lucky 6.9 04:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support.Fifelfoo 06:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Please look at Wikipedia:What is a featured article and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. 1) No lead section. 2) The pictures are of low quality, notably the "sing along" image. 3) This article needs at least one sound sample. 4) Use level two headings. 5) Are there any book references/further reading? 6) The article seems rather short. Can't think of any major things missing though. Jeronimo 07:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I've cleaned up the lead section and headings per your suggestion. Can't do much about the pictures, though. Some photos I found on other sites some time ago weren't GDFL-compatible. The photos on the article were taken from optigan.com with permission. I plan to add a discography and list of songbooks ASAP. As for audio samples, I can probably link to some on optigan.com since I don't have an mp3 to Ogg Vorbis converter. Any other suggestions? - Lucky 6.9 00:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sewell's Point

So much information about somewhere I never heard of! 62.252.64.14 11:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1) No references. 2) No pictures. 3) Has many typos and instances of poor grammar, and needs a massive copyedit. 4) Half of the article doesn't even seem relevant to the peninsula. 5) There's practically nothing apart from history there. Ambi 01:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Tepid object: The writing needs fixing, and the headers sound like a tourist guide. If one were going to visit, all the tourist stuff would be interesting, but the primary importance of Sewell's point for the world at large is its historical one from the Civil War and its economic one in shipyards and naval bases. Those sections need much more, while the Shire to Town bit and the limits being altered by weather are much more trivial. Pictures, at least from the Monitor v. Merrimack at Hampton Roads, if not some of the Civil War (public domain) maps of the area should be available. Granting that I have a historical bias, but this is a place with history in it. Geogre 04:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Following Ambi & Geogre.Fifelfoo 06:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Ambi summarises most of my objections. Thtree additions: 1) a map is needed. 2) Please make clear in the lead section we're talking about the United States. This is not mentioned. 3) Add a lead section (see Wikipedia:Lead section). Jeronimo 07:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Mostly what others said. I've also noticed that there is a lot of linking to the same articles more than once, creating too much blue and red text. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 13:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jesus

Very good article. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:42, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Support (nominator). Past objections have dealt with. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:42, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, excellent article. Some comments: 1. I note that there has been a recent discussion about the page being moved on the talk page, has this all been straightened out? 2. Nominating this article is going to make the heated debate on the Shroud of Turin seem like a minor disagreement... good luck! :) Zerbey 04:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Basically everyone who has worked on the article has accepted (or demanded) that it be at Jesus and not at Jesus Christ; however, we have a lot of "drive by"s who strongly object to leaving off the Christ. I think the issue is decided, but there's still a lot of bickering (especially a recent Jehovah's Witness issue that resulted in protecting the page). I have worked a lot on the article, but I don't think I can support its promotion yet -- I hope one day, but the points made here are valid. Neutral for now. Mpolo 19:23, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Support Dysprosia 06:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. One liner or paragraph sections such as at Jesus#The_names_and_titles_of_Jesus should not exist. "Introduction" is not a valid header. The lead section is the introduction! And if not, the lead section needs major expansion. --Jiang 06:30, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) No lead section. Most or all of the introduction section should be moved here. 2) There are no references, only further reading. 3) This article assumes a lot of knowledge and therefore gives little context. Take the first sentence of "Introduction": "According to the Gospels, Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and the Son of God, who served a ministry in Galilee and Judaea, and was ultimately crucified in Jerusalem by order of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate before rising from the dead on the third day." I think at least the terms Messiah, Galilee and Judaea need explanation in this or following sentences. Such problems occur throughout the text. Ideally, it should be possible to get a good understanding of this article without having to grab a dictionary or click all of the blue links. 4) The section "Christian perspectives on Jesus" doesn't tell anything that has not already been mentioned before in the article. In fact, it only gives one perspective, not multiple. As it stands, this section seems useless. Jeronimo 10:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • "Names and titles of Jesus" isn't a one-line section -- it has four subsections. Mpolo 19:23, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Try doing a search through the article for the word "some" and you'll see how many unattributed critics and churches there are. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I fixed only one instance based on personal knowledge of Catholic tradition, but I know nothing about the others except the Muslim perspective of Jesus' cruxificion (based on discussions with Muslim friends). Johnleemk | Talk 12:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object, I agree with Jeronimo. Also, why is there information about portrayals of Jesus in 20th and 21st century drama but nothing about portrayals of Jesus in the preceding 1900 years of art (and in other forms of art in general)? The information exists elsewhere in Wikipedia, but at least a summary and a link to a main article (Images of Jesus?) should be provided. Fredrik | talk 13:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. At 42kb (at time of writing), it's far too long. Since featured articles are meant to be the best, it should conform with size guidelines. Needs to be reduced to below 32kb at the very least. jguk 22:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The lead seems OK now, but there is no explicit References section (Further reading is not the same thing), there are too amny single-sentence paragraphs (some may be validly so, but not all) amd the 'Some' issue raised by Ta bu shi da yu is valid, IMHO. Filiocht 09:56, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Article does not address Jesus' place in history. Also, the heretical notion that Jesus was homosexual, if based solely on conjecture in a work of fiction, has no place in the article. It appears to depend on misconstrued translation: According to New Testament scholars, in the phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved," the word that is translated as "love" is "philo" (John 20:2) in the original Greek, which means brotherly love, or "agapas" (John 21:20) which means Godly love. Sexual love would be "eros".--Johnstone 11:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shrine of Remembrance

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

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

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

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

Coachella Valley

Partial self-nomination. Decumanus started this and added the map. I live in the area, so it seemed a natural for me to expand. So, what sayeth you, fellow wiki warriors? - Lucky 6.9 03:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Strange article. The history is quite good, but a lot of the celebrity trivia doesn't seem that important/relevant in an article about the valley itself - and there isn't really much else there. Ambi 15:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. As Ambi said, this only has a decent history section. More is needed about economy and geography (geology). Perhaps also culture and biology. Also, more than just a map image is required. If you live in the area, it shouldn't be too hard to add some representative pictures. Jeronimo 10:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Thanks, all. I'll be moving this to peer review. Please feel free to clean it up as you see fit. - Lucky 6.9 04:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Territory of Hawaii

By far the best U.S. territory article and actually better than all of the U.S. state articles. jengod 23:42, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1. for a geography topic, it has no map. 2. The feature picture is generic -- a U.S. president photo that has no graphically apparent relation to the topic. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 01:45, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Object - the okina spelling is by far less common than no-okina, and as such, we should be using the non-okina spelling, per the manual of style naming conventions. →Raul654 02:45, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • The okina spelling may be less common, but that does not make it less correct. --Golbez 08:13, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) No references. 2) Lead section needs to be expanded. Please see Wikipedia:What is a featured article for these two points. 3) If this is meant to be an article about all aspects of the Territory of Hawaii, we need far more than just the history. If this article is meant to be a "chapter" in the History of Hawaii (it is referred to as such in that article), that should be made clear in this article. Jeronimo 08:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Amazon River

Partial self nomination. I think it's full of interesting information and a nice looking article.Worldtraveller 23:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Needs at least one ground level photo, and references (I doubt everything was incorporated from EB). Fredrik | talk 23:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The map: lacks source and copyright information; the colours on the map are horrible and the text hard to read (some of the labels go under the rivers!); the speckly lines for the rivers are horrible; there are artefacts (black specks); there's an unexplained asterisk on the Falkland Islands. Gdr 00:09, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
  • The asterisk marks the capital of the Falkland Islands, Stanley Deus Ex 17:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I know that. But Stanley has nothing to do with the Amazon River, so why mark it? Gdr 11:27, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
      • Well I liked the garish clashing colours on that map! But I've changed it to a more subtle one without random asterisks etc. Worldtraveller 21:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The new map has nicer colours, but otherwise it is not an improvement. In particular, I can't read the names of the rivers at all. Also, you shouldn't use "thumbnail" or "framed" images inside an box like this. Gdr 21:07, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
      • On the map, some of the tributary rivers are shown continuing farther south than the highlighted area. That doesn't make sense. Rmhermen 21:55, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • How about this map? Gdr 22:05, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
      • I like it better but could the basin color be darker? Rmhermen 23:08, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Do you really mean "darker"? Or do you mean "more saturated"? Gdr 12:02, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
• Support. Well written. Xed 00:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Baldrick

Alright, what needs doing on this one? Or is it up to standard? Self nom.--Crestville 17:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. For a start, you could add references, add a headline image, and remove the extensive quotes which take up so much space and don't add very much. (And I like Blackadder). -- ALoan (Talk)
• Object, for now. Needed a copyedit, which I've done (but can another set of eyes take a look as well, please?); I agree with the quotes section, it needs shortening (but certainly not removed); needs references section. Other than that, I think it's a nice article. Zerbey 19:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. (1) Contains several copyright violations. Fair use does not cover this kind of thing. A couple of famous lines would be fine, quoting whole scenes is not. (2) Move one of the photos up to the top. (3) The lead section needs to explain if or why he is notable, otherwise this verges perilously close to "fancruft". (4) You might want to mention that this character was the making of Tony Robinson as a popular entertainer in the UK. Gdr 20:59, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Golf

A dang fine article IMO. Comments welcome. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 22:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral. Excellent, but where are the references? Zerbey 22:57, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) Lead section too short. 2) Order of the sections is strange. I would expect a discussion of the gameplay and history before we get to golf courses. 3) No references (some external links though). 4) Some sections should be longer or merged. Others, like "golf ball" should have content instead of just referring to some other article. This is especially strange as less vital topics (such as environmental impact) get much more coverage. 5) Some sections only dicuss the US, such as Social aspects of golf. 5) The glossary should be moved to a separate (list)article. 6) The article desperately needs an illustration of a typical golf course, showing the tee, fairway, green, bunkers, etc. 7) I don´t think we need to know that the player in the first image is a US Airforce employee, it is in no way relevant to the article. 8) Measurements such as mm should be linked to the appropriate article (the first occurrence only). 9) Apart from the professional golf section, something more on competitive golf would be good (e.g. Ryder Cup, matchplay championships). Jeronimo 12:56, 22 Oct 2004(UTC)
  • Re 2), the point of that order is that the section about the anatomy of golf courses explains a lot of things that are necessary to understand the rest. It would of course be possible to switch the order of sections, but then you would have to check all of the article for terminology that is not explained earlier. Re 4), the golf ball section has recently been cut out as it was getting too long, and of course a summary should be in its place. Re 5), done. Re 9) , there is some coverage of the Ryder cup and other tournaments, see Category:Golf tournaments, that could be mentioned. Regards, Kosebamse 08:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Review my comments on request: 1) Seems OK. 2) I still stand by my original opinion. 3) There are still no references. This is really necessary. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article. 4) Still not fully addressed. 5) Not addressed. 5) (yes, I can't count) OK now. 6) Still missing. 7) OK now. 8) Not done. 9) Not done, save for some links in the see also section. In summary, most of my objections have not been addressed. Jeronimo 20:10, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: I know very little about golf, but is Tiger Woods still the number 1 american golfer? I thought I read that he had slipped down... [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 01:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Number 1 American golfer, but number 3 in the world after Vijay Singh and Ernie Els. [2] Not sure what is meant by 'American rankings' though. jguk 22:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Aye. There's the PGA Money List [3], and assorted other stats, but the one people (even the PGA) take most seriously these days is the World Golf Rankings [4] -- GWO

Golf

A dang fine article IMO. Comments welcome. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 22:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral. Excellent, but where are the references? Zerbey 22:57, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) Lead section too short. 2) Order of the sections is strange. I would expect a discussion of the gameplay and history before we get to golf courses. 3) No references (some external links though). 4) Some sections should be longer or merged. Others, like "golf ball" should have content instead of just referring to some other article. This is especially strange as less vital topics (such as environmental impact) get much more coverage. 5) Some sections only dicuss the US, such as Social aspects of golf. 5) The glossary should be moved to a separate (list)article. 6) The article desperately needs an illustration of a typical golf course, showing the tee, fairway, green, bunkers, etc. 7) I don´t think we need to know that the player in the first image is a US Airforce employee, it is in no way relevant to the article. 8) Measurements such as mm should be linked to the appropriate article (the first occurrence only). 9) Apart from the professional golf section, something more on competitive golf would be good (e.g. Ryder Cup, matchplay championships). Jeronimo 12:56, 22 Oct 2004(UTC)
  • Re 2), the point of that order is that the section about the anatomy of golf courses explains a lot of things that are necessary to understand the rest. It would of course be possible to switch the order of sections, but then you would have to check all of the article for terminology that is not explained earlier. Re 4), the golf ball section has recently been cut out as it was getting too long, and of course a summary should be in its place. Re 5), done. Re 9) , there is some coverage of the Ryder cup and other tournaments, see Category:Golf tournaments, that could be mentioned. Regards, Kosebamse 08:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: I know very little about golf, but is Tiger Woods still the number 1 american golfer? I thought I read that he had slipped down... [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 01:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Number 1 American golfer, but number 3 in the world after Vijay Singh and Ernie Els. [5] Not sure what is meant by 'American rankings' though. jguk 22:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Aye. There's the PGA Money List [6], and assorted other stats, but the one people (even the PGA) take most seriously these days is the World Golf Rankings [7] -- GWO

Battle of Jutland

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

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

Noel Gallagher

Largely self nomination. I thinks there's enough here, as much as i love the beatles, wouldn't it be good to get some other british mucisians in there?--Crestville 18:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1. Needs references, 2. Not enough information on his relationship with Oasis or feuding with his brother, 3. Hasn't he been arrested several times as a result of this feuding? It's worth including. I seem to recall at least one incident in Germany, OK maybe I misremembered... 4. Personal life section is too short, 5. Needs an external links/see also section (I don't think this is a requirement for a FAC but it'll benefit IMHO. Good start so far, but he deserves a more complete article. Zerbey 19:41, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All good points, but it was Liam who got his head kicked in by the Germans, I don't think either have had high profile arrests. Any more suggestions would be apprieciated.--Crestville 19:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Lead section too short. Some poor writing (e.g. Born in, Longsight, Manchester, Noel first began to teach himself to play guitar at the age of 13, imitating his favourite songs., Before the arrival of Oasis in 1994, debate raged over weather British rock had had its day. US grunge and dance music ruled). Desperately needs references -- plenty of prominent people believe(d) Oasis is/was the greatest thing since sliced bread, so quote one. Put songs in quotes and albums in italics. Tuf-Kat 20:12, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Cheers feller, anything else?--Crestville 21:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Ok, loads of changes, I don't know if it's up to standards yet, but take a look and get back to me.--Crestville 17:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Please do not strike out my comments in future, I am capable of speaking for myself. Zerbey 22:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• yeah, but so am I, it dosn't really matter.--Crestville 19:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. References, please. Jeronimo 13:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• : much as i love the beatles, wouldn't it be good to get some other british mucisians in there : Well Sex Pistols is featured, and IM-not remotely-HO, David Bowie isn't far off. -- GWO

• true, but Noel should be up there too.--Crestville 19:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Baseball

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

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

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

Lake Burley Griffin

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

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

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

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

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