Inline videos. See also:Category: Articles with embedded Videos..

Biocrawler:Featured article candidates

From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.

Purge server cache (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Biocrawler:Featured_article_candidates&action=purge)

Here we determine which articles are featured on Biocrawler:Featured articles. A featured article should exemplify Biocrawler's very best work. See what is a featured article for criteria.

If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. Please do not place more than one nomination at a time — this makes it difficult to do each article and its objections justice.

[edit]

Procedure

The path to a Featured Article
  1. Start a new article
  2. Research and write a great article
  3. Check against the featured article criteria
  4. Get creative feedback (Peer review)
  5. Apply for featured article status
  6. Featured articles
[edit]

Adding nominations

  1. Check the featured article criteria and make sure the article meets all of them before nominating.
  2. Place {{fac}} on the talk page of the nominated article.
  3. From there, click on the "current featured article candidate" link.
  4. (If you are resubmitting an article) Use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Biocrawler:Featured article candidates/Television → Biocrawler:Featured article candidates/Television/archive1
  5. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top.
  6. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article.
  7. Finally, place {{Biocrawler:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of the page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated article.
[edit]

Supporting and objecting

Please read nominated articles fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the article nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link).
  • If you approve of an article, write "Support" followed by your reasons.
  • If you oppose a nomination, write "Object" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Biocrawler Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed (featured articles, despite being featured, may be marked so as not to be showcased on the Main Page).
    • To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

Consensus must be reached in order to be promoted to featured article status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived.

Featured Article Tools
Contents
1 Procedure

1.1 Adding nominations
1.2 Supporting and objecting

2 Nominations

2.1 Buckingham Palace
2.2 Krag-Petersson
2.3 Pathological science
2.4 Order of Canada
2.5 Funeral of Pope John Paul II
2.6 Second Crusade
2.7 Megatokyo
2.8 Indian Railways
2.9 Antarctic krill
2.10 Burkhanism
2.11 Eleanor Rigby (song)
2.12 USS Missouri (BB-63)
2.13 Pope Benedict XVI
2.14 The Times
2.15 Sydney Boys High School
2.16 Spice Girls
2.17 John Wesley
2.18 Monty Hall problem
2.19 The Ashes
2.20 Captain Marvel (DC Comics)
2.21 Medieval hunting
2.22 Washington gubernatorial election, 2004
2.23 Australia
2.24 Panavision
2.25 Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago)
2.26 Architecture of Btrieve

3 Featured articles missing pictures

3.1 Michel Foucault
3.2 Action potential

[edit]

Nominations

[edit]

Buckingham Palace

A third nomination. This still looks good to me. I have re-read, and I hope the objections to the two previous nominations (here and here) are addressed. Still mostly User:Giano's work. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Changed one of the archive links above so they point to the two separate nominations. - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is very good. The writing's excellent, it's comprehensive and interesting, and it's nicely illustrated. A couple of points: I'd like to see inline citations or more footnotes, as I see there's only one, and it's always good to see some sources as you're reading the text. I'd also like to see some mention of Diana's death and the crowds that gathered outside the Palace, with the tabloids stirring up rumors saying people were about to storm the walls. The mood was certainly ugly at one point, and I think that may have been a unique event in the Palace's history. I'd also like to see the red links deleted, as they make the page look untidy. But these are not objections, just suggestions. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very happy to see that a plan has been added since last nomination (I remember being told that it couldn't be provided due to "national security" or somesuch before). Could possibly do with information about the permanent staff. Morwen - Talk 13:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Krag-Petersson

Self-nomination. Having trouble finding any sort of information on the Krag-Petersson rifle, I did my best to pull all avilable information together in this article. I believe it is the most comprehensive article (in english) avilable on the 'net today. Hopefully, y'all will find it suitable for becoming a featured article (and if not, I'll do my best to make it suitable =) )WegianWarrior 09:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Pathological science

I just stumbled on this article and was impressed at its comprehensiveness and neutrality, considering that the topic is potentially controvercial. Aside from the fact that it has no images, I think it's almost ready to be a Featured Article as-is. --P3d0 02:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • nominate and support. --P3d0 02:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, yes the article does not have an image among other problems. Phoenix2 03:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A featured article doesn't need images, and "other problems" is not a specific rationale that can be addressed, so you risk having your objection ignored unless you can be more specific. --P3d0 06:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Wish I could agree, because there ought to be a good article on the subject; but it's too much of a hodge-podge and seems to be doomed to stay that way. It argues with itself, and that shouldn't be featured. The cold fusion section, for instance, is an argument, not an illustration of the idea of pathological science. And the last paragraph and its list are hopeless. To be sure, these criticisms should be in the talk page (and are), but it suggests why I'm objecting. Maybe put it up for Peer Review and then try again? --Dandrake 07:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Order of Canada

I, along with two other users, have fixed up the article. We have added links, references, images (some drawn by me, again, like at Hero of Belarus). And with the possible removal of a person from the Order and a recent investure, people will be looking at the article to see what the Order is about. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I may also sound in, Canada Day is just around the Corner on July 1st. This is the day that new members are announced Dowew 00:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well written. -- Spinboy 01:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nicely done, images are well documented, and the article reads very well. --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I like the way this article is organized. Phoenix2 03:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, sadly. I agree with the above, but I think the article is not quite sufficiently referenced. There are no references except for the (rather poorly formatted footnotes) which means a lot of the information in the article does not have information on its source; I also suspect some of the "External links" were used as sources. Examples of information for which I could not readily find the source in the links provided are the numbers of living Officers and Companions, and the description of the backside of the medals. I admit I haven't searched through the sourches exhaustively, but other readers in need of this information might show even less patience. I apologize if I come across as being overly picky about references, but recent conversations with people I know have given me the certainty that lack of verifiability and through referencing is Biocrawler's greatest flaw, next to vandalism. User:Phils/sig 09:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I will support of the references are dealt with. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Funeral of Pope John Paul II

I am renominating this article for featured status. Previously, this article had been nominated here and here, and turned down, mostly because the even was very recent, and too many fair use pictures were used. It was also peer reviewed. In my opinion, sufficient time has passed between the funeral and now. Also, I have tried to cut down on the number of fair use pictures, and changed them with ones in the public domain. Since I have worked on this article, this nomination is a partial self-nom. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:15, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Roughly half of the images are still {{Vatican}} "fair use"; the others are {{PD-USGov}}. If this is acceptable, I would support. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, great article; very comprehensive. Phoenix2 18:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I finally get some time to thoroughly review a FAC again. Unfortunately, I have to oppose this one. I agree with the above that this is a great article, but I believe it is not correctly, or sufficiently referenced. First of all the web-based references (the only references available) are not formatted according to the MoS page WP:CITE. There are no retrieval dates, and no information about the linked document aside from the title, making it difficult for readers to find essential information about the sources (authors, publication, date of publication) once the corresponding documents are no longer online or archived with a different URL. I also think the article does not cite its sources precisely enough (no footnotes). I could find a lot of examples of strong, precise, or even unusual statements that would need to have their source indicated in footnotes, to make it easier for intrigued readers to fact-check these statements. Comprehensiveness is pretty useless if readers can't make sure the details in the article come from reliable sources, especially for such a high-profile article. Consider the following sentences for examples of statements that I believe should have specific source information in footnotes: This tradition originates from ruthless cardinals looting the papal chambers upon the death of past popes., Pope John Paul II instead chose to be buried in his favorite pair of Polish-made brown leather shoes, an American size ten and a half, which he wore on his travels throughout the world. There are many more. The article also slips into conjecture (on rare occasions, but nevertheless): The funeral was perhaps the most-watched live event in the history of television., One of these would have required Cardinal Martínez Somalo to tap the head of the pope with the ceremonial silver hammer, a practice that is believed to have ended some time ago. My final criticism to this article of otherwise pleasing quality is the (also rare) use of "artsy" language in some places. Consider Centuries of sacred rituals are set in motion upon the death of a pope.; in my opinion, figures of speech like this do not have their place in an encyclopedia. Besides, such sentences are pretty useless: simply enumerating the rituals at hand is sufficient. The reader can then easily see that the funeral of a pope brings a lot of rituals with it, without being told so explicitly in a rather tourist-guidy style. We're close to FA quality here, but not quite there. User:Phils/sig 20:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Second Crusade

This has been on Peer Review for awhile, and no one seems to have any more suggestions, so I think I can nominate it here. This is mostly a self-nomination - the article existed before, but it has been greatly expanded, with a number of other new articles leading off from it. It's not quite as long as the featured First Crusade article, but not as much happened, and I think this is as good as it can be. Adam Bishop 05:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Stbalbach 05:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. You may want to ilink some more names and terms. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral - for the moment. Is it possible to go back and cite which material came from which source? Otherwise the article is in VERY good shape. --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, probably not...it's mostly a summary from Runciman and Setton, with relevant bits from the various sources. Adam Bishop 05:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Megatokyo

I think that this is an excelent article on wikipedia that is both complete and infroming and would bring variety to the Featured articles of Biocrawler. It would also be helpful in the event of not being of the quality required for such an honor to be notified of what does need to be fixed so that it would be possible to fix the problems. user:Vcelloho 21:23 Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Object no references =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, the article deals more with criticism of the comic than with its style and content. Radiant_>|< 14:54, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; well-written, and helpful. ChercherEccles 18:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; I Changed my vote to support and withdraw my suggestion of adding more details to plot --Kiba 12:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Indian Railways

Last week's Indian Collaboration of the Week. I learnt a lot about the Indian Railways while writing this article. Thanks to all the people who helped. The first of my two (maybe three) part series... =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Thanks to Nichalp for leading the charge on this one. What a metamorphosis! I've helped out with copyedits and link fixes, but not much more. slambo 18:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, looks quite comprehensive to me, not rather Railways of India? Phoenix2 18:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I now see that Indian Railways is a company, not an overview of railways in India. Phoenix2 18:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Done =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
By merging the two sections the article becomes too long. In this way we can move the technical details to another page and expand that further. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
The discussion on the talk page was to split the article into Indian Railways and Rail transport in India, not to merge them. slambo 10:47, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
And then there was some about putting them back together again! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support a fascinating article that covers its vast subject admirably well. Lisiate 03:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Well written article with plenty of pictures and very good prose. Sam Vimes 11:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A well written article and I learnt a lot about Indian Railways. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 03:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Antarctic krill

After much discussion I want to sponsor this article again. All objections and suggestions and language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocrawler:Featured_article_candidates/Antarctic_krill/archive1) have been worked on, references added, some images moved off. An academic group from Australia, USA, Germany, Japan and Norway found no errors. Thanks go especially to user:lupo, User:Yakuzai and in Scandinavia to User:Salleman. The article covers the basic biology, ecology, geography, fisheries and some unique bio-features of this key species of Antarctica, which is probably (in terms of biomass) the most successfull animal of the planet (yet known to only a few), and gives an outlook for future ventures of Ocean Engineering (I contributed to the article).

  • nominate and support Uwe Kils 18:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, it is clearly evident that a lot of work went into this article since the last time you submitted it, but the problem can be fixed. The article needs some variation in the positioning of the pictures, and there still may be too many. Phoenix2 18:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thanks for your comment, Phoenix2, I moved images out but others moved them back in Uwe Kils 18:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Support, ready to be featured after lots of hard work. Phoenix2 00:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's a potential FA, just wait to see what others think. Phoenix2 18:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support this time around. It's still a little text-light, or maybe it just seems that way because of the wealth of quality images, but it has greatly improved. --Scimitar 19:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)*
  • Support The only thing i would add more to is the section on eyes, oh yeah and maybe renaming subheading from "Systematic" to "Morphology" as that would in my view be more comprehensible to the average reader. I think as it stands it is a very comprehensible article that is informative and interesting with some great supplementary images.Yakuzai 23:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support- it is amazing how much this article has improved since the beginning of its first FAC. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - much improved! — Catherine\talk 02:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I (?re)reoriented the pictures in an alternating fashion, and did some edits toward the end, where the redo had tailed off a bit. This was largely gilding the lily, as I think the meat of the article, in its newly rewritten state, had already made it feature quality. Sfahey 04:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object, I find the way the citations have been done to be quite hard to follow, a simple numbering system would be better. I raised this in the last FAC, the graphs need better captions. --nixie 05:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)<s>
thank you for the comment - I added to the captions where senseful - I agree with Lupo on the numbering of refs - we will kep on putting more in (maybe change it in the end) - best greetings to Australia Uwe Kils 12:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Big improvement on the captions, and adding the bullet poitns to the references list has made it much easer to read, Support--nixie 00:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, of course, even though I don't like the alternating left-right image placement at all; it makes the article looke piecemeal. To nixie: we once had a numbered reference scheme, and it's a maintenance nightmare. Two references are in image captions, they both got shown as "[1]", and somehow it made the numbering in the main texts start at 2, and it was very difficult and maintenance-intensive to make the ref numbers agree with the list at the end. (A ref reading "[7]" should indeed go the an entry numbered "7", otherwise it's worse than useless.) The current scheme uses symbolic references as they are common in many scientific papers (it's a scheme I have used successfully in all my peer-reviewed publications) and doesn't have that problem. Lupo 06:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I also like the images better on the right - change them back Uwe Kils 11:37, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, on balance: I suspect that there is probably more to be said, but the nominator ought to know what should be in the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Much better now. Can we get the lists at the bottom formatted as * lists? Morwen - Talk 12:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
hallo Morven - we still collect more (see comment of Lupo, who did most of the ref work) later we might change it Uwe Kils 12:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting and informative. One suggestion: It would be nice to include a little more on what eats the Antarctic krill other than the very brief "Position in the Antarctic ecosystem" section. BlankVerse ∅ 13:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thank you for the comment - I added some more, will later add some on the whales Uwe Kils 14:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
added whale birds squid seal fish consumption data from Hampton Uwe Kils 17:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Great stuff, especially the thorough citation. If there's anything factually incorrect in there, a knowledgeable person could find it easily. But it seems the most imporant points have avoided citation. Specifically claims of the largest biomass, the specific amount of the biomass, and speculation of the largest biofeedback mechanism. This is enough to object on, but I'm assuming you can get those citations easily enough, so I'll support once you have. Also the citation system is confusing. What is the difference between Kils79 and H+83? Also, what is meant by directly utilizing the phytoplankton cells? What would be not direct? There are other examples of writing that appears like it would be clear to someone knowledgeable in the subject, but is a bit hard to parse for someone like me. I'll try and help if you like, or just go through and add some inline context for places where people might get confused. - Taxman Talk</sup> 14:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • thank you for the extensive comment, I will work on it - direct: means not over the traditional food chain phytoplankton small copepods, large copepods, mysids, little fish - biomass: this is much disputed, in lack of methods and because of the huge area we do really not know much - I was on a venture with 11 research vessels fron 10 nations, and we still have only a vague idea of the stock in Scotia Sea alone - and much krill lives under the ice - Uwe Kils 14:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I understand that even less than I understand what is in the article. You mean that instead of going to progressively larger organisms a 6cm organism eats the phytoplankton? Well then just say that! Actually part of the rest of the article does I think, so just explain it a little more. The whole of the text is rather terse, so explaining some biology bits with very short (a few words sometimes) bits of context goes a long way and wouldn't be too wordy. - Taxman Talk</sup> 00:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
is this better?: "The size-step between krill and its prey is unusually large: generally it takes three or four steps from the 20 micrometer-tiny phytoplankton cells to a krill-sized organism (via small copepods, large copepods, mysids to 5 cm fish)[KK79]. The next size-step in the food chain to the whales is also enormous, a phenomenon only found in the Antarctic ecosystem." Uwe Kils 02:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • it says not largest biomass but animal biomass Uwe Kils 14:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, I saw that, but didn't specify. - Taxman Talk</sup> 00:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
The "Kils79" ref should have been "KK79". Fixed it. The system for deriving the symbols is pretty simple: if there's only one author, use the first few (3 or 4) letters of his last name. If there are multiple authors, use only the first (upper case) character of each last name. If there are many authors, use the first and add a "+". In all cases, append a two- (or for short symbols, four-) digit year. Break ties by appending lower case letters, beginning with "a". Lupo 14:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've never heard of that system but it sounds standard. Could you either explain it at the bottom or link to an article explaining it? As for the rest, it sounds like you guys will work that out well. - Taxman Talk</sup> 00:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
It's the "alpha.bst" style from BibTeX, used widely in Computer Science publications (and maybe in other fields, too). For an example where it's used, see Design Patterns by the "Gang of Four" (Gamma et al.). I do not know if that style corresponds to a recommendation by some style guide (it's neither APA, MLA, nor Chicago), but I somehow doubt that Patashnik just made it up. Lupo 07:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On the biomass: the FAO05 reference gives estimates from 1985 as ranging from 125 to 725 million tonnes. Surely there must be a more recent estimate? The CCAMLR upped its catch quotas significantly (from 1.5 million tonnes to 5 million) after a change in the methodology of arriving at such estimates in the 1990s. I would also like to see a reference for the recently added statement thatCrabeater Seals supposedly eat 120 million tonnes of Antarctic krill each year. Even with the highest estimates, that would be one sixth of the total biomass! I find that hard to believe. Lupo 14:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BONNER B 1995 Birds and Mammals - Antarctic Seals. in Antarctica Pergamon Press 202 - 222 I gave that on the crabeater page - the Antarctic is hard to believe - the high biomass estimations are based on what the whales once took (details are in Nicol, S.; Endo, Y.: Krill Fisheries of the World, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 367; 1997) Uwe Kils 15:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I looked it up, Bonner writes at least 63 million tonnes, so lets change it to this figure, I have in my notes 120, will try to find the source or call colleagues about it, but even 63 off one species is astounding, taken that the whole yield from all oceans and all species, fish, mulluscs, cephalopods, srimps ... is only about 100 million tonnes a year - some say the ants are the biggest, but that would be a collection of many species, others say the copepods, but that too are hundredth of species - E. s. is one species all over the Southern Ocean - Uwe Kils 15:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Made all of my comments on previous FA nomination page; thus support. Batmanand 19:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the article seems to be complete and is written in an understandable way. From looking around in other encyclopedias and in the internet I got the impression that this is the best article about this topic. Kudos to all authors and in particular to Uwe Kils -- mkrohn 01:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I mirrored two comments from the first nomination down below to have a compact reference for our Wikiversity projects - thank you all for your help - it was a lot of fun to work with you - I think it is amazing what humans can create in no time if they work accross all boarders and ages with our new communication tools - good luck to you Uwe Kils 10:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • (mirror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocrawler:Featured_article_candidates/Antarctic_krill/archive1))SUPPORT This is very different from the usual featured article format, but it is good. It explains in depth most of what (I would imagine) students of the subject need to know. I thought I was totally disinterested (still not riveted) by the subject, yet it held my attention to the end, and I have learned something. So in spite of being a little unconventional in its style and format, I have changed to support, now that it is reliably referenced. I would ask other objectors to give it a second read and see it accordingly for what it is, something well written and informative, on a subject little referred to elsewhere. Giano | talk 18:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • (mirror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocrawler:Featured_article_candidates/Antarctic_krill/archive1))Support I've rewritten the difficult systematic section to be more intelligible to the non-specialist, and I would now support this interesting article - perhaps pleopod could be explained also. jimfbleak 05:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Burkhanism


This is a shameless self-nom. Burkhanism is an utterly obscure subject--of interest mainly to students of Altai history and/or Agni Yoga--for which few non-Russian-language sources exist.

For several years I have been hunting down information on Burkanism, and set this site up to make things easier for the next interested person who comes along. Everything I know is here, either in the article itself or in the linked citations at the end. One source (who wishes to remain anonymous) kindly agreed to let me use his photographs of several Burkhanist artifacts, which would otherwise not be seen by anyone outside of Siberia.

So, what do you think? Dawud 07:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Object – poor presentation of the material, no categories, unclear if the links are external links or references. Paragraphs are too short. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:49, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object 1) list your references as described on cite your sources. 2) The "Practices" section looks like little more than a list; tell us a little more about each of them, such as describing the symbolism and significance of the practices. 3) with only one person listed, the "Famous Burkhanists" should be combined into another section or expanded if possible. Since that one person is a red link, tell us more about him. slambo 13:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: information is pretty limited to the early years, and doesn't seem to talk about post-1921 at all. Everyking 00:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, as several paragraphs are indeed too short. Phoenix2 18:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will see what I can do. --Dawud

[edit]

Eleanor Rigby (song)

This is a self-nom of an article that I wrote a while back. It's improved a lot since then, I think, and the big Beatles' songs seem to feature prominently as featured articles, so I figured it was worth a submit. Anyway, any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks! --The PNM 06:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I see some areas that could be expanded - there is no mention that there is an instrumental version on Anthology 2. It could also mention covers - I know of one by Godhead (band), there have no doubt been others. Morwen - Talk 12:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added a section on covers and a little blurb about the strings only release on anthology 2. Any other suggestions? Thanks! --The PNM 14:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • mild object 1) In the section "The story behind the song", we read in McCartney's quote about the shop name, then we read further down that "Rigby" came from a shop name, and then we read again that "Rigby" came from a shop name. It's a little repetitive. 2) There is very little to inform the reader how this song fits in with the group's career, other than the fact that it was released along with "Yellow Submarine" on a single. Did this song demonstrate a shift in music style or some other turning point for the group? 3) My first thoughts when I hear the name of the song are of the smokestacks in the movie ("Yellow Submarine") all blasting at once as the cellos begin with that note, making it look like a whistle is blowing to signal the end of the work day. I think there is more that could be said about the symbolism that was used both in the lyrics and in the song's video presentation in the movie. 4) There are no samples from the song. A 10 second clip should be enough. slambo 13:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've tried to address some of these. I reread the repeition in the "Story Behind the Song" and almost cringed -- a healthy dose of deleting solved that, I hope. I tried adding a blurb in the introduction about "Eleanor Rigby" marking the continuing evolution of the Beatles started in Rubber Soul -- I mention that it's the first Beatles' song with no Beatles playing earlier -- but I'm not sure if I should add more context. Any ideas? I also added the audio clip at the end of the song. As for the Yellow Submarine movie, I need to rewatch in and do some research -- I'll hopefully do that shortly. Anyway, does it look any better? Any more suggestions? Thanks! --The PNM 14:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • For an analysis of the symbolism to be NPOV, it really needs to be presented in a "X states that Q symbolizes A, but Y disagrees stating that Q symbolizes Z instead". It's tricky, but with reputable sources, such a discussion can be done. I can add in my own interpretations, but that would fall into the original research realm. BTW, thanks for making the updates so far; I see steady improvement. slambo 14:57, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't see anything remaining in the article that was objectionable. I know there was some other cover, by some jazz guitarist, Stanley Something, who was famous briefly for being the first new artist signed to Blue Note Records in yeasrs (this was the '80s) and he was famous for playing the guitar by just tapping the strings on the fretboard. He did it on his first album.

*Object, principally to the "Meaning" section. It's a summary of the lyrics (which don't really need to be summarized), plus an editor's interpreatation. I don't think this is consistent with guidelines re: NPOV and no original research. Monicasdude 19:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) Fair enough. Move me to the agnostic category, mostly to do with my opinions about FAs in general rather than this piece in particularMonicasdude 15:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • Okay, removed the meaning section from the article -- other Beatles' featured articles have had sections like this but I guess "Eleanor Rigby" is so simple a song it's not really neccesary. --The PNM 19:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

USS Missouri (BB-63)

I'm nominating this article because I believe it's come a long way in terms of quality and completeness of content. This really is one of the better histories of the ship I've seen and with the considerable wiki links provides a unique entry point for somebody wanting to learn about battleships and/or WWII history. ---B- 02:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: For some reason, this page wasn't placed here on 17 June. I just placed it here now. Also note that User:Bschorr, who nominated the article, has worked on it, which makes this a self-nom (I think). TomStar81 02:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --This page contains historical information, and reports on the history of what may be the most famous battleship of the entire 20th century. Of all the pages I have worked on, this is the one that I believe most desereves Featured Article status.TomStar81 02:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object I agree that the article looks very good, but where are the inline citations? --JohnDBuell | Talk 03:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
O.K., I'll see if I can do something about the inline cites. ---B- 04:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • comment all of that information from just one reference? slambo 13:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
That section does need to be expanded. ---B- 17:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note that -B- is a volenteer crewmember with the USS Missouri, so he was accsess to all of the ships information. My references were are listed under "External Links", along with links added by wwoods. TomStar81 22:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Pope Benedict XVI

I want to resubmit this article. It has grown considerably and has become much more stable since last time considered (May 3). 83.109.188.50 01:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Minor Object There are still a couple of external links that should become notes, in the Papacy section. Otherwise I would agree that the article has received major improvements. --JohnDBuell | Talk 03:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am fixing those right now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Conditional Support Can a couple of the shorter paragraphs in the body of the article, describing the Pope's early career in the Roman Catholic Church be tightened up a little? --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. While the article is quite good now, my feeling is that this is one which will constantly be changing as Benedict does more in his papacy. We really haven't seen him address some of the major issues (adoption, contraception, etc.) that were so heavily discussed at the time of the conclave. I feel that these issues will set off POV edit wars, and this article is unlikely to remain stable for long. Harro5 05:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
How's that any different than any other revisionist biographical writing? :) And years from now, if there's a MAJOR change in church teaching, how's that going to prevent anyone from prior to such a shift getting pages vandalized? Popes have been discredited posthumously before.... --JohnDBuell | Talk 05:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, he has clearly addresses all the issues you are mentioning while he was a professor, cardinal and prefect of the CDF, and has written numerous books. His views are well known. 83.109.174.82 17:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As for the POV editing, that has pretty much been silenced now. The last main POV issue, the use of the styles, pretty much died off. Plus, every article that was featured on the main page was vandalized, no matter what topic it is. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I will support the nomination and support this article becoming FA. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Better articles have been voted out beacuse they relate to the current events. Perhaps we should make it into some kind of a rule? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That is already covered by the stability criteria. --mav 02:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support My major worry the previous time was stability, and the article has quieted considerably since then. --MikeJ9919 01:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - Agree with Harro5. The lead section is also way too short and the TOC is a bit long. --mav 02:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support on condition the lead section has a solid 2 or 3 paragraph summary of the article content. Re: Harro5's objection, Featured Articles can be about on-going or changing events, in fact they are the ones usually picked up by mainstream news and "featured" by the rest of the world. Stbalbach 02:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • But we already have a section called "Overview". Wouldn't a longer lead section be redunant then? 83.109.149.64 13:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • See the Biocrawler style guidelines and other examples of featured articles. The purpose of the lead opening is a high level plain language low-factual high-style "hook" to draw the reader in, to let them decide if they want to read more, then like peeling an onion, the article gets progressivly more detailed, repeating the same material but with more detail each time, so the reader can stop reading when they know enough, or keep reading to get into the nitty gritty. Stbalbach 14:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I've tried to expand the section slightly, improvements are welcome. 83.109.128.127 19:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good to me. Phoenix2 03:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

The Times

Propose. This is an excellent article which is now NPOV owing to the efforts of many Biocrawlerns. I have had some involvement in its development, but this is really an article which many people have worked on. It has been commended by The Times newspaper (see Talk:The_Times) but is an objective article neither biased to or against the newspaper. An impressive piece. I hope you agree! --Mrclarke 16:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Object- no references, only one "real" section (history). Maybe add a few sections on impact, current status, etc? Thanks. Flcelloguy | Give me a note! | Desk 16:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, for many reasons, mainly that it's nowhere near comprehensive: there's an unreferenced weasel term ("some claim") in the introduction; doesn't include cover price; there's little on the Times' and its readers' public image; the current circularion figures are burried in the history section; there's little on what supplements the paper runs (and comparisons of those with rival papers' supplements); has it won any notable awards? does it sponsor any notable events (e.g. the Guardian does Hay festival, the Mail does ideal homes etc)? History doesn't mention the launch of the website. Joe D (t) 16:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, for the same reasons as above... Maybe with the sections about the owners, editors, and columnists, you could say, if they had one, what impact they had on the newspaper... Yrjö 16:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object for the reasons mentioned above, especially because much of the article is a big list of names--Quadraxis 02:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Sydney Boys High School

This article is quite a thorough report about Sydney's premiere public boys school. It is neutral, detailled in content, accurate and well written and is not prone to any major changes. --Protarion 10:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Spice Girls

First, I am not going to type using big words and try to sound like a professor. I am merely going to state my reasons for why this article should be a featured article candidate.

One, this article has gone through many changes. In the beginning, it was small, and only gave a bit of information on the Spice Girls, but with time, it grew, and grew, through the good and bad times, to present day.

Image copyright violations occurred in the past due to a user who was unsure of how to post images under fair usage (whatever the template might be). However, that issue has now be resolved, and every picture displayed in this article contains fair use, and exhibits pieces of the Spice Girls career, from album covers, to their appearances in commercials, to scenes from music videos.

There were a few mistakes that were added to the article originally - one that was extremely incorrect but could not be detected until recently, but has now been cleared up.

Despite easy and hard times, the Spice Girls article is definitely an article that took time to be completed, illustrating that its editors took time to search thoroughly for information and facts - not just post assumptions and terribly incorrect data.

That is why I think the Spice Girls article should be the featured article. DrippingInk 19:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Well-written, readable, accurate. 64.231.118.193 19:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Above vote appears to be a sockpuppet vote from the nominator. (evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mel_Etitis&diff=prev&oldid=15415836)). slambo 14:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object 1) the lead section is too short and doesnt adequately summarize the entire article. 2) cite your sources. 3) It's an article about a music group, but there are no samples of the group's music. slambo 20:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Never strike out someone else's comments. slambo 18:01, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, sufficient reason stated above. Phoenix2 00:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild object. What Phoenix2 said. Otherwise, it's a good article. --FuriousFreddy 01:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. No references. Deltabeignet 03:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There's no requirement that references be provided in the text, especially in an article like this. Nor is there a requirement that the summary does more than this one does (how could one summarise this sort of information?). The demand for samples of the music is peculiar; is slambo asking editors to break copyright laws? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a current FA policy that all FAC articles must have sources as a primary prerequisite. Short (thirty second or less) .ogg clips of a handful of the group's most notable songs are fair use. As far as summarization, nixie seems to have described well what is needed below. --FuriousFreddy 17:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I'm not asking anyone to break copyrights. 10 second clips as a demonstration of the music style is fair use. The same goes for quoting a couple sentences of text in an article. slambo 18:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll grant you that ten seconds would probably be more than enough for anyone in this case, but it's surely simply not true that samples are necessary. Following your analogy, are you saying that articles on writers must contain quotations from their works? This seems excessively rigid, and isn't mentioned anywhere in the FAC guidelines so far as I remember. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Making a handful of .ogg samples of "Do You Wanna Be My Lover" and a few other Spice Girls records isn't at all an arduous task. I was asked to do it when I nominated The Supremes; the idea makes sense. --FuriousFreddy 23:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • If I had suggested that it was arduous, this would have been an adequate response. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Please do not insult other Biocrawlerns. I only said that because, based upon responses such as "but it's surely simply not true that samples are necessary", it seems that you think making the samples would be too much trouble (that is, making editing the article, it would seem, in your eyes a more difficult or "arduous" task than previously planned.) If you didn't think it was too much trouble ot add the samples, I humbly apoligize, but that appears to be what you are saying. I like this article; there are just some criteria, both required for all FA nominees (references and citations) and unique to music related articles (song samples). --FuriousFreddy 14:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • Insult? Still, I accept your apology. Could you point me to the explanation of the criteria that you mention? I'm new to the FAC business, and though I never intend to nominate an article, I'd be interested to see the details. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
                • It read like an insult, is all. As far as your request, see Biocrawler:What is a featured article. The music sample inclusion is a sort of unspoken rule, it seems, when it coems to music-related articles. I'd never thought of doing it myself until I was requested to. It does make sense, and soemtimes it can be fun. If you don't do it, I won't object to the FAC nomination (that is, after the lead is legnthened and the references added), but some other editors probably will. --FuriousFreddy 18:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • It goes along the lines of comprehensiveness. We don't specifically state that biographies require birth/marriage/death info, but if it's not there, we cite it as an actionable objection. When the Timpani article came through, one of the objections stated was that there were no sound clips. When we write about authors, I see no reason not to include a quote quote or two to demonstrate the writier's style. When we write about painters, sculptors or architects, we need to include images of their works. Sure, it's not listed as a strict requirement, but an article about someone who produces artworks in any form should have samples of the artworks to show the artist's style. slambo 11:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • That undersuts my request to FuriousFreddy above. Wouldn't it be a good idea to explain this in the FAC criteria, rather than letting people nominate articles and only then be faced with objections? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Perhaps a better explanation of "comprehensive" would be useful on the criteria page. Did this article go through peer review? The objections that have come up so far are items that are often noticed and corrected there before the nomination here. slambo 15:15, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, the lead is missing several things, like the time period the band existed, how the band formed, number of albums, merchandising spin-offs like the movie, for a featured article the lead is supposed to summarise the entire article. All featured music artists have samples, they need to be .oog files, and if they are less than 30 seconds long then they are acceptable as fair use.--nixie 13:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Ahem, my reasons for this are that the lead section doesn't require the article itself. It is, after all, a summary, and tossing everything into it would be pointless. The rest of the article would only serve as a place to pick up the little nit-picks and what-nots. Secondly, no sample music is required. Just like DrippingInk said, Biocrawler is not an HMV store. Third, the information itself is extremely readable, is presented with images suited, and goes beyond what I even knew about the Spice Girls. The career records and achievements is a perfect addition, and with cites to the various sources, it is now obvious that this information is not made up. I am truly impressed with the editors of this section. All of them. This article is extremely well-done, and I give it ten out of ten stars. 64.231.161.245 21:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Above comment appears to be a sockpuppet vote from the nominator (evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petaholmes&diff=prev&oldid=15459149)). slambo 14:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • (The above comment was made from an IP address that shows (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=64.231.161.245) exactly seven edits, all on June 19; 64.231.118.193 has made (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=64.231.118.193) exactly five edits, all on June 18) From the lead section page: "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I don't think the lead on this article meets this criteria. Compare the lead on this article with the leads on other recently featured articles such as Igor Stravinsky, The Temptations or The Supremes. The music samples are an actionable objection; an article about a music group isn't entirely comprehensive without samples of the group's music. As to the references, Biocrawler:What is a featured article states: "Includes references, arranged in a ==References== section and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Biocrawler:Cite sources)." All of my objections still stand as there has been no change to the article. slambo 11:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow, you people here on Biocrawler truly are complete fools. I'm surprised someone hasn't slapped you straight across the face yet. DrippingInk 19:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Please avoid making comments such as this. Continued personal attacks can be considered grounds for blocking. I would much rather see that energy directed to ensuring that the objections listed above get addressed in the article. You know much more about the subject of this article than I do (I favor jazz from the 1920s and 1930s myself); this article is close to featured quality, and it would be nice to see the objections resolved. slambo 20:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object reluctantly for the reasons given by slambo - I have had my eye on this article for a while, but it needs a better lead, references and (subject to copyright concerns, particularly as this is a UK band) sound samples. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object for the reasons above stated (sound samples, references, lead), and some problems with neutrality. The sentence A cleverly constructed image combined sex appeal with post-feminist self-confidence ("Girl Power", as they labelled it) guaranteed them a large female fanbase, at least., for example, is hardly indisputable, and needs to sourced to whoever believes it. There's some other stuff that should be copyedited out, like giving the hook for "Wannabe", which isn't particularly useful here and seems out of place. Tuf-Kat 02:17, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

John Wesley

Nicely detailed capsule biography, well organized, lucid narrative and useful links. In its depth and engaging style, this article exemplifies Biocrawler's advantages over other online references. The article has been criticized on the talk page as being NPOV and a "hagiography". I disagree. Although there is little or no negative content in the article, I don't believe that lack of same means the article is innaccurate or misleading. In fact, I believe that in both its form and content, John Wesley represents the best of Biocrawler. — J M Rice 18:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Object 1) The lead section is too short and doesn't adequately summarize the article's content. 2) cite your sources. slambo 20:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral at this point: I have listed a number of areas for potential expansion on the talk page. Wesley should be seen in less of a vaccuum, I think, and I don't think it would be extranneous to discuss what the Methodist Church under his direction did, nor the sorts of adherents that he attracted (blue stockings at first, then field believers, and the uneasy coalition between the upper class and "rocking" folks). Geogre 14:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Object: Does not appear to be an active article. Perhaps some time on peer-review would help. Geogre 14:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object I'd like to see more from Heitzenrater's books, e.g. The Elusive Mr. Wesley: John Wesley his own Biographer. I just checked, and the book IS still in print. Also in full agreement with slambo's objections, above. (sorry, forgot to sign my comment!) --JohnDBuell | Talk 20:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Monty Hall problem

Ran across this a while ago, and it looks like a featured-class article to me. I have made only incidental edits, but understand by nominating I am volunteering to try to address any concerns that are raised. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. It seems comprehensive, although you may want to rewrite the lead to state clearly what is the right solution - I had to read the rest of the article to make sure I understood it. 'The problem' and and 'Problem summary' sections look like they could be merged. A screenshot from the orginal show would be nice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've clarified the solution in the lead and combined the 'problem' and 'problem summary' sections. I'll try to find a screenshot from the show. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • SupportComment Since the average reader will have no use for the Java code, I recommend moving it out of the article in the same way that the simulation written in Perl was moved out (either to WikiSource or to a Biocrawler article on the subject). Also, the formatting with gray boxes is kind of ugly and can be improved. If these issues are addressed, I'll Support. Dave (talk)
I've moved the Java code and eliminated the gray boxes. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Monty Hall problem is quite a cruft magnet; everybody and his dog has their own idea about the clearest explanation, and as a result the article is needlessly cluttered. There is a lot of useful material, but someone needs to do a very heavy-handed editing job. I'm willing to reconsider if that happens. Hmm, maybe I should do it myself. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't dispute the article seems cluttered, however different people seem to grok the solution differently which is the point to the various aids to understanding sections. Can you please propose which of these sections you'd eliminate, perhaps on the talk page? The article has been quite stable in its current form for several months. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
"Quite stable" only in outline; various blocks of stuff have come and gone. I've cut a couple of explanatory paragraphs out of the introduction, as they were redundant with explanations later in the article. Some of the "Aids to understanding" can also be cut -- I don't see any point to trying to state lots of explanations here, any more than, say, quantum physics should try to supply a separate explanation for every man, woman, and child on the planet. Two, or maybe three, is plenty. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. This is a good topic, and potentially a good article. But it does indeed need a heavy-handed editing job. It also needs an expanded history section, because the Savant "anecdote" is interesting enough in its own right. Is Curious incident the only appearance other appearance of this question in popular culture? (It does appear in many introductory maths textbooks, of course.) Arbor 12:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I disagree that it needs a major rewrite. Presenting the problem, the correct answer, and a collection of alternative explanations seems like a fine way to cover this topic. I also see no need to limit the number of alternatives. --P3d0 05:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

The Ashes

This article was the previous Cricket collaboration of the fortnight. Nominated on behalf of jguk who has done so much for cricket-related topics here; and has now left wikipedia. Although I may not be able to address specific queries, there are a fair number of wikipedians who would gladly do so.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 13:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • I echo Nichalp. I am a member of the cricket wikiproject, but have played very little part in this article. I would be happy to address queries. I would certainly support. Cheers, smoddy 19:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am looking to support this FAC, but first want an explanation as to the placement of the note about rugby late in the article. Wouldn't it be better to place a note in italics at the top about another non-related page of the same name, like they have in the Harvard University article? It doesn't make sense to have it as it is now. Harro5 00:04, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've fixed it. =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • You could, of course, argue that they are related, as the name was directly taken from the one series to the other, showing the cricket Ashes' importance and reach in the early Twentieth century. smoddy 07:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • They are, but a single para is too short. Perhaps you could write something longer? =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • I'll see what I can do. smoddy 14:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • I have put something in at "The Ashes outside cricket". These were the only two examples I could find – are there any more? Cheers, smoddy 15:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - comprehensive, encyclopaedic and topical - Ian ≡ talk 04:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. But then I am a member of the cricket mafia. Outside opinions would be especially welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I made a few minor changes before posting this. Picky comments here important for FAC questions, rather than general article talk: Capitalisation, "The Ashes" throughout (not "the Ashes"). Would the initial "help" be better phrased: "Readers unfamiliar with cricket will find many cricketing terms used in this article explained in the main Cricket article and the List of cricket terms." Isn't "10 cm" better than "100 mm" (4 inches isn't exactly 100 mm, the urn probably isn't exactly four inches!). I think the reference to "Gladiators" in the outside cricket section is not mainstream enough to warrant a mention, but perhaps I'm a minority, here; also I think this would be the right place to mention - without overdoing it - its inclusion in works of fiction (I can think of two - as the backdrop to the film The Final Test starring Jack Warner and Robert Morley with cameo appearances by several England players of the time, and the intergalactic importance of the little urn in Douglas Adams' book Life, the Universe, and Everything and Adams' quirky reference to cricket's oft-perceived eccentricity - "Only on Earth could they make a game" out of it). Otherwise, a very nice article. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think I have addressed these concerns. The Gladiators reference is one of the few things that I could think of to flesh out that section. I have changed the units (for some unexplained reason, Bobblewik had changed them from something far more explicable). I haven't put all that stuff in the section, but if you want to add something, please go ahead. smoddy 16:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Cyberjunkie TALK</sup> 14:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I know nothing about rugby, but after looking at the article, it explained a lot about one of the most important sport rivialries/events I have ever heard about. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Captain Marvel (DC Comics)

Self-nomination. I did a good bit of editing work on this article, althoug hthe foundation of it was rather solid before I began. It would make a good comapion piece to Superman, as Captain Marvel was the most popular superhero of the 1940s. --FuriousFreddy 06:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Condional support. Quite good. Remove external links from the lead (!) and main body, move to notes/external links, link via Biocrawler:Footnotes. Spoiler warning template needed as there are a lot of spoilers in mainbody. The bullets in 'Supporting cast' section seem acceptable, but rewrite the 'Appearances in other media' and 'Cultural influences' sections so they are normal paras, not bullets. Also, I think that it might be good to actually merge the nominated Captain Marvel (DC Comics) with Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics) and other CMs mentioned on Captain Marvel into one article, but this is not an object - in the end, Captain Marvel (DC Comics) stands alone well enough as a good subarticle to the main (poor) article on 'Captain Marvel.' --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I can take care of all but the last one. The other Captains Marvel are compeltely different characters from seperate companies. The only thing they share in common is the name; it'd be like megring all the various uses of Tom and Jerry. The Captain Marvel mentioned here, however, is the original and most notable. Also, file size would definitely become an issue if the two articles were merged. The article at Captain Marvel is nothing more than a disamiguation page; it isn't meant to be a full article. None of the pages referenced from it are meant to be subarticles of the Captain Marvel page, but just articles about entities that all have the same name.--FuriousFreddy 21:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Done with converting the in-line references to footnotes style and the rewording into prose. Again, the various Captains Marvel have no correlation except for their name, and really should not be merged into one article. All of Marvel's Captains Marvel do actually share an article, but the only other character related to this one to share the name "Captian Marvel" is better known by her original name: Mary Marvel, who is also mentioned a number of times in this article). --FuriousFreddy 00:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • OK. I support now. The merger was just a comment to be considered by editors more familiar with the subject, not an objection, so I am satisfied now that it has been adressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, well written and comprensive, meets FA criteria.--nixie 03:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good research, well organized. ike9898 18:41, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Medieval hunting

Self-nom. I think it's a well-written article. Please make suggestions. 80.111.96.99 03:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. It is a well-written article, but it limits itself to Western Europe for no apparent reason. The name implies a broader scope. Remember that we're writing for a global audience. I might support if the title is brought in line with the contents or vice versa. — mark ✎ 13:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the term medieval is in itself in most cases reserved for Western Europe. Other areas of the world operate with different categorisations. There could perhaps be a stronger emphasis on Eastern and Northern Europe, but for the most part the nobility of these regions emulated the court culture of Western Europe (the exception would have to be the Byzantine Empire). 80.203.101.24 14:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The article name and scope are appropriate, the objection is without merit. Medieval means Europe, and hunting (along with most things related to nobility) meant doing it the French way. User:Stbalbach
  • Comment. The article is pretty good. I think it could be better with additional people. I would recommend it follow the path to Featured Article by first getting a Biocrawler:Peer review, then move to a vote once its had more attention. User:Stbalbach
[edit]

Washington gubernatorial election, 2004

Self-nom. I think this is a well-written and interesting article about the closest race in American gubernatorial history. The main concerns from its previous failed nomination bid have been addressed, as all legal challenges to Gregoire's election have ended as of 6 June. Thank you! Páll 19:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: The intro should probably state that Gregoire is a Democrat. Joe D (t) 20:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just fixed that!