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

Biocrawler:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations

From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.

This is a record of articles that were recently nominated to become featured articles on Biocrawler:Featured article candidates, but didn't get featured due to unresolved objections by other users. Articles that were featured are listed on the featured log.

For an alphabetical index of older failed nominations, see /Index.

Newly archived discussions:


Contents
1 June 2005

1.1 W. Mark Felt aka Watergate's Deep Throat
1.2 History of South Africa
1.3 Guns N' Roses
1.4 Ed Wood, Jr.
1.5 Kurt Cobain
1.6 Multiple sclerosis
1.7 Battle of the Coral Sea
1.8 Pope John Paul II
1.9 Cleopatra VII of Egypt
1.10 Agriculture
1.11 Beowulf
1.12 Half-Life 2
1.13 Hampshire
1.14 Joachim Gottschalk
1.15 History of the Ryukyu Kingdom
1.16 Antarctic krill
1.17 Ismail Raji al-Faruqi
1.18 Eamon de Valera
1.19 Xanadu House
1.20 Convention on Psychotropic Substances
1.21 Kerney Thomas
1.22 Karla Homolka
1.23 Deaths in Ciudad Juárez
1.24 Slasher film
1.25 Leonid Brezhnev
1.26 Starfleet ranks and insignia
1.27 Boston, Massachusetts
1.28 Interlingua
1.29 Star Wars
1.30 Internet Explorer
1.31 2004 Atlantic hurricane season

2 May 2005

2.1 Edgar Allan Poe
2.2 Fitz Hugh Ludlow
2.3 Phishing
2.4 Bob McEwen
2.5 Beastie Boys
2.6 The Scream
2.7 Claus von Stauffenberg
2.8 Caulfield Grammar School
2.9 Suicide
2.10 Theodor Adorno
2.11 Dice
2.12 Blade Runner
2.13 Indian Independence Movement
2.14 David Helvarg
2.15 McDonald's Corporation
2.16 Anschluss
2.17 Milpitas, California
2.18 World War II
2.19 Hurricane Ivan
2.20 Ranks and insignia of Starfleet
2.21 Chicago, Illinois
2.22 Star Wars
2.23 Maurice Hilleman
2.24 Spanish and Portuguese names
2.25 Bagrationi
2.26 Democratic Republic of Georgia
2.27 Edgar Allan Poe
2.28 Governor General of Canada
2.29 David Beckham
2.30 Joseph McCarthy
2.31 Democratic Republic of Georgia
2.32 Bagrationi
2.33 Kentucky Derby
2.34 Alan Watts
2.35 Privacy
2.36 Internet forum
2.37 Neville Chamberlain
2.38 Blenheim Palace
2.39 Screenwriting credit
2.40 Portugal
2.41 Charles Darwin
2.42 Thunderball
2.43 Mary Magdalene
2.44 Military History of Puerto Rico
2.45 Rock carvings at Alta
2.46 Eutrophication
2.47 Chicago, Illinois
2.48 Guns N' Roses
2.49 Tooth enamel
2.50 Funeral of Pope John Paul II
2.51 Official Monster Raving Loony Party
2.52 University of Wales, Lampeter
2.53 San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge
2.54 Pope Benedict XVI

[edit]

June 2005

[edit]

W. Mark Felt aka Watergate's Deep Throat

Self-nom. Detailed, sourced account of Mark Felt's life with references. If someone wants to add specific footnotes--I don't understand how the footnote system works--see my list here. PedanticallySpeaking 14:44, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Footnoting is now (almost) done. There are a few footnotes to fill in. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Thorough and readable. --Ian Pitchford 15:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Great work on getting it done so quickly, but I feel that this needs to mature a bit before I think it should be nominated, after all the article is only 18 days old. PPGMD 15:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are precedents for quicker elevations to Featured status. Today's featured article, the Warren County Canal, was started on April 15, 2005, and made featured status on May 2. PedanticallySpeaking 15:37, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
There may be precedents, that doesn't mean I agree with them. Particularly on articles that can get politically charged, I believe in a wait and see attitude. But hey you never know how these votes turn out. PPGMD 15:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well constructed, impressive example of the ability of Biocrawler to put together an excellent article in a short amount of time --John Kenneth Fisher 15:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Though it may eventually get even better, this article appears to be thorough, accurate, neutral, and readable. Jon the Geek 16:00, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Some of the writing still needs some work, e.g. "Tolson submitted his resignation, dictated by Felt, and Gray accepted it, the acceptance also dictated by Felt." My reaction was, huh? A couple of the captions need a bit of polish as well, e.g. "Hoover made Felt the third ranking official in the Bureau in 1971." Has the article been through Peer Review? The Talk page does not indicate this. --JohnDBuell | Talk 16:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Tolson sentence has been altered. No, it hasn't gone through PR. PedanticallySpeaking 15:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
While I agree that the writing has been improved, some of the comments below do indicate more work to be done, and as such, I feel I cannot change my vote at this time. --JohnDBuell | Talk 05:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I agree with the concerns about occasional awkward writing, and there's also no way something is ready to be featured when the comment "Citation needed" appears at several points in the text. I also suggest that the section about his pardon be trimmed down; its detail is out of proportion to the rest of the article and not particularly necessary for a topic that should really be handled as a relatively simple addendum to the account of his trial. --Michael Snow 18:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Have gone through and tried to tidy the prose. The citation needed have been fixed, though the final paragraphs (written by others) need source notes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, good article. Phoenix2 19:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, for an article made in less than a day, this is quite full. And if we can Spring Heeled Jack as a FA, he can be, too. As some of you may know, I was one of the people to vote to keep all Deep Throat info on the Deep Throat page, so my support is assured. --WizardOfTheCDrive 20:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Hi there. As a relatively new Biocrawler contributor, I had to look up featured article criteria to understand what is being proposed. I would have to say the Felt article in its current form does not quite meet criteria for a FA. A FA is supposed to be an example of Wiki's "very best work"; in particular, its prose must be "[c]ompelling, even "brilliant"." In this regard, the Felt article is very nearly there, if we confine our meaning of prose to the type of writing that is seen in non-fiction works like encyclopedias (which is what Wiki is). It needs a little more work but on the whole is very encouraging. However, a FA should also be stable. Here there are more problems. I note from the Edit page that the article is still being actively edited. Secondly, the Felt and DT articles may in the near future be merged, and I'm not sure what implications this holds for one of them being nominated for FA - what if its decided that Felt should be merged into DT, since it is arguable that Felt's entire significance from a historical point of view is really his involvement in the Watergate scandal as DT? Note, I'm not pushing that point, and in fact will oppose such a motion if only because this article is much better written than the DT article. I'm just pointing out possible hurdles toward FA status.~ Neuroscientist 05:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is so close to being there. I have footnoted the entire article, and have noticed that the last few paragraphs are not sourced properly. This has let it down - right at the end we get some weasel words creeping in! Also, if you notice, there are several Fill in! bits in the "Notes" section. These obviously need to be filled in :-) Ta bu shi da yu 09:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Quotes in end paragraphs are someone else's doing, so I don't have information on their sourcing. PedanticallySpeaking 15:26, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but this could use another pass or two from editors before it is featured. It's not as tight as it once was. Don't have time to work on it myself, but there was an article in The Nation showing Felt was in charge of finding out who Deep Throat was, and we should add stuff about the book deal. Jokestress 17:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object for now I still think its too early to give this a run for FAC, information is still being added to it, its still in the news. Although the article looks very very good, I still think its a bit too soon, maybe wait til the fall for another FAC run.  ALKIVAR™ 22:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A wonderful article and an important one. --jenlight 08:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Whatever the quality of the article to date, it's got to be viewed as a work-in-progress right now. Monicasdude 19:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • support: The timeliness and significance of this article showcases the incredible collective effort, by an ensemble of talented Wiki editors, to preserve institutional memory. Making it a featured article would truly be in keeping with the Wiki's mission. Noting the vast contrast between Felt's invaluable disclosures and the destruction of files kept by J. Edgar Hoover during the Watergate era, and the similar contempt for public disclosure evidenced by latter day thought police (e.g. Executive Order 13233), the outcome of voting on this nomination will be a very telling indicator of which road Biocrawler is headed down. Ombudsman 18:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

History of South Africa

Self-nom. This article failed the last time it was nominated due to concerns over its length and image copyright status. The length issue I believe is a non-starter, as while the article is around 60k, that is only 20k per millenium of South African history. The image copyright issue has been fixed by my creation of an image tag that describes the law under which the images have been used. Apart from that, I think this article is definitely one of the best we have here on Biocrawler, and incredibly thorough while being concisise for the amount of history it covers. The old discussion can be found here. Thanks! Páll 03:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment, the article is great, but the images a remain a problem since a non-commercial licence is not compatible with the GFDL. Also I think that the html links in test should be references clearly using a footnote template--nixie 11:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, of course non-commerical licence immages are not compatible with GFDL, that's why they are seperate licenses. All of the text on wikipedia is released under GFDL, however the images may be released under different licenses. Páll 13:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but all images need to have a commercial license because non-commercial licenses are being disallowed as announced by Jimbo Wales. It was in the Signpost a few weeks back. - Mgm|(talk) 15:40, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - same reasons as before in the failed nom. No effort has been made to address those. Especially telling is that the ==Apartheid== section, instead of being a summary of the Apartheid article, is in fact almost exactly the same size. Also, as is, having almost half the article on that aspect of South Africa's history unbalances the whole article. In addition, there are overly romantic heading titles like ===Stalked by a shadow===, ===Winds of change===, and ===Into the future===. There are also no inline cites except in the last section of prose. --mav 17:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. My understanding is that the 32k length limit for articles is just a rough guideline, not a firm limit. The article is long because it's on a big, important subject, and and because people put a lot of work into it. I don't see anything in the article that looks like filler. The discussion of the Boer War, for example, is long because it tries to present an accurate NPOV picture of a controversial topic. I understand the concern over licensing for the photos, but this is for only a relatively small number of the photos covering recent times, and the plain truth is that they add immeasurably to the article. I find the subheadings like "Winds of change" to be refreshing. Too much of the writing on wikipedia is awkward, formal, and boring. This article is a nice change from that. --Bcrowell 20:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • All featured articles need to stay tightly on topic and not go into unnecessary detail on subtopics (leaving more detailed descriptions of sub-topics to other articles). The Apartheid section of this article does not follow that FA criteria and its length, relative to the length of the other parts of South Africa’s history, is more than is necessary to summarize that part of South Africa’s history. Nobody here has mentioned the 32KB limit and nobody is complaining about the length of the Boer War section. --mav 15:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I see. So are you just complaining about the length of the apartheid section? I'd assumed we were talking about the total length of the article, and just using the apartheid and Boer War parts as specific examples. I disagree that the length of the apartheid section is longer than it should be in relation to the rest of the article; it's about 1/3 of the article (not half), and I think that's about right. It's true that it's comparable to the length of the apartheid article, and not only that but it's much better written, and includes a lot of excellent photos. To me, reading the apartheid article and reading the apartheid section of the history article is like night and day; the section in the history article is much better in every way, and I don't think the people who did such a good job on the history article should be penalized because the apartheid article has never been brought up to the same level of quality. --Bcrowell 17:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The history of South Africa was not written down until the late 16th century, and even then was only written down to cover the small area that is now known as Cape Town, therefore the beginning of the article is short because the amount of known information about the subject is short. The apartheid section is detailed because it covers perhaps the most relevant subject to South African history as well as the current situation in the country. Why don't you mention which details and subjects you find to be extraneous and worth moving to the apartheid article, which has no real history of apartheid and instead focuses on the law (and is also at the moment in the middle of a huge edit war which would make "offshoring" imprudent as it could flare the edit war further). Remember one of the Biocrawler maxums, "If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself"! Páll 18:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll make those changes this weekend. That means somebody else will need to work on adding those inline cites and verifying or removing the images listed below. The other things are not that important. --mav 02:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I've worked on the images, as described below in my reply to Carnildo.--Bcrowell 16:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object agree with mav. Why can't the history be summarised and chunks of detail moved to dedicated articles for each top level section? It would be easier to read just gist of South Africa's history if it is made shorter. I also don't see the significance of the map of SAF in the lead.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A history of a country should be long. Appartheid section is long but then it should be - after all it is the most (in)famous part of the country's history. Of course I wouldn't object if other sections were expanded, but the current 63kb is impressive and tells me the article is fairly comprehensive, especially with that many subarticles. All considered, another great FA by our resident SA specialist, Páll. What's next on your list 'to FA'? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • So size alone tells you this is comprehensive? That's absurd. --mav 02:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Where did I write that it's the only indicator I use? It's an important 'first impression' indicator, but of course one has to read the article to be more certain. Of course getting a PhD in the related area would help as well, but we have to draw a line somewhere...:p --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The copyright status of some images is unclear or unacceptable. In particular:
    • South African copyright reserves images for 50 years if taken by the government, and the Architects of Apartheid image was definitely taken before 1955, in fact it must have been taken sometime around 1945-46 by the people who are in the photo. I have seen the Sharpeville Massacre, Soweto Riots, and South African Miners images in so many places that I would have a hard time believeing they are anything but fair or free use. They are in EVERY text book on South African history in South Africa. Páll 20:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Copyright doesn't work that way. Just because everyone and their dog uses an image doesn't mean it's out of copyright, it could just mean that there's widespread copyright infringement going on. And fair use isn't a type of copyright license. It's a defense allowing use in what would otherwise be an infringing situation. Fair use must be considered on a case-by-case basis: there's no such thing as a blanket "fair use" decision.
      • If Image:Architects of apartheid.jpg is really more than 50 years old, and if South African law says that images that old are no longer copyrighted, and if the law applies, then the proper tag for it is {{PD}}
      • I've researched the copyright status of the Soweto riots photo, and added some notes to its description page, Image:Soweto_Riots.jpg. The copyright has now gone back to Sam Nzima, the photographer, and he has made efforts to collect royalties. I think it should be in the article because it's such an important, powerful, and well known image in the history of South Africa, but I'm afraid it can only be used under fair use.--Bcrowell 21:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Guns N' Roses

Partial self-nom.This article was previously nominated and it failed because some people considered that the history section was too short. This has been fixed. More than five paragraphs of additional information has been added, as well as new photos. The article has all the qualities for being a featured article. References, lenght, pictures, point of view. If you compare any heavy metal band article in wikipedia with this one, you will see a great difference. This article looks extremely profesional. It should be a Featured Article. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, comprehensive well written article. Should be an interesting read. Marine 69-71 01:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is way too fannish, especially the lead, which reads like liner notes or material from a fan's web page. There are no inline citations, which I think are pretty important when you're stating that people are heroin addicts, threatened to kill other people, etc. For instance, "Members of the crew at the time even stated that Slash had to be carried on to the stage by a group of people and that he often passed out after the concerts ended." Which members of the crew? Where can this statement be verified? Or this: "His excessive elusiveness has led to several stories that claim that he is suffering from serious bipolar disorder." Is there any way to verify this statement that he's mentally ill? Almost all the photos are claimed to have been used under fair use, and Rose.JPG has no legal information. The article has essentially no critical discussion of the band's music. Were there any themes that were important in their songwriting? How does their music compare stylistically with other heavy metal bands' music? --Bcrowell 01:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. What Bcrowell said was right: the the article in general, but especially the lead, is on the "fannish" side. I am not one that complains about hidden citations, but I would like to see much more referencing. This article has a lot of potential, but I don't think it's there quite yet. My suggestion would be to get it copyedited by someone who is relentless at it (Bishonen might actually be willing to help if you ask her nicely), do a peer review, and go from there. It will get there; you just need to work a little more on it. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 04:57, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I didn't even make it past the first sentence before POV became an issue. The rest of the article didn't improve upon that issue. I remember I objected to this article last time because there was no singles discography (a standard on even stubbed artist articles); there still isn't one here. --FuriousFreddy 06:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Ed Wood, Jr.

  • This is an excellently contructed article on a cult figure.
  • Doesn't seem to omit anything important.
  • Is concise and comprehensive.
  • Provides information researched from several non-internet sources.
  • Appropriate use of pictures.
  • Fleshy bibliography/filmography sections, which don't just consist of long lists of titles.
  • Plenty of links to other appropriate articles, which have also been written well.
  • Would make a refreshing change from having other more famous Hollywood personalities in the Featured Article slot.
  • Comment. Nominated by anon 130.209.6.40. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. No references. Article is fairly short and half of it is a giant list (Filmography and Bibliography) sections. This should go to PR first. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object--for now. Lack of references and detail in places. However, this article is well-written and looks to be well on its way to FA status. Edeans 02:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Kurt Cobain

Not a self-nom, I stumbled across this article a little while ago and thought it was pretty good except for the lead and the bit about the supposed murder. I cleaned both those up, added some inline citations and I now think its ready to be featured. Tuf-Kat 07:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support- Artical is well written. --ZeWrestler 12:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object given the number of really good biographies available like Come As You Are: The Story of Nirvana and Cobains own journals I think alot biographical detail could be added to this article including the time before nirvana, his health problems, his influences and attitudes toward the changes in his life. Given all the press coverage of the murder theory this could potentially also be a seperate section. All the images have sketchy copyright information, for example I think the claim for fair use of Image:Kurt Cobain BW.jpg would be a lot stronger if it was the Rolling Stone cover rather than this verion which gives no credit to the artist or sign of the origin.--nixie 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Your suggestion has been taken and made. The image was replaced with Image:RollingstovecoverCobain.jpg.
      • The rest of the images have the same problem, also the image problem was not by only objection.--nixie 05:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The situation on the talk page about Category:Murder victims was never resolved, and needs to be decided upon first. This is a serious problem with the NPOV status of the article and should be taken into consideration. -- LGagnon 19:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've rebrought this up on the talk page. Anybody interested in the discussion, go there. Tuf-Kat 01:56, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Brilliant article though its grammar needs improvement. Cedars 01:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. 01:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - while a very good start, there is much more to be said. As nixie says, there are good biographies out there to be used and cited to fill the article out. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Multiple sclerosis

This appears to be a relatively comprehensive, well researched and referenced article exemplifying the best of Biocrawler. Whig 08:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. While being comprehensive, the article presently has a number of shortcomings that should be addressed before it is featured. (1) It has no references to recent & thorough scientific review articles, a bit of a "must" for a tricky disease like MS. (2) The section "Cause" completely bypasses significant recent evidence on EBV, Th1/Th2 imbalance etc that should be written here. (3) Charcot's clinical triad is missing, as well as a reference to his work on MS. (4) The section "emotional aspects" is unwikified. I'm quite willing to cooperate in raising the article's standard, but I'll need help. Sadly we have no wiki-neurologists who could review the article for us and offer input. JFW | T@lk 09:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Not being a neurologist myself, I lack the knowledge of the up-to-the-moment research, and I think it would be a useful inclusion if someone can provide this with appropriate references. With that said, all encyclopedic content is likely to be a bit "dated" and it isn't really possible to incorporate every current strand of research in every medical article. If this is the principal blocking issue, I don't know what we can do except ask for help from someone with specific expertise in the field. As for the wikification of various sections, I'll be glad to help in any way you think needed. Whig 19:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    In regard to point (2) EBV and MS, this study has apparently been retracted. [1] (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/293/20/2466) Also in regard to point (2) Th1/Th2 imbalance, what I have been able to find is inconclusive at present. Do we really need to include withdrawn studies and inconclusive causal theories in order to make this article featurable? Whig 05:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    They messed up the data, but when it was corrected the hypothesis was still supported. There are numerous other studies that found EBV seroconversion associated with MS incidence.
    Presently the "Cause" paragraph treats the immune system like a black box. There must be data on HLA linkage and other predispositions (see OMIM 126200 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=126200) for example - HLA-DRB1*1501-DQB1*0602 is associated). JFW | T@lk 07:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I've added a Reference section with Readings including clinical reviews which can be moved up above Readings if used as references for this article. I can email some UpToDate articles if anyone wishes to help if you email me (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Emailuser&target=Petersam). Petersam 06:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The "treatment" section is not ideally structured as a long bullet point list; it makes it look messy and encourages unstructured editing (cf. "Trivia" sections in some articles). I think paragraphs with subsections would make more sense.--Eloquence* 15:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object- for the reasons stated above. However, it is a good article that with some improvement could become a FA- I'll see what I can work on! Flcelloguy Give me a note! Desk 02:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Lead is too short. Stub section: Signs and symptoms - expand. List secton: Treatment - transform into normal text. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Battle of the Coral Sea

Very well-written article; comprehensive without extraneous detail; excellent flow & style. NPOV throughout, appropriate supporting images and well-structured body. - Offtherails 01:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Scimitar 22:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor Objection- First, the lead section is too short- maybe another paragraph? Second, there are too few inline cites (only one), and it is not formatted correctly- try getting more references and putting more in-text citations. Otherwise a well-written article; I will be happy to support in the future! Flcelloguy Give me a note! </sup> 22:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Inadequate references. I haven't read A Record of Activities in Cooktown During World War II, but I don't believe it provided much of the material in the article. ;) We also need evaluations of the battle by historians in the field- names and quotes. Also, the tone is very narrative and not very encyclopedic: I'm thinking of phrases like "mindful that his primary role was to protect Port Moresby" and "Their fears were realised". Mark1 02:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Quite short, one reference. At best, a bottom line of what passes for FAC in our current standards. And plese remove the external link from body and transform into a note. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Inadequate references and inline citation. - Taxman Talk</sup> 14:50, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Pope John Paul II

An anon user nominated this article but neither created this page nor put the FAC tags correctly, so I went ahead and did it. Flcelloguy 22:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two things to mention:
1) A user signed his (her?) four tildes ( ~~~~ ) before the title (===[[Pope John Paul II]]===) of this section. I'm not sure what he meant, but I went ahead and removed it.
2) Originally I was not planning on pushing for this article. I simply noticed that an anon user had attempted to put the article up for FAC but had done it incorrectly. However, after actually reading the article and reading the comments, I have decided to push for the article, since it seems like the anon user isn't coming back. Thanks for all the comments and suggestions, and I'll be getting to them over the next week or so. (I'm travelling over the next week and might have limited computer access, so bear with me please!) Thanks! Flcelloguy 02:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have now added a few paragraphs for the "Health" section, though the sub-article ( {{main|Health of Pope John Paul II}} ) is kept. In addition, I have expanded the introduction (lead) section to make it more inclusive- it is now 3 paragraphs long. Thanks to everyone for their suggestions and comments, and I'll be working on the rest soon! Flcelloguy 02:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Due to above, my Support is now full. JDG 16:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More Recent Update: Sorry it's been taking me so long, I've been busy cleaning up competition... Anyways, after re-reading the article for the umpteenth time, I would have to agree with some of them- the focus on death, too little focus on S. America, etc. These are major changes and will take some time to fix, depending on how busy I am (feel free to help!). Thus, I plan to take this article to peer review after I'm done fixing all the objections and then re-submitting it as a FAC. However, feel free (as always) to put more input here. Thanks everyone for your comments and suggestions! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update: All minor objections (such as fixing confusing uses of John Paul to John Paul II and the "Health" section) have been taken care of. Thanks to everybody for their comments and suggestions. I will be taking a look at the rest of the comments/suggestions over the next few days, and will get to them soon! Thanks! Flcelloguy 02:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Comprehensive, NPOV. Could do a better job of using references to back up its statements, and may focus too much on his recent death and the possibility of beatification. --Bcrowell 22:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but I would suggest tightening up the intro a bit. Everyking 22:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support (now Full Support, see Above. JDG). Bring the Health section back into this article and blow away the sub-article. Biocrawler is becoming a click fest. The current activism in favor of short core-topic articles with many sub-articles is very misguided. When you sit down to read a major topic article you don't want to be chasing down scores of sublinks and subsublinks-- you want all the relevant info in that article. This is what Enc. Brit and almost all serious ref. works do, and it's for a reason. You put all or most of the detailed stuff in far-flung sub-articles that far fewer readers visit and you've succeeded in what: reverse-dissemination of information. JDG 00:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Most Biocrawlerns support sub-articles, and the idea that we shouldn't shove a huge amount of text down the reader's throat at once, though. So I don't think that's a fair thing to ask. Everyking 04:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm only asking for the restoration of a single section. I'm not sure where you get "most Biocrawlerns". Has there been a vote? I'm not sure if Flcelloguy is actually pushing for this article such that he's making changes in line with comments here. If he is and he wants my particular support, he'll restore Health. I won't oppose if he fails to, though. JDG 05:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please see above note. Thanks! Flcelloguy 02:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Abiding by Summary style is an FA requirement and bringing all the content at Health of Pope John Paul II would imbalance the article toward the later part of his life even more than the article already is. --mav
This is really a requirement for FA? The first sentence of the link you give says "In order to make Biocrawler maximally useful to a diverse readership some people believe that articles should be written in summary style." That certainly doesn't sound like something that has risen to policy status. I really think it's time for a major vote on article length. I think a 32kb limit would be extremely detrimental and I'm sure many agree. JDG
See item 6 at Biocrawler:What is a featured article. Summary style does not require articles to abide by the 32KB limit, it just says that once an article reaches that length of prose it may be getting too long. As is, this article has less than 34KB of prose and since it covers a very important topic it should be easy to justify even more prose than there is already. So long as it is written well and stays tightly on-topic. --mav 20:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I have now written a few paragraphs for the "Health" section, though it still links to the "Main" article on his health. Flcelloguy 02:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Much of this article is excellent work. But its organization, and the lengthy treatment of the relevant sections, make it seem as though the most important aspects of his papacy were his death and its aftermath. I also think the discussion of his ecclesiastical career in Poland needs a bit more development (and context), that his positions on social and economic justice need more exposition, and that the discussion of his political influence needs a bit more development and structure. Monicasdude 03:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, Monicasdude! I just have two comments/questions: 1) When you say you think the emphasis is on his death and aftermath, are you proposing that we cut down on the death/funeral sections? Most of those are already two or three short paragraphs and have another "sub" article of their own. Second, could you please tell me which sections of the articles you feel need improvement? That would be a great help. Thanks very much! Flcelloguy Give me a note! Desk 02:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I wouldn't agree with moving the whole health article back into the main piece, but a small summary would be better than a heading and a link. Other than that, a worthy FA page. Harro5 11:38, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with Harro5 regarding the health section. JYolkowski // talk 17:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - An article on such an important topic needs to really shine. So far, this article has several issues I think need to be addressed before that can be achieved:
    1. Lead section is too short for an article this size on such an important topic. Condensing the ==Overview== section (which is the purpose of a lead section, btw) and merging the current lead section will accomplish that.
Please see above- I've now expanded lead section, and I'll take a look at the "Overview" section soon. Thanks! Flcelloguy 02:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    1. TOC is overwhelming and there are way too few inline cites.
    2. Having a heading with the only content under it being a link is appalling. Add a paragraph or two about his declining health to the death subsection and rename that to reflect the change.Then make the link to Health of Pope John Paul II inline instead of it being a main article link.
Done. (Again, please see above) Flcelloguy 02:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    1. The ==Other== section is just a list of what looks like miscellaneous trivia. What is its purpose?
I'll be looking at the rest of the suggestions soon- thanks everyone! Flcelloguy 02:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you that the "Other" section is just trivia. The only one that looks like it could be incorporated into the article is the first one about "Totus Tuus". Would there be any problems if I incorporated that one and deleted the rest of the section? Thanks. Flcelloguy Give me a note! Desk 02:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    1. Confusing use of 'John Paul' instead of 'John Paul II' in some parts of the article.
    • Fixed- all "John Paul"s now say "John Paul II". Flcelloguy 02:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    1. Organization: Having ==Biography== and ==Life's work== are odd as the major level 2 sections. One's life work *is* a very large part of their biography. Nixing these level 2s and finding a better way to organize would help. As is, the article does not seem to have a cohesive structure (moving this material out of its current level 2 section would likely fix this).
    I hope you are not advocating abandoning of lv 2 sections? I added them to this article some time ago - although they have been much changed by later editors. I generally find 2nd level sectioning very helpful. Perhaps sth should be moved from one lv1 section to another, but leveling the sections would do more harm then good, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    1. Over-concentration on declining health, death and funeral in the ==Biography== section. As is, those aspects take up half of that section (this could be fixed by reorganization under a different level 2 heading or by condensing).
  • Aside: I was surprised to see that the further reading, notes, external links, references, and interwiki links have a very significant impact on the physical size of this article and that without them this article isn't nearly as large as it seems from the page size warning - 34KB (just a note for anybody who is thinking about objecting due to the article's apparent size). --mav
  • Support- The article is very informative, and extremely NPOV. --User:SVera1NY
    • The above vote is this user's only edit ever. --mav
  • Object Very little focus on Latin America, though this region is home to the world's largest Catholic population. (Maybe I went through this article way too fast, but is Liberation Theology even mentioned?) Also, the section on "criticism" should be woven in with the rest of his text. History actually contains far more many shades of grade than the picture presented by those who seem to imagine there to be only two perspectives on the past ("supporters" and "critics"). 172 06:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The organization needs work. The contentless health subsection needs to be expanded or turned into a simple see also. The image gallery also looks as though it is missing two pictures. Good articles really shouldn't have an other section and the factoids listed there should be merged into the prose. - SimonP 18:21, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Health section now done (see above). Thanks! Flcelloguy 02:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... I've tried fixing the gallery, but it's not working. I've posted a help comment on the help desk. Any ideas? Thanks! Flcelloguy | Give me a note! | Desk 16:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Agree with most of Mav and other users' objections. Several days ago I put this article in Polish Biocrawlerns Notice Board to do 'close to PR' section, just because I don't think it is FAC ready yet. Close, true, better then several of our current FAs, true, but not something I'd nominate just yet. Although it is close enough so that with one-two editors willing to put some time and adress those objections we can make it a FA in that voting run yet :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Witkacy 22:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, I agree with the criticisms about the balance given to different portions of his life, too little in some aresa too much in others. Also, what is up with the 31 external links to obituaries?--nixie 06:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I, too, personally felt a bit overwhelmed at the large number of external links when I first read the article. However, should we delete some of those? I'm a bit hesistant because now that we have so many links, how do we choose which ones to keep and which ones to delete? Thanks, Flcelloguy Give me a note! Desk 02:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All the links seem to link to a particular media organisations direcoty of links about PJPII, I'd delete them all except the criticisms and the ones specifically labelled as directories.--nixie 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Done. Flcelloguy | Give me a note! | Desk 16:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The late Pope looks good but the lead is a bit long. Dralwik 17:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Pope John Paul II was a great man.Yo Mama 5000
    • But this article is not. I would even go as far as to say that in it's present form it offendes the pope - he deserves so much better. Please, people, don't let your admiration for the men get in the way of this review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Cleopatra VII of Egypt

I nominate this article because it is very well-written and informative. Matjlav 18:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. Cleopatra has had a huge impact on cluture, and the section in this article is simply too short at present. --Scimitar 18:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, there's more controversy surrounding her death than this article mentions. I saw a documentary on discovery which suggested she was murdered. This article doesn't mention this option as well as the fact there was no snake in the mausoleum and that she wasn't the type to commit suicide and so on. There's enough notable speculations to report in a section on her death. Mgm|(talk) 19:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Refer to peer review This could be an FA, but it doesn't seem comprehensive enough. As one of the most famous women in history, there should be more here. slambo 19:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object--no references. Meelar (talk) 20:39, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object For all of above reasons Giano | talk 21:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object- please use references and citations. Flcelloguy 15:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Agriculture

Good thorough treatment, but not overly detailed for such an umbrella topic. Very strong History section. Partial self-nom. JDG 00:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. It's a good summary for such a vast topic, but it needs a longer lead section and the environmental problems and policy sections should be turned into prose. - SimonP 16:52, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I agree with Simon P here. Generally, it's an interesting read, but the Environmental Problems, Policy and Methods sections need expanding. They're basically just lists at the moment. Perhaps you could start off with including small summaries of each (e.g. "aeroponics is..."). Extraordinary Machine 18:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. As well as the objections listed above, I would like to see specific source citations inline. I have marked it up accordingly. --Theo (Talk) 19:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Overall, it's a good article, but I must object since I don't really see any mention of how the finished goods are transported; a major part of farming is getting the product to buyers since failure to do so means no income from the product that is created. In my eyes, Agriculture isn't just planting and growing, it's also selling and transporting the finished product. For example, the North American "wheat rush" every fall can generate revenues large enough to subsidize some small railroads for an entire year. Many farmers in America join together into co-ops to market and transport their crops to buyers. The Canadian Wheat Board was setup as an agency that would handle much of the marketing of various grains across Canada. There's more that could be said, and I think it needs a mention here. slambo 19:46, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object too many lists, stats are not up to date (and I'd prefer to see stats from the FAO than the USDA), the format is bad in places, the list of methods and see alsos needs pruning to only the immediately relevant links, there is very little information on livestock (should have a section similar to crops), there needs to be a decent discussion of pest and disease management and trade of agricultural goods and futures, environmental policy and problems need to be prose.--nixie 22:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Far to broad a subject to be covered by one article. Each small diversity could be long article in itself e.g. "Wheat Production in East Anglia", or "Agriculture in Ancient Egypt". Not too mention the minefield of "Genetic crops" The word agriculture can only really be a vague dictionary definition. Agriculture should be a category not an article. Not voting on this as my comments are not really actionable. Giano | talk 12:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, folks, you're right. I see now that as good as the existing text is, a number of other areas need to be fleshed out, foremost among them Livestock, as nixie says. But I disagree vehemently with Giano. When writing for WikiP I always keep kids in mind, your typical 12 or 14 year old who was just hit with a homework assignment. Poor kid needs to do a writeup on Agriculture, surfs optimistically over to the best new reference work in the world and is met with "Please use the Agriculture-related links below.", which links lead off to endlessly detailed, often obscure sub-aspects. No, we need strong entries for high--level topics like this. This movement to severely limit article size and throw everything relevant into sub-articles is downright poisonous. This is an encyclopedia, not a vast index-finger workout room. JDG 20:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Further comment Children today are not told "go find out what is agriculture" even at a young age thay are given a defined (excuse the pun) field to research, e.g what do cows eat to make milk, what are daddy cows called, why does mummy cow need a calf once a year, etc. etc. etc. That is the detail that needs to be covered on every aspect of agriculture if you are writing for children, or even adults who want to know more. Then one can cover more complex issues calving indexes, feed conversion rates. Yields per hectare. Fertiliser nitrogen rates per hectare to improve protein yields in milling wheat, the perceived detrimental effects of those rates on the environment, before one even approaches the history of the subject, the projected future of the subject, it's effects on the landscape. Agriculture in the political field of the 21st century (very relevant in Europe). The effects of irregation in agriculture on the economy of a country (think Egypt, Aswan damm) and so on. Giano | talk 20:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, being a parent of a 10-year-old, I've heard and helped with many of the homework assignments that have been assigned this year. Sometimes the question is "What is TOPIC?" Other times, it's "Find 5 facts about TOPIC." For questions like these, I showed my son how to do a quick search on WP to find an answer. So, yes, we do need to think about children accessing the site for homework with broad questions. However, we do need to stick to certain conventions when nominating articles for featured status. I don't think these two goals are at odds with each other since brilliant prose can be, and often is, accessible to younger readers. slambo 17:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Beowulf

  • Vote For. Nice Read. Very Interesting. 4.238.245.162 23:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think the storyline and translations sections need to be split, and we can probably do without an excerpt as well as long as the Project Gutenberg link is referred to. Mgm|(talk) 11:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Doesn't appear comprehensive. An article on this length might be sufficient for a more minor work, but Beowulf is important enough to warrant a more detailed review. Everyking 12:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is in quite a good state, but it's nowhere near long enough to be featured. Much, much more could be written about such an important work, and this article is not yet comprehensive. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I fixed 4.238.245.162's nomination of this article. As an inexperienced user, s/he did not know that it also had to be posted on Featured article candidates. I did not know whether to delete the nomination or to complete it, but I chose the latter, because the information is OK, and as far as the length and coverage are concerned the page has been quite static for a very long time (most contributions during the last months have been quite minor edits). Hopefully, this discussion can inspire further work on the article.--Wiglaf 15:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, not comprehensive. Neutralitytalk 19:45, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, not comprehensive. Lead is too short and fails to even summarize what the work is about. The excerpt from the work itself is basically filler to cover for the fact that this article doesn't have nearly enough depth on the subject. --Michael Snow 20:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Lead is too short, prose seems bad (lots of single-sentence paras). Article is rather short, so I doubht it is comprehensive enough for our standards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object there seem to be few references, and I'm not sure what they cover, please consider more texts or explain which ones covered all the material. Also please condsider inline references such as footnotes. Mozzerati (signed 20:24, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC))
  • Object - can't say much about detail of the piece, but would strongly advise converting inline numbered external links to use Template:Note and Template:Ref. I also think that more notes need to added to source specific info, for instance to indicate the source of where J.R.R. Tolkien thought a particular translation was bad. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. It needs to be expanded, as I have seen more comprehensive summaries of Beowulf - as a poem, as a cultural archetype and as an example of Anglo-Saxon language - in GCSE (UK - aimed at 14-16 year olds) textbooks. It is just not yet good enough --Batmanand 15:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, I agree, It's not comprehensive.
  • Object. Not comprehensive, and relatively superficial. Monicasdude 01:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Half-Life 2

Self-nom. Me and some editors have been fixing this article up and now I believe it is worthy for FA status. I tried to incorporate everything that was said while it was peer reviewed, and I think we did a good job. Thunderbrand 04:04, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: could you add something about how many copies of the game have been sold (preferably mentioned in the lead)? I thought I once heard this had been one of the fastest-selling games in PC history...Harro5 04:48, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I added it to the lead. The only thing I can find is how many were sold from Nov-Jan, and Valve hasn't said anything new lately. Thunderbrand 04:58, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Primarily because assertions are mostly unsourced. For example, what were the positive reviews mentioned in the Lead? Who "feel[s] that it is very frustrating to only learn the story in small bits and pieces throughout the game"? I also dislike the title of the ==Notes== section; conventionally, we use that heading for footnotes, but it also gives little clue as to what the section addresses. Is it about ==Player perspective==? --Theo (Talk) 23:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, I tried to fix it up as best I could by what you said. Thunderbrand 00:40, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The changes address my concerns. --Theo (Talk) 01:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Contains empty and very short sections. The 1984 comparison is original essaying and speculation, as is the part about Half-Life 3. Many references are made to "some players" without specifying who they are and providing references. There is hardly any information about the gameplay, and particularly too little information about the Source engine and how its much-hyped physics powers were applied. The "controversies and criticisms" section should be prose, not a bullet list. There should also be more information about the game's development history and other things surrounding it besides controversy, such as marketing/hype and reception by reviewers. - Fredrik | talk 21:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Much of the infomation you mentioned was moved to new articles or already exist in other articles, such as Source engine, since the page was becoming way too long. Thunderbrand 22:15, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
There should be summaries to replace what was moved. Fredrik | talk 23:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I summarized the weapons section, and the other sections that were moved already have summaries. Thunderbrand 23:58, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. (sorry for the rather extreme delay in voting) A good start, but clearly not FA-quality yet. What bothers me most is the disorganized plot section; the plot summary itself should be more comprehensive, and there should be less room for speculative 1984 comparisons. Right now, the summary itself also lacks cohesion in my view (A few examples: i) does it make sense to mention the G-Man to people who know nothing about HL, just to say Freeman then finds himself in City 17, without explaining the G-Man's role at all, or reporting his words; ii) "it seems that the the massive energy discharge caused by the "resonance cascade" " is ambiguous wording. What level is this written on: does "it seem" so to Freeman, the general population of the virtual world, or is it the article's authors' speculation?).
The Setting could easily be converted into flowing prose, and describe the actual setting as a whole, rather than simply compare it to 1984. The very choice of 1984 as only comparison strikes me as somewhat POV; I mean, why not compare it to Doom III, for instance (I'm not saying that's what should be done, I'm just giving an example of how arbitrary the choice is, as HL2's setting is reminiscent of many "post-apocalyptic/post-invasion" works. The 1984 speculation, if it has to stay, needs to be turned into prose and provide even more specific hints (The Civil Protection seem distinctly like the Thought Police, reinforced when Freeman witnesses the storming of a flat. doesn't say much). The best would be to quote authoritative reviewers mentionning the "Orwellian" atmosphere, or drawing comparisons to 1984 (I know there have been). What about the Eastern Europe reference, where does this come from?
I also feel there are too much reminiscences of the personal authors' views and comments (examples: which is, appropriately enough, referred to as the Seven Hours War). More of this: The general atmosphere of the game has a distinct totalitarian and authoritarian feel that makes it similar even without the specific details mentioned above and inferred from in-game., However, the Gravity Gun survives (probably due to its zero-point nature) and is made incredibly powerful - Sentences like this (which are equivalent to describing the highly subjective "look and feel" of the game) border on personal comment (even if the game developers' intent was clearly to produce the effect described) should be avoided if possible.
The "Notes on the narrative" section, while interesting should stay even more factual and present less conjecture, unless it can be shown by quotes that the questioning of the narrative technique of the game presented in taht section reflects what major reviewers thought. (consider: Although these are certainly intentional devices on the part of Valve Software, [...] It could be said in Half-Life that the player's bewilderment is meant to mirror Gordon's [...] . By the opening of Half-Life 2, however, Gordon has proven that he can survive in a strange and hostile environment, and should therefore be at least somewhat more level-headed and inquisitive., These complaints, of course, only prove that the game's designers have successfully [...].) The paragraph about the Gordon's not aging could be reduced to a single-sentence mention, as the rest is fan speculation; the stasis theory does not follow from the endings of the games.
Too many microsections; the "Weapons" and "Enemies" sections, for example, need serious help. Ask yourself if it is worth making an extra section just to say many of the weapons from the first game return, with some new ones. At best briefly mention both enemies and wepaons from Half Life make "comebacks" in HL2.
The "Multiplayer" section likewise needs some cleanup; the paragraph about fan disappointment needs to be reduced and stay factual (However, there are arguably just as many players for whom the novelty of annihilating enemies by blasting them with barrels, computer monitors and even cars will never be exhausted., It is common for a player to immediately blame some factor beyond his or her control for a defeat. — personal comments like this need to go).
The "Game engine" section does not seem satisfactory for a game so highly praised, specifically for its physics and game engine. The confusing mention of Steam being used to upgrade the engine, doesn't cut it. (Additionally, when coupled with Steam, the engine can be easily upgraded to include many new graphical technologies. One such example is high dynamic range imaging [...], if they used Steam to upgrade the engine to add HDRI, say it clearly, and say when they did it; from the wording right now, it is not unequivocal wether they did it, plan to, or just could possibly do it).
I only have one word for the section about Steam: quotes. Quote reviews, mention and source specific problems users have had with the system. Without sources, this section is useless. The "Controversies" and criticism quotes could also use some external links to media websites (specifically about the code leak, and legal battle with Vivendi). It would be nice if it were turned to prose too. The HL3 paragraph is pure speculation. I hope I wasn't too harsh, and my comments will be useful to help get this to FA level. User:Phils/sig 19:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - The "note" template used in the "Notes" section is designed to be used in conjunction with the "ref" template, so that the "^" "symbols" in front of each note, links back to the noted text. Otherwise they don't work, this should be fixed. Paul August ☎ 20:18, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Hampshire

Partly a self-nomination, as myself and the UK geography WikiProject have masively expanded the article over the past couple of weeks. From the references I've run out of things to add, so I think the article is pretty comprehensive. Compare with Dorset, which is already featured. Joe D (t) 21:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Very interesting to read. Meelar (talk) 21:07, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I don't have a strong opinion about this article, and that is probably because in general it is just flat to read. There isn't anything wrong with it as such, it's just that Hampshire isn't that interesting a place. Harro5 21:23, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Nothing on sport. I think there should be a section on that. Southampton and Portsmouth have football clubs. Hambledon is important to the history of cricket. Hampshire County Cricket Club is at the Rose Bowl. There must be loads of sailing and yachting with the Solent nearby. Also, the picture of "Southampton from Netley Hospital" looks like a lot of grass and some trees - I thought Southampton was an urban area, jguk 22:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, done (except the image caption, which is correct, though the foreground is dominated by the hospital grounds). Joe D (t) 23:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • You can't see Southampton in that picture (unless you expand its size greatly). It's a misleading caption that should be removed - or perhaps better the whole picci could be removed. It's still not in the same league as Mumbai yet, jguk 19:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object on several grounds:
    • Source citation is inadequate. For example, I recall that only the western half of the county was occupied by Jutes so I wish to check the assertion that the county was occupied by Jutish tribes. Theo (Talk)
  • Response: Reference and filmography added 6-6-05.
    I have split the endnotes from the references. It feel that more inline source citations would be better but insisting on rigourous citation seems inappropriate. --Theo (Talk) 07:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Significant omissions include:
      • Culture including sport (already noted by jguk above), educational institutions (e.g. University of Southampton, and Winchester College), theatres (e.g. the Nuffield Theatre company developed West End shows), and fine art (e.g. Millais was a native, and Lowry was a regular visitor and painted local scenes).
      • East Hampshire is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
      • Famous residents including Gilbert White (Natural History of Selborne), Captain Oates, Benny Hill, and Craig David.
      • Historically, the Mayflower, the Titanic, and Supermarine (manufacturers of the Spitfire aircraft and flying boats).
      • The Boat Show.
      • Basingstoke as a financial centre, not just a traditional market town.
      • "Hampshire Hog" as the nickname for those born in the county.
Theo (Talk) 23:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, added several of these and will look into adding theatres and people tommorow. I'm not sure whether the Titanic should go on the main article, but I'll certainly add that and other notable ships to History of Hampshire later. Can you clarify the Mayflower connection? I'd never heard of a connection and the Mayflower article doesn't mention Hampshire. Joe D (t) 23:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      The loss of the Titanic is a defining moment in Hampshire's history because it involved the loss of so many residents of Southampton (the county town). The Mayflower originally departed Southampton; this is stated in that article. --Theo (Talk) 07:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for some quibbles. It seems odd for an English county's area and other measurements to be given in square miles first, then kilometers (the infobox only gives kilometers). Also, I assume the source for the demographics in the infobox is Office for National Statistics & Hampshire County Council, but that should be specifically cited in some way. The first sentence under "Physical geography" is odd -- is that a geological use of categories? (also why is that section "physical geography" but the main article "geology"? I suggest sticking with one or the other) And the second sentence refers to a "weak" variety of clay, which I guess uses some meaning of "weak" I'm not familiar with. There are an awful lot of statistics under "economy" that aren't cited, but should be (also under "transport"). Tuf-Kat 23:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • What's odd about miles? They're more commonly used than metric for measuring large distances. The sub-article of Physical geography is partly named such as a standardisation of the sub-article names across counties, and partly because the only other physical geography in the section is climate, for which there isn't enough to say for an extra article, or to split the section into geology and climate sections. The first sentence of geology is simply saying Hampshire can be divided in two by what its geology and landscape are like, I'll try and think of a less ambiguous way to phrase it though. I'll go and change "weak" to "non-resistant" and link to the sources now. Joe D (t) 23:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree that a culture section should be added, universites should also be mentioned somewhere. The seascapes are lovely but don't really give an impression of the city areas or urban environment, the cathedral in that pic is compltetly obscured by a large tree, so you have one from a different angle. Also, what's the sifnificance of the yellow shaded regions on the district map?--nixie 04:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak support I'm sure the length can be expanded.Object Agree completely with nixie. Would also like to see average temperatures, rainfall; and the sports section expanded.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 11:58, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments: I've added stats to the climate paragraph and changed some photos around to hopefully give a better idea of the towns and cities, but since I don't live in Hampshire and only rarely pass through it I don't have that many photos of my own to use, so am mainly relying on what other people have uploaded already. I've added a little culture, but haven't added Nuffield because I don't have and can't find a reference for its notability. The yellow areas are independent unitary authorities as it says in the list below the map. Update: I've also added a sentence linking to the universities in the settlements section, which I think is probably all that's needed on this topic for this page. Joe D (t) 16:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Joachim Gottschalk

A once-famous but now obscure German actor who defied the Nazis for love and family. - Wellreadone 23:33, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Object No references. Not comprehensive: the article is almost exclusively about the circumstances leading to his death, with almost nothing on his acting career, not even a list of the movies he was in. Phrases like "his devoted fans" sound fannish. There is no copyright information on the photo; from what I understand about Nazi-era copyrights, this is a big can of worms.--Bcrowell 00:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Response: Reference and filmography added 6-7-05.
  • German Copyright Law -- Article 72

(1) Photographs and products manufactured in a similar way to photographs shall be protected, mutatis mutandis, by the provisions of Part I applicable to photographic works.

(2) The right afforded by paragraph (1) shall belong to the photographer.

(3) The right afforded by paragraph (1) shall expire 50 years after publication of the photograph, or if its first permitted public communication took place earlier, after the latter, but 50 years after its manufacture where the photograph has not been published or legally communicated in public within such period. The period shall be calculated in accordance with Article 69.

The photograph of Gottschalk was an "autogramme" postcard, signed by Gottschalk and given to a fan. Therefore, it was published more than 50 years ago.

Can anyone refer us to more info on Nazi-era copyrights? There used to be some at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocrawler_talk:Image_copyright_tags#WWII_Nazi_pictures, but it looks like it's gone, now. From what I recall, it was very complicated, with, e.g., two different laws applying to two different types of photographs, and complications because it was an empire rather than a single nation. This seems to be a FAQ, since I remember it coming up more than once before this (e.g. for blitzkrieg). --Bcrowell 03:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On German copyright, and the distinction between a "Lichtbild" (50y) and a "Lichtbildwerk" (life of author +70 or 80), see Template_talk:PD-Germany, that template's deletion discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biocrawler:Templates_for_deletion&oldid=14740340#Template:PD-Germany), and Biocrawler:Templates_for_deletion#Holding_Cell. Lupo 10:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is far, far short of being comprehensive. Look at some featured articles to see the kind of standard that's expected. Everyking 04:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Refer to peer review --nixie 04:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Interesting and sad story, but it does not meet the FA criteria. Giano | talk 15:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

History of the Ryukyu Kingdom

This article should be nominated. Very little has been published elsewhere on the rich history of the Ryukyu Kingdom. As it kind of overlaps with another article on Ryukyuan history: Ryukyuan history and Ryukyuans, some attention is also needed to bring the two articles under the same heading.

  • Object:Needs a map. Needs images. Needs references. Needs 3000 words. It's terrible, what's the mater with this place today? Giano | talk 18:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: 3000 words and references can be searched in libraries. We can all work on it. Map can be easily found on-line. Dunshi 19:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • strong object. Sorry, but there is a rather large amount of work needed before this article is FA-worthy. To start with: 1) there is no lead section. 2) there are no images. 3) cite your sources. 4) The The Origins of the Ryukyu Kingdom and its dynasties section is exactly one sentence and doesn't even list any of the dynasty names. 5) The External links section is longer than the rest of the article. Please review Biocrawler:What is a featured article before nominating articles in the future for FA status. slambo 19:19, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Compare this article to the content in History of the Grand Canyon area to get an idea of the comprehensiveness that is needed for a History of REGION article. slambo 19:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please, do not nominate articles that do not meet basic FA criteria. User:Phils/sig 19:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • refer to peer review for additional ideas. Not comprehensive enough to be a feature article. --Scimitar 20:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, refer to peer review or the article improvement drive.--nixie 00:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Are those Biocrawler mirror site links I see in the ext. links section? It looks like there's at least a few. Everyking 02:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object- Please write a more comprehensive article. Featured articles should offer an in-depth look at the topic and contain a lot more information and writing. Flcelloguy 03:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - Looks kind of sloppy, and needs a map.
[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 not