Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2004

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

Representative peer

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

Goomba

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baseball

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

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

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

Shrine of Remembrance

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

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

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

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

Battle of Jutland

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

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

Lake Burley Griffin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Athanasius Kircher

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

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

Ziad Jarrah

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

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

Attalus I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 3) According to Livy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Adventures of Tintin

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

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

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

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

Dred Scott v. Sandford

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

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

Shroud of Turin

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

Objections from first nomination [6]:

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

Objections from second nomination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japanese toilet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Victoria of the United Kingdom

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

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

John Millington Synge

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

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

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

Coconut crab

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

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

Regular polytope

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

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

Geography of Ireland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Air Force One

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Margin of error

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

• Certainly it is timely during a presidential election campaign. The article still needs some work in some of the "displayed" TeX. Michael Hardy 00:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Michael. I have replied to explain the TeX, and the TeX you mention has been moved to Wikibooks. Best, Fadethree 19:12, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. An overall good article that has a big problem. It uses an overly conversational tone (eg "Let us use an running example..."), much of the article must be rephrased. Keep in mind that wikipedia is not a textbook but an encyclopedia. Also the do-it-yourself section needs to be removed, put that on Wikibooks if desired. Support. —siroχo 06:34, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the excellent recommendations, Siroxo. I prefer the conversational tone to make the topic less intimidating, but I understand that it is informal, so I have changed it. I have moved the do-it-yourself section to Wikibooks and provided a link in this article. Thanks again for your comments; let me know if you have other suggestions. Fadethree 08:19 04 Oct, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - much better! Object because it is written from the point of view that everyone is wrong about margin of error. Perhaps if the misconceptions section was moved downwards then that would sort out the POV problem. Also, I don't know what margin of error until about halfway down the article. Again, moving the first section to after the second section might solve this problem. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Mgm, for your support. I agree with ta bu shi da yu (big fish??), however, that there is sufficient POV to try some changes. I have shifted the misinterpretation section down and kept the example in place. I was going for a pedagogical approach by addressing readers at the level of their misconceptions, but this may indeed come off as POV. (continued...)
  • Your point about not knowing what the margin of error is until halfway down... this is a bigger challenge. Many difficult concepts cannot be truly understood until at least halfway down. The problem with "margin of error" is that it sounds like it should be much more than it is. Really, all it is, like I noted in the opening, is a transformation of the sample size that tries to reflect sampling variance. It picks a random percentage (50%) and reports the 99% confidence interval radius at that point regardless of whether that percentage is actually reported by the poll. Many users then take the margin of error and apply it to other reported percentages, though this is inappropriate. There are thus many opportunities for confusion that I am trying to address. I have made changes to the opening paragraph that I hope make this clearer. Let me know what you think. Fadethree 10:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC).
    • I'm feeling a little dense when reading this article, because I still don't know what margin of error is and why it is important. I'm no statistical genius! What would be helpful for me would be if you could try to sum up what margin of error is, and why it is important (without referring to misconceptions, as I have none as I don't have the first idea what it's all about). - Ta bu shi da yu 04:57, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks again for the comment; it is helpful. I added these lines to the definition: "The margin of error is an expression of the extent to which a poll's reported percentages may vary if the poll were to be taken again. The larger the margin of error, the less confidence one has that the polls reported percentages are close to the "true" percentages in the population.." I should have thought about saying it like this before. Let me know if you like how it reads now. Fadethree 06:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Sorry for taking so long to strike my objections. This is very much better, and with the new graphic I most definitely support this article! Good work on a difficult subject (well, for some people like myself). - Ta bu shi da yu 05:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It made a confusing mathematics topic easier to understand. I don't think the article suggests "everyone" is wrong about the margin of error. It only says it's often misinterpretted. And I think that could be considered a fact instead of POV, especially when Fadethree can prove it by linking a news article. That said, the article's language might benefit from some less loaded word choices. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:44, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
• I did not peruse the article entirely, so I will not vote at present. But I did notice that "margin of error" is in bold at every instance: I would imagine that using bold in the first case alone would suffice. -- Emsworth 01:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Emsworth. Neutrality took care of this and made some other very helpful edits. I kind of like having the phrase in bold throughout the article; I think it allows a user to skim for information easier. Featured articles should follow stricter conventions, however. Best, Fadethree 05:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Picture added. I hope you like it. I also hope that this article becomes featured while polls are still a hot topic in the US. I would imagine it would get a lot more hits if it coincided, say, with the aftermath of the third debate. Still, I understand that this is a lengthy process with many other articles in line. Best, Fadethree 08:45, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: this may be a restatement of something said above, but I have a problem with the equation given in the lead, which is only valid for a 99% confidence interval. Surely the lead must be the generalized form of the equation. Jgm 18:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Jgm. 99% is the standard for the vast majority of the polls reported by the media. The last line in the definition follows, "The numerator of the above equation can change for 95 percent certainty (0.98) and for 90 percent certainty (0.82) depending on the standards of the polling organization." I also have a note in the Arguments Against... section as follows: "There is no agreed-upon confidence level. Most pollsters use 99 percent, but many use 95 percent or 90 percent; this makes their polls look more accurate." I would rather keep the equation simple in the beginning, because defining "confidence" takes a little work. Your thoughts? Fadethree 21:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Note, there was brief discussion on this in the article's talk page, and I made the changes to the equations a while back. Fadethree 17:35, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• We should use a made up and neutral example, so we need not use disclaimers like "It should be clear that the choice of poll and who is leading is irrelevant to the presentation of the concepts." These disclaimers are ugly in the flow of a well-written article. ✏ Sverdrup 10:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a great point. I've made a reply at the margin of error talk page, and I'd like to solicit some other opinions as well. I frame it as an issue of accessibility and audience there, but perhaps this is an issue of standards for style. Fadethree 14:51, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It would be timely to see this on the main page before the election. --Redquark 05:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support Wolfman 07:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Breastfeeding

Self-nomination. Perhaps the science picture needs a higher resolution still but I think the content is quite detailed now. violet/riga (t) 22:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• SupportObject. Needs to be internationalised a bit - at present all the references and country specific info is US. Otherwise a good article. Would support if my concern is dealt with. Jongarrettuk 23:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Added some UK references from a survey reported by the department of health. Goes someway to dealing with your concern, I hope. violet/riga (t) 09:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with ALoan's first point. Perhaps you should request some assistance Asian/African/South American wikipedians to fill in the gap. Good luck. Jongarrettuk 18:25, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • None of them popped up when I placed it on peer review - any good ideas of how to attract them to it? violet/riga (t) 09:33, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • You could find wikipedians in other countries on [8], explain what your doing on their talk pages and see whether some are willing to help. Don't know if it would work though Jongarrettuk 19:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Article is now sufficiently internationalised for me. A good, comprehensive bit of work. Have changed to support. Jongarrettuk 23:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support - all my points are addressed. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:24, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object - this is generally an excellent article, and I want to support it, but some notable absences: (1) it is is too US- (and now UK-) centric - there must be something to say about breastfeeding in other cultures (in, say, Asia, Africa, South America); (2) nothing about breastfeeding in history - there must be something to say about historical approaches and attitudes to breastfeeding; (3) properties of breast milk could compare breast milk to formula milk and cow, goat, etc, milk, or be separated out to breast milk, which looks almost identical; (4) a short line about parallel (tandem) feeding of twins but nothing about higher-order multiples, nor about parallel feeding positions; (5) nothing about mixed feeding (supplementing breastfeeding with formula bottle feeding); (6) nothing about the approximate number of times a day that an infant feeds or approximate amounts taken at each feed (as a function of age) - I know this varies, but there must be averages; (7) nothing about nursing bras; (8) apart from avoiding certain foods (caffeine, alcohol) nothing about a nursing mother's increased dietary requirements; (9) no references. I'm sorry to be so critical. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:59, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't be sorry at all - you've highlighted some important things here which I will work on. There are some that I will find difficult (historical and other cultures, in particular) but I'll work on it as much as I can. Thanks. violet/riga (t) 10:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Excellent additions - I've deleted some objections, but a few comments: (1) the table is great (I don't want to believe some of the percentages) but there is still little on cultural approaches to breastfeeding outside the US and UK (even Western Europe - say, France or Germany - would be a start); (3) my point on other sorts of milk now belongs in breast milk, I think; (4) still nothing on tandem feeding positions (e.g.[9] or [10]); (9) I guess some of the external links could be turned into references. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:35, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Again, thankyou. I've still got some more things to put into it and will be expanding upon it soon. For the references section I'll properly cite the midwifery journals and texts I've used. violet/riga (t) 09:51, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Definitely getting there! -- ALoan (Talk) 18:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Mild objectionscomments: 1) Should say something about difficulties being caused by external factors rather than the mother. 1a) E.g. if the mother and baby don't have early contact the baby doesn't find it so early to feed. 1b) Some hospitals feed babies infant formula when the mother isn't present leading to the baby not being hungry when the mother is present. 1c) Some milk companies have provided milk to mothers for free which means that by the time they realise they have to pay the cannot feed [11]. 2) Should provide some history on advice given to mothers about breast feeding in developing countries. 3) "it is not uncommon for them to resist feeding from the breast" should probably be qualified ("if not started immediately" and or quantified (20%, 5% or whatever) Mozzerati
  • Thanks for that. I think 1) is covered as much as is possible and appropriate in the breastfeeding article but some of the things you mention there would better fit into infant formula, Nestle (and the Nestlé boycott article soon to be merged into it) or International Baby Food Action Network. 2) may be difficult to find that information but I can take a look. 3) I think it's been qualified a lot better now, if you could take a look. violet/riga (t) 22:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm still not totally happy with the use of "not uncommon"; I feel that it is to broad a category. I'm not able to state my complaint clearly, though. I would prefer "in 10% of cases" or, if we don't have such detail, one of "occasionally", "sometimes", or "often". Mozzerati
      • Slightly reworded. I'm not aware of any figures but will keep looking for some. Hope it's better now. violet/riga (t) 14:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • More information added in the History of breastfeeding section regarding malnutrition and traditional beliefs. violet/riga (t) 16:50, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lots of work done to this article, thanks to ALoan and Jongarrettuk for their suggestions. Would appreciate it if others could check this article and support/object. Thanks. violet/riga (t) 11:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support: terrific article now. Filiocht 14:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• International-minded and covers a lot of bases. Support [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 15:05, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Mpolo 18:37, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Support: Outstanding article -- Chris 73 Talk 10:02, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Minor objection - TOC is overwhelming and should be pruned. →Raul654 01:42, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've been looking at trying to cut it down but haven't be successful yet. Will take another look. violet/riga (t) 08:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Cut it down a little but I don't know how it could be cut back any more. violet/riga (t) 10:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Strong support. My mother, a nurse midwife, would be proud, Violetriga. User:ClockworkTroll
  • Thank you very much. violet/riga (t) 07:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cristero War

A self-nomination. After a week on WP:PR, I had no comments. I have added a references section nonetheless. Mpolo 08:34, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

• Support, as long as that image at the start is moved to the right. Looks really ugly at present. Ambi 08:52, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Filiocht 11:26, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) Object for now. The lead section needs to be expanded into a summary of the article. If this is done, I'll change my vote to support. Filiocht 10:15, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the lead somewhat. That got a red link for the U.S. Ambassador into the lead paragraph, though. Presumably he is important enough for an article, but that is not written yet. -- Mpolo 10:55, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Not bad, but needs a copyedit before I'll support it. There several instance of POV ("turned out to be military geniuses", "finally defeated"). There are also some strange constructions ("Unfortunately for the rebels, the Mexican bishops were not entirely behind the uprising. In fact the majority opposed the Cristeros."), and some style issues (e.g. -- should be replaced by —, Fr. should be written in full). Some other points need clarification (e.g. "making them second-class citizens"). As a minor point, the example of Vera Cruz/Veracruz is not a very strong example of the "anticlerical mindset". Jeronimo 17:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I went through the article once more, but it would be good to have another set of eyes do another copyedit. I modified the three phrases you mention and the em-dashes. The "making them second-class citizens" was actually explained in the next sentence. I repunctuated with a colon to make this clearer. I also described the spelling changes as superficial attempts to laicize the names. Is there more to do? —Mpolo 18:35, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems ok. I'm not sure what the policy is regarding abbreviations (I couldn't find the appropriate section in the Manual of Style); I think it is better to writhe the full word (Father). There's no need to use abbreviations, IMO. Since this is only a minor issue, I'll support. Jeronimo 18:37, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

William IV of the United Kingdom

-- Emsworth 22:08, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral, with reservations, for now, article reads well, has a lot of facts, but it seems very POV in syntax, feeling like it is offering an opinon on various historical issues, and persents the couse of events as active observer instead of an passive observer. That said, the feel of an active observer may be a good thing, it makes the article unique, but that may not be fit for an encyclopedia enviroment. Ctrl_build 02:35 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Addressed. -- Emsworth 13:22, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. However, there are some rather odd capitalisations (e.g. "People", "Ministry") and the odd typo ("ministery"). It may also be worth mentioning that the threat that forced the House of Lords to pass the Reform Act 1832 (viz, ennobling a sufficient number of new sympathetic peers) was also required to pass the Parliament Act 1911. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:42, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Addressed, but "the People" (capitalised and with the definite article) refers to the political unit or electorate. -- Emsworth 20:05, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Great - still support - but I think it is a bit misleading to refer to the British electorate in the early 19th century (before the Reform Acts; before universal suffrage) as "the People". There were an awful lot of people who were not members of "the People". -- ALoan (Talk) 20:25, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • You appear to be suggesting "the Electorate" - does this fit? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:30, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Not really - in context, "the People" seems to refer to the "common people" - that is, the average person in the street. I would be quite surprised if that average person was enfranchised. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:01, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Point taken, and addressed. -- Emsworth 23:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 17:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• It would be great if we found a better image, if possible. ✏ Sverdrup 10:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Sadly, my attempts to find a better image failed due to copyright issues. -- Emsworth 10:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Presumably a copy of a contemporary painting ought to be ok? images.coogle.com leads to [12] or [13] or [14]. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Super Duper Strong Immeasurable Honourable Support! ugen64 00:57, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Cathedral of Magdeburg

Recently on the front page as a new created article. Comprehensive and well organised. Deus Ex 23:21, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I think the tourst info needs to be taken out or reformatted. But overall it's a good article. Support. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 00:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Changed the tourist info into a table. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:48, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I would support if this article got any references. (If possible, some written references would be great, or otherwise list some as further reading.) There are also some small outings of POV, e.g. "fortunately", "interesting", but these are not a big problem. Jeronimo 17:00, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I understand why lack of references is a problem, but the use of Fortunately is hardly POV- 'Fortunately the fire brigades were able to extinguish all the firebombs in the roof structure in time' and the use of interesting - 'This makes the sculpture interesting to look at from all sides.' Deus Ex 19:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Hmmm yes, the "fortunately" was a bit unfortunate, but the "interesting" qualifies the sculpture as interesting, which is an opinion, not a fact. But, like I said, not a big problem for me. Jeronimo 07:07, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I will add references shortly. I am on a trip, and will be back on Thursday with access to my paper sources. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:39, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
        • Added a number of references (most in german) and external links. I also changed the This makes the sculpture interesting to look at from all sides. into a more neutral wording -- Chris 73 Talk 09:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • Great! Support. Jeronimo 11:31, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. (Note: Contributer to the article) -- Chris 73 Talk 09:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

William I of Orange

Self nomination. Jeronimo 17:26, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support: A brilliant article. Just a question: I have read elsewhere that William lost his ability to speak in the assassination attempt of 1582. Is this true? If so, it should be mentioned. (On the other hand, this may just be a myth based on his nickname "William the Silent"). -- Emsworth 17:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks! As far as I know, he didn't lose his ability to speak permanently, but I know he was shot in jaw in 1582, so he may have been temporarily unable to speak. I'll look into it. Jeronimo 18:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Haven't been able to find anything so far. I'll thus leave it out until someone can confirm it. Jeronimo 06:21, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 18:19, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Support GeneralPatton 22:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support Kundor 00:32, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

ROT13

Interesting, well written. Image? -- Fredrik | talk 16:49, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• 'Support - Interesting. Well written. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 18:09, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent. , just needs a picture. Zerbey 18:22, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Has an excellent diagram now. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 12:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • That'll work :) Zerbey 15:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Why? It doesn't really seem like a picture sort of article. Pcb21| Pete 08:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) There are no references. 2) The article is a bit short. I can't think of a lot to add, but a better description of the cryptanalysis is needed. There is nothing said about frequency analysis which is needed to break the encoding. 3) As for the image: I don't think one is required here, but adding one would be good. Jeronimo 11:33, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • As I said above, now has a diagram. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 12:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • 1) There are inline references, and some of the external links also serve; I've now added a reference to the Jargon file definition. Do you think there's an obvious need for more? 2) I've added a paragraph to show how ROT13 could be easily broken if used as encryption using frequency analysis or pattern words. Does this suffice? — Matt 13:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Good work, Matt! Fredrik | talk 14:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good work indeed - support. Jeronimo 19:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Looks like a good article — there's a lot more about the topic there than I even realized existed. A picture would be nice, but not crucial, in my opinion. Factitious 07:19, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support'. A picture is not needed here, imnsho. Anárion 08:58, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Good article, I find it very interesting but it needs references for my support. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 09:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) Support. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 15:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support once a couple more good references are added cleaned up. The new diagram is great to represent the topic and explain it. Maybe it should even be moved up though. The references need to be one consistent style. - Taxman 14:56, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't suppose that you could you suggest the type of references that are needed — citing specific sources for certain facts, or general references? — Matt 15:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Someone add a "reference" to a joke paper about how ROT13 was especially good if applied twice, and at least one user changed their decision to support after this reference (along with a jargon file one) was added. Sometimes it seems like people don't care what the content of an article is, so long as it "ticks all the boxes" like "has an image", "has references", "has a certain length first paragraph". Pcb21| Pete 15:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I added these references. The reference to a joke paper was fine because it was referred to from the text in a section about the use of ROT26 as a joke — literally a reference, as opposed to further reading; it's a useful example of a certain social aspect of the topic. It's true, of course, that the line between "References", "External links", "Sources" and "Further reading" gets pretty blurred sometimes on WP. The Jargon file reference is more of a "Sources", I guess. — Matt 16:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Well I didn't qualify it because it could use any references that would verify the facts in the article. Specifically a reference that detailed the frequency analysis info would be helpful. Also the references, external links and citation in general needs to be cleaned up. There are 3 in article external links that appear to be intended as footnotes that get the standard external link numbering [1], etc. Then there is a single superscripted footnote with inconsistent numbering to the external links. The inline external link citations are not listed in the references or external links sections. Were all of the external links in the external links section used as references or are they just there for additional information for the reader? One syle should be chosen for citation, for ex. either inline, consistently numbered external links (also listed in the references/external links section), or more like MLA style with (author, year) inline and the full citation at the end. I can work on some of that, but those familiar with the subject will need to provide the additional quality references. - Taxman 17:02, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
      • For frequency analysis, I've added a couple of books to the frequency analysis article; I think they'd be a little too off-topic in this article. — Matt 13:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Mpolo 16:59, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• No vote yet. This is a good article, I'd just like a little bit of an explanation on the Unix command. Is there a way for laymen to understand its syntax? The article has improved with the new picture and the formatting of the tables. I'd be happy to support as soon as I can get some information verified. Support[[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 20:13, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• V nz pbaprearq gung srnghevat guvf rapelcgvba flfgrz pbhyq pbafgvghgr n oernpu bs angvbany naq vagreangvbany frphevgl. Jrer gur EBG13 frphevgl cebgbpny gb snyy vagb gur jebat unaqf, rnpu naq rirel fvatyr wbxr ba gur Hfrarg jbhyq fhqqrayl orpbzr genafcnerag gb bhe rarzvrf... naq gura jurer jbhyq jr or? Arireguryrff, V ibgr Fhccbeg. shap(gnyx) 19:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you, func, for you support. Now, if anyone else thinks it would be funny to write their comment in ROT13, I swear, things will get very nasty. :) JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 22:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Another Fhccbeg, err, 'Support here. *Kicks himself for not thinking of that joke first* Kiand 20:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support, I really like the table and the reversals. --Alex Krupp 04:36, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Still can't understand the memfrob bit, but everything else dealt with. jguk 22:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) Object It's difficult for me as a layman unfamiliar with computing technology to understand bits of this. But it's nearly there. If I have time I get round to it, I'll amend the article myself to deal with my objection. Main points of confusion/suggested improvements are:

  1. Move the explanation that ROT-13 stands for 'rotate by 13 places' to the lead section. The 'description' section would then need a slight tweak to avoid duplication;
  2. Needs a brief explanation of what 'eBook copy protection systems' are;
  3. I can't believe many (non-computing bods) are familiar with what 'ASCII' is. A brief (one sentence, say) explanation would be helpful';
  4. I have absolutely no idea what the 'memfrob()' section is about. It should either be removed or reworded so a layman can understand it;
  5. It would be helpful if the lookup table included 'Description' could also be included in the Trivia section.
  6. The word 'newbies' in the Trivia section is slang. Whilst I believe a not too formal style is appropriate for many articles, I don't think articles should use slang either.

jguk 17:39, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • I've tried to address some of these. 1) Done. 2) I've added "Ebooks (books available in digital or electronic format) sometimes include technical measures to enforce copyright." 3) I've added "Instead of using the sequence A-Z as the alphabet, ROT47 uses a larger alphabet, derived from a common character encoding known as ASCII." 4) I've reworded this slightly. I think that a layperson would probably have to follow the links to GNU C library byte, XOR, binary to understand this fully, but he or she should (hopefully!) get the gist. I think memfrob() is worth mentioning, but it's not sufficiently notable to warrant more than a terse paragraph. I've also moved the "Variants" section to the end, so this technical paragraph will be the last thing a reader gets to in the article. 5) Done. 6) Replaced "newbies" with "newcomers". — Matt 13:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support Dysprosia 06:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

George Moore (novelist)

Self nomination: another late 19th/early 20th century Irish writer with links to the Celtic Revival. Filiocht 11:13, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

• I rather like it, although Moore was as despised a figure as a lauded one. He seems to have been more influential as a guy who was there than as a novelist. (His memoirs, though, are very much of note.) Geogre 14:58, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Good article, but I find it a bit short. I miss a more detailed description of (some of) his works and a discussion of his legacy (who did he influence (Joyce is briefly mentioned in the lead section). As a minor point, I would include "Online books" section with the "Works" section. Also, you might want to add dates to the paintings of Moore, so we can be sure they are in the PD. Jeronimo 11:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. Here are some responses/queries 1) Joyce is mentioned again in the Dublin and the Celtic Revival section specifying that Dubliners was influenced by The Untilled Field. Other than Joyce, it is hard to think of anyone who Moore influenced. See Geogre's comment above. 2) Manet died in 1883, so his works are by definition PD. 3) I see no reason for including the online books with the works. For readers not familiar with how wiki linking works, I think the arrangement I use makes it clear that the online works are just that. 4)Which works would you suggest I expand on? I have given limited information about The Untilled Field, Hail and Farewell and The Brook Kerith and the article is currently the best part of 2,000 words long if you include the lists. Filiocht 11:28, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

1) If little people were influenced by him, perhaps you should mention that. Also, it may be interesting to note his popularity among readers (then and now), but that may be difficult. 2) I realise that, but if you mention this on the image page, there's no need to look up Manet's DOD. 3) OK, it was just a suggestion. 4) I usually don't count lists in article length, but there's no requirement for a minimum length anyway. I don't know Moore's work, so I couldn't recommend any particular works. I would just like to know more than just the titles of his works. This could be a work-by-work discussion, more extensive discussion of his most important works, or a classification of his works by category ("many of his poems deal with..." or so). I think you may be able to find the best form for Moore. Let me know if you have more questions. Jeronimo 11:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have attempted to address points 1, 2 and 4. Please review. Filiocht 12:33, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Support now. A little more on his works would still be nice, but then again, they should get their own articles anyway if they're important enough. Jeronimo 19:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- user:aurang
• Support. Markalexander100 08:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The list of his works is quite extensive, his life biography is well written and informative - and I really like the painting of George Moore by Édouard Manet, unlike the black and white images that are so often used for deceased writers, this colourful image really brings the article to life. CGorman 10:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Smile

Like Sesame Street, I am relisting this. Only one person supported it, no one objected, so I don't know if that means it made it or not. Note that this is an article listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Featured albums proposal. Tuf-Kat 03:45, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Zerbey 04:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support with a slightly expanded lead section - Taxman 15:22, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Lead slightly expanded Tuf-Kat 21:51, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• I listed it the prior time, and support it now. Jgm 11:33, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --Golbez 06:52, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Support: I do hope, though, that we alternate pop culture with stodgy culture somewhat. Good article, but I understood that lots of folks were saying that the 2004 release wasn't the "real" Smile. Could have just be fan grumbling, though. Geogre 20:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I think I skipped over this last time, assuming it referred literallly to the act of smiling. ;-) func(talk) 21:26, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A Tale of a Tub

Yes, I know I have one nomination here already, but this is not a self-nom, all I did was to add a picture. A very complete article about a very important book. Filiocht 07:26, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Support Mpolo 08:41, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This article needs copyediting, references, and de-POVing. Some samples: "For us, religious tolerance seems automatically virtuous", "It is too much to hope to provide much historical background", " Although many critics have followed Ehrenpreis in arguing that there is no single, consistent narrator in the work, this position is difficult to maintain.". Such sentences can be found throughout the article, from the lead section to even the discussion of the references. In particular, the "authorship question" section is biased. Instead of trying to convince the reader, it should present the facts, and mention what the generally accepted opinion is. In addition to this, there are some problems with the tense of sentences (facts from the past are represented as in the present). Jeronimo 11:22, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid we seem to be reading this article through radically different eyes. Filiocht 14:04, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Umm, Jeronimo, I don't what I can say except that there are references, and what you think of as POV is really a report on multiple criticis, i.e. a summary of critical opinion. There aren't very many critical works in English written between 1780 and 1985 on the Tale that I haven't read. As for the references section, there is one. When it says "some have followed Ehrenpreis," you can find Irvin down there at the bottom of the page. I had even toyed with making it an annotated bibliography, where each work was not merely listed, but actually discussed in terms of its point of view. Won't say I'm an expert on much, but Tale of a Tub I am. Geogre 14:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, when I had references with an explanation of what parts of the works (these are all book-length studies) contributed to the article, Jeronimo considered that POV and bad language? Huh? As for the Authorship Debate, these are the facts. The style is in keeping with Swift's other works. Thomas Swift has left only a few sermons and one satire. That's persuasion? That's a report. Finally, the "mix of tense" is literary present. It's necessary in writing about literature to say, "Ahab pursues the whale" rather than "And then the guy chased the whale." When one is discussing the book as an artifact, one uses the past tense ("It was published in 1704"), but when one discusses the action within the fiction, one uses the present ("The putative author misunderstands metaphors, seeing them as literal truths"), unless there is a previous contrastive fictional action ("Although the author admits to being insane, he earlier stated that he was a retired member of Parliament"). More images have been added to the article now -- one woodcut from the original, a title page of the first and fifth editions. Geogre 21:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well there are strong statements, that if not cited, are POV. For ex. "Stylistically and in sentiment, the Tale is undeniably Jonathan's". There is no possibility someone else wrote it? Does not a single researcher still believe it is possible someone else wrote it? If so, that needs to be stated and cited. The claims in the entire 'Authorship debate' section need inline citations. For example (Ehrenpreis, pp 221-223). That type of citation will solve the POV issue. - Taxman 18:17, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Seriously? No, no one currently believes that anyone but J. Swift wrote it. The debate died out in the 19th c., and, as I indicated, the argument is now viewed by scholars as a political one. As I said in the article, we tend now to see people who wanted Thomas Swift to have written it as Whig enemies of J. Swift's Tory views. It was still a politically active text as late as the turn of the 20th c., so people who had a particular point of view wanted to cut it or include it in J. Swift's works. That I even included the authorship debate is just a sign of inclusiveness, because it's a long dead debate; I was trying to be historically accurate by saying that there was one. As for inline references, it would be virtually impossible. How can I say this carefully? Um, the work just is like Swift's other works and not like Thomas Swift's works. Ehrenpreis is too late to even consider the debate. The last person I know of to even bother with it was Sutherland in 1910. The information on the debate cames from Arthur Cash (not cited because he's a lunatic and not someone I'd recommend to a general reader wishing greater information on the Tale in general) and from the Guthkelch and Smith apparatus, which is cited. I had originally even indicated that the Guthkelch and Smith is useful primarily as the authoritative text, but then people thought that was POV, too. I don't know what, besides my Ph.D. with a concentration on Augustan satire and my Master's thesis being on the Tale of a Tub, can possibly convince you guys that my opinion on this matter is not a POV one but, rather, an accurate representation of scholarly consensus. Let me put it this way: I urge objectors to find a single dissenting opinion on anything but the persona point of view taken in the article. Geogre 18:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's not the point. Wikipedia is not original research. Just because you know a lot about it, doesn't mean you can make claims that are not cited to someone else. Wikipedia is a secondary source. Indicating one source as the primary reference is POV, but citing a statement to a particular work is not. Just because people pointed out you cited sources inccorrectly before does not mean the article should not be properly cited. If no one seriously considers it a valid debate, simply state that and cite it. But "the Tale is undeniably Jonathan's" is very simply a POV without citation. By the way, my example citation above was simply that, an example to show how to cite a claim to help avoid POV. - Taxman 18:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

What on earth has Wikipedia is not original research got to do with this article? Filiocht 08:48, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Read the above and below comments and that link. He is making very strong statements and his justification for them is that he knows the subject very well and that the follow up statements prove the point. The link specifically was for the point "Specific factual content is not the question. Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources)". But Geogre feels that he does not need to cite sources to specific facts because they are correct. They may be, but that is not the point. The article makes way too many claims without citation to specific sources. - Taxman 16:47, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Taxman, I can't see any way that there is original research here. The "Authorship Debate" had a citation before I just changed it. It said, "Anyone seeking more information should look at the Guthkelch and Smith," meaning that there is a lot of nauseating detail there (exactly who thought TS wrote it, which pre-1920 scholars argued this way and that). So it wasn't original research even then. Now, there's no way it is. Secondly, the other "strong statements" had references, too. They didn't have page numbers for their references, because, at this point, it's been too many years for me to go get a note on exactly where. However, the critical trends were fairly represented and evenly portrayed. Since there is a bibliography, and since there are inline references to the sources, whether you think the statements are strong or not, they are referenced. That's why, in exasperation, I asked for any evidence of anyone out there who disagrees with the portrait I gave of the reaction to the work. If anyone reading this is on a university campus, please ask any professor of 18th c. literature to look at the article. There is only one thing in the whole of the long article that is cutting edge research, and that's the material derived from Elias. Only people who specifically study this particular work will have encountered that. I avoided genre arguments, any presentation of what the text argues for or against (except what everyone agrees upon), and only presented one view else that might require up to date reading, and that is McKeon's view that Swift represents a radical skeptical reaction to naive empiricism (it's part of his dialectic of literary history in the 18th c., which is a Marxist view; the deconstructionists and such don't dirty their hands with history), and that's cited both inline and in the bibliography. Geogre 00:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Look, it's not original research. It's scholarship. There is a big difference. By the way, if you read the Authorship Debate section again, you'll see that "The work is undeniably Jonathan's" is followed by proof of that. Why is it undeniably his? Well, first because it matches his prose style. Second, because Thomas Swift, the other supposed author, was not a writer (left only a few sermons and one short satire). Third, because the narrative pose is in keeping with all later works by Jonathan. That sentence is a thesis that is then proven by citation to 1. Swift's works, 2. Thomas Swift's works, 3. Swift's style. That's citation! Now, I'd far rather have an annotated bibliography, because scholarship on the Tale is really gnarled. It's a work that people say widely divergent things about. A recent survey of professors of 18th c. literature revealed that a minority teach the work now because "it's too difficult." I.e. it's a very complex work, so critics say the darnedest things about it. Note that I avoided very studiously getting into the contents or what the book "means." I avoided that because saying anything there would have been original research. My views are not minority. There is only one view I hold that is out of fashion (or was, when I was training...don't know how things have gone since), and I very clearly indicated sources there. Geogre 22:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see now that not all of my examples are equally good, and my problem with the tenses must have come from somewhere else; I can't recall seeing that in this article. However, I still stand by my opinion. As an example, the sentence "this position is difficult to maintain" (slightly refactored since my original objection) is not NPOV. If all other critics, or even the majority of critics find this difficult to maintain, write that. It is an opinion, so it should be presented as such. I fully agree with TAxman on the authorship section: if it is the belief of all contemporary historians that Swift wrote it himself, just write that (and adding in a specific reference shouldn't be easy either).

Two notes: 1) I can agree that writing totally NPOV about a work of literature is close to impossible, since everybody has a different opinion about it. Still, I think this article could get close to being NPOV with just a little work. 2) Apart from the NPOV/references, this is good article, and I would support it but for those two issues. Jeronimo 19:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, it's hard to cite, beyond the citation I already did, that no one says that T.S. wrote it because that's establishing a negative. What I did was establish when people did think he wrote it. I can go into more detail there, but it's just not an opinion anyone has anymore. The "position being difficult to maintain" was the same as above: proof offered after the statement. It's difficult to maintain because the author makes statements about himself that reflect a unified personality. Also, the other side of that issue, that each digression is an entirely different narrator, was offered up fairly and fully, with an indication of who said it. The reason why this position is now out of date (it came about in the early 1960's, so a generation of professors was trained with it) was also given, in that A. C. Elias proved pretty well in the 1980's that Ehrenpreis's chummy view of Swift at Moor Park was wrong (and Elias is cited). The persona theory began to weaken in the 1980's independently of Elias, with scholars saying, "I don't know how it can't be a bunch of impersonations that are all alike" (what I say), which is a shade away from what (rejected) scholars used to say, which is "the character of the Hack author." Ehrenpreis requires the Tale to have been written as an oral performance in the Temple household. The biography Ehrenpreis wrote is great, wonderful, and monumental, but on this the information he used was awful. Ehrenpreis's portrait of Swift's public life is still solid, but his picture of Moore Park was dreadful, and Elias has been chipping away since. Swift at Moor Park showed that Swift was not friends with Temple, was treated like a servant, and felt like a servant. (Is it really necessary to go through all of this here to show you the material I was eliding for the article? Would it have been better in a long article to have expanded? Presenting the persona theory as truth is POV. Presenting the Hack as truth is POV. I present both. That's NPOV. I say that the persona theory is difficult to maintain because it has been difficult to maintain: it's losing ground every day because it was based on a biography that used bad sources for the early years, and the text was always at variance with it.) Geogre 22:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New material added to address objection in the "Authorship Debate" section. I have referred to Guthkelch and Smith's dismissal of the authorship debate and tried to explain how it arose in the first place. It is a conclusion to say that it contined through Scott and Thackery to say that it reflected their critical preference, but it isn't a definitive statement about their motives. The matter of the persona theory (each parody being a separate impersonation) has not been substantially altered because I stand by my position that I was reporting the evolution of critical responses and views of the work rather than injecting a POV about what is the truth of the text. Geogre 03:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the amount of attention given to my objection, but apparently I stand alone in my opinion, and it seems like I will be unable to convince anyone else. Seeing that the article already has sufficient support to get featured even with my objection, I suggest to end this debate. Jeronimo 14:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support; a really comprehensive explanation of an historic and important literary work. Giano 11:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I do not understand Jeronimo's objection. Anárion 14:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting read. Zerbey 14:58, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. Could be a little clearer, needs link to Gutenberg text. Dunc|☺ 15:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I have added a link to PG. Filiocht 15:09, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Neat! jengod 21:02, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, an article to make Wikipedians proud of their project. Jeronimo's problem with the perfectly standard use of tenses must throw a dubious light on his/her other objections.--Bishonen 21:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Wait. I didn't nominate it. I did write the article. Does this mean I can vote? Support: I think it's the best article I've written on Wikipedia. In fact, it's the factual content of the lectures I used to give on the work. Geogre 01:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support! This is outstanding material, outstanding treatment, the Wikipedia of the future... until we start breaking it into short articles, separating out each subsection, like a fool unravelling a sweater... Wetman 12:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support: definitely informative and well written. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 23:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support - not objections, but can the text be copied to wikisource from Gutenburg? And why are there both Category: 18th century and Category: 1700s? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The latter was pure ignorance in using categories on my part. I'll fix it straight off. Don't know about putting it on Wikisource, as I've never done much with Wikisource. It's a pretty substantial, novel-length, work, but it would be great if we did have it about. Anything that gets it more readers is cool by me. Geogre 16:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. — David Remahl 21:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. If only more literature articles were this good. Gdr 21:54, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
• Didn't I already vote for this? Support. func(talk) 21:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Parliament of Canada

-- Emsworth 22:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Zerbey 23:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Taxman 16:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I always like to see a reference/further reading book/article mentioned, though. Jeronimo 06:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Giano 17:03, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Well written, comprehensive. Can we get one external picture of the building? func(talk) 21:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

George IV of the United Kingdom

-- Emsworth 20:51, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Neutral for now. A good article, but I was a little confused about what porphyria is, and what "severe symptoms of insanity" the King showed. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:38, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not being a medical expert, I could not explain porphyria, but see porphyria, to which the above nominated article links. I have rephrased "severe symptoms of insanity"; see also the rest of the paragraph in question, which quite clearly indicates that the King became deranged due to the disease. -- Emsworth 22:59, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Filiocht 11:26, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support GeneralPatton 22:10, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support - more classic Emsworth. - ALoan (Talk) 18:24, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 17:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cyclone Tracy

This is the first Australian collaboration of the week. We've even put it through peer review with no comment, and I managed to secure access to a decent picture of the devastation that happened to Darwin. Cyclone Tracy is also a significant event in Australian history. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:39, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Ambi 06:50, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- Chuq 07:16, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support Dysprosia 08:09, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Nicely put together article (with references!). Filiocht 08:24, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Mark 08:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Mpolo 20:41, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - MarkS 21:51, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support - T.P.K. 13:15, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent. Some more images would be nice, though. Jeronimo 15:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Cheers :-) There are a ton of images out there... it's just hard to secure copyright for them. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:52, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support --ZZ 06:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Strategic management

• This is an "umbrella article" covering many strategic management topics. It is comprehensive giving the 40 year history of the topic and describing current theory and practice. It is very accessible to the average reader, containing little specialized jargon or mathematics. Of all the areas of business, this is interesting enough to have a general appeal. It is well referenced, with over 100 citations to journal articles and books, everyone of which is cited in the body of the article. I know of no better source of information on this topic (but then, I am a little biased). The article has been under peer review at The Business and Economics Forum for a month, but there have been no substantive changes for a week so I feel it is time to list it here. mydogategodshat 20:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) (was archived, but should have been left here longer. Relisted. →Raul654 02:43, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC))
  • Good work. Did you seriously read and consult all of those sources? If not, even if they are relevant, perhaps they should be moved into another article such as 'references and works about...'. I know you agonized over who to include, but Ed Deming is listed as a reference, but not discussed and was arguably more important than some of the others that were included in the article. Needs some kind of overal diagram or picture too. - Taxman 20:51, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have most but not all of these references on my bookshelves. Some of the articles are hard to find, but I included them because they are the primary reference or originator of the theory. Deming was infact mentioned in the article but I did not go into great detail. The reason is that his work more properly belongs in an article on production management. He was included because production management techniques (of which he was a leading authority) can have a bearing on strategic management, that is, some companies use product quality as a source of strategic competitive advantage. But many aspects of business can be used as a source of competitive advantage (eg: distribution, personnel, IT systems, ect.) My intention was not to list all of these. If I had, the article would be twice as long as it is now. But if you want to add to the part on Deming and product quality, you may certainly do so. I'm not sure what purpose would be served by putting the references into a separate article as you suggest. The whole purpose of citing references is to allow readers to go to the originator of the idea to verify the claim or find out more about it. To break this connection defeats the purpose of having the references there. I know that the extensive use of references is not very common on Wikipedia and there will be some people that react against them, but I see it as the inevitable next step in Wikipedia's growth and maturity. The common Wikipedia practice of attributing a statement or theory to nebulous phantoms such as "Many people feel..." or "It is sometimes claimed..." or "One critic said..." is why so much of Wikipedia consists of half truths, mere opinion, and outright rants. Until we start to give clear references for every major point in the article, we will not be taken seriously. As long as we retain the "junior high school" essay writing style of vague allegations and insinuations, we will be preventing the project from being what it could become. As for the picture, I included one that I thought gave a good representation of current strategic management theory. If you can think of a better picture, please add it. mydogategodshat 16:41, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was certainly not asking you to move out references that have been used to support actual facts stated. I was thinking the ones that had not been used or cited in the article could be moved to an 'additional sources in...' or something like that. Being in a separate list does not invalidate them, it just keep the references listed to those used in the article. As for Deming, I was thinking more of his general work, not just production management. His last book, The New Economics, focused on much broader topics and especially on systems thinking and how competition can fail to reach the goals of the organization by ignoring how the system works. Though he may not be as influential on others I don't know that intimately. The professor and businessman I learned about Deming and studied that book with was a friend of Deming's, so he was hardly unbiased now that I think of it. Only add his work if there is some information that he influenced this topic significantly. I didn't see any mention of him in the text, btw, but I'll check again. Support by the way. - Taxman 02:36, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

But every one of the references are cited in the text. I didn't add references to just fill up space. :) You will find Deming mentioned in the competitive advantage section, but only in passing. By all means add some more on Deming if you wish. I am not familiar with his lasted work. I am familiar with his early groundbreaking work in quality management, statistical process techniques, variances, run charts, and quality circles, but this is definitetly in the domain of production management. mydogategodshat 15:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now that I look very carefully at the references, there are a couple that were not cited in the article. There are two Drucker, two Minzberg, and three Porter references that are not cited. I included them because they are seminal articles by the leaders in the discipline. You can move these to another article if you wish (but I still don't really understand what that will accomplish). mydogategodshat 20:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support Worthy of addition to Britannica. Jrincayc 01:04, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support. Ambi 14:49, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support. But could "Also See" be changed to "See Also" for intra-WP consistency? -- Mpolo 06:58, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

William Butler Yeats

Partial self-nom. Another Irish literary subject. I found it in a poorish state a week or two ago and have been rewriting. I think it's pretty good now. Filiocht 10:59, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent. Jeronimo 14:43, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Quite informative. --CGorman 17:31, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great article about a fairly unusual man. Kiand 18:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Comprehensive, interesting, well put together article. zoney ♣ talk 18:25, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good. Knew nothing about the man before. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support Good work! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Smerdis of Tlön 00:41, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

William III of England

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

• Object, I'm afraid. While well-written as usual, I find there's not that much information about William's political career in the Netherlands. Also, parts related to the Netherlands are sometimes slightly inaccurate. For example, De Witt was not assassinated in a revolution, although he and his brother were killed by a mob. Most of the info is in the Dutch article on William, but I understand this may be difficult for you to read. Let me know if you need some help. Jeronimo 21:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I have added that which I could find in the Dutch article relating to William's rule in the Netherlands (especially the intricacies relating to the post of Stadtholder). (Incidentally, the Dutch article is itself somewhat inaccurate—it states that William III became Stadtholder of Gelderland in 1672, when this occurrence did not come to pass until 1675.) Everything else in the Dutch article seems to concern the wars with Louis XIV; this information is already explored in the above nominated piece. -- Emsworth 16:34, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll take a look at it later this week. Jeronimo 10:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • This looks good now, support. Perhaps you could add a reference to the annual Orange March in Northern Ireland (remembering Williams victory in the Battle of the Boyne. Jeronimo 12:55, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression that the march commemorated the Battle of Aughrim, which took place exactly one year after the Battle of the Boyne. -- Emsworth 13:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • You're probably right. Still, they Orange March is named for William, so it seemed interesting to add. Jeronimo 14:05, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Okay, done. --Emsworth
• Support, but agree with Jeronimo - it would benefit from the Netherlands information being added. Unfortunately, I don't speak Dutch either so can't check it. Zerbey 16:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support - up to the usual Emsworth standard. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 17:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC).

History of Buddhism

Self-nom. Thanks for your comments.PHG 08:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• object. lead section needs expansion. one paragraph sections such as History_of_Buddhism#1st_Buddhist_council_.285th_c._BCE.29 should not exist. --Jiang 08:59, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Intro expansion + 1st Council details. Done.PHG 12:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• see also formating should be in italics, not bold --Jiang 02:01, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks. Done. PHG 02:52, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Object for now. I've left questions about some puzzling parts on the talk page; also, [Image:TheravadaMap.gif] labels Malaysia as Thailand. Markalexander100 05:47, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Corrections made. PHG 12:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Zerbey 01:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)