Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:26, 14 July 2012

Summary chart

Currently accepting requests from March 1 to March 31.

Tally may not be up to date; please do not use these tallies for removing a nomination according to criteria 1 or 3 above unless you have verified the numbers. The nominator is included in the number of supporters.

Nonspecific date 1

The Courageous class comprised three battlecruisers built for the Royal Navy during World War I. Nominally designed to support Admiral of the Fleet Lord John Fisher's Baltic Project, which was intended to land troops on the German Baltic Coast, ships of this class were fast but very lightly armoured with only a few heavy guns. To maximize their speed, the Courageous-class battlecruisers were the first capital ships of the Royal Navy to use geared steam turbines and small-tube boilers. The first two ships, Courageous and Glorious, were commissioned in 1917 and spent the war patrolling the North Sea. Their half-sister Furious was designed with a pair of 18-inch (457 mm) guns, the largest guns ever fitted on a ship of the Royal Navy, but was modified during construction to take a flying-off deck and hangar in lieu of her forward gun turret and barbette. All three ships were laid up after the end of the war and were rebuilt as aircraft carriers during the 1920s. (more…)

1 point since it was promoted 13 August 2010. Last warship TFA was 4 June and I've requested another for 21 August. I think that I've tweaked the blurb to cover the essentials, but am always happy to accept better ideas or phrasing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 2

Colonel Phạm Ngọc Thảo, also known as Albert Thảo (1922–1965), a major provincial leader in South Vietnam and infiltrator of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN), was a communist agent of the Vietminh and later the Vietnam People's Army. As the overseer of Ngo Dinh Nhu’s Strategic Hamlet Program in the early 1960s, he deliberately forced the program forward at unsustainable speeds, constructing poorly-equipped and poorly-defended villages, in order to foster rural resentment against the regime of President Ngo Dinh Diem, Nhu's elder brother. Thao was posthumously promoted by the ARVN to the rank of one–star general and awarded the title of Heroic war dead (Template:Lang-vi). After the Fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam War, the communist government awarded him the same title and paid war pensions to his family, claiming him as one of their own. (more...)

2 points for being a FA since 2007. While there have been military figures on the front page recently, I haven't seen anything for Vietnam, or the Far East in general. Unfortunately, no free image available.--Chimino (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose- War is overrepresented at TFA, and we have had a bunch of military articles in recent months. Maybe in a few months. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • On the other hand it's a non-Anglocentric topic, which is underrepresented. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Exactly. A non-Anglocentric Southeast Asian war topic is not readily available at FA now. Support. Oakley77 (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose No matter where he came from. Clear oppose because enough war articles had been featured on the main page recently.--GoP_TN 15:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? I only count one this month (July 2) and two at the beginning of last month (June 4 and June 6). Raul654 (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, only for the reason that the oppose votes seem nonsensical to me. By my count, warfare articles make up over 17% of the featured articles that have not yet been TFA. Based on the percentage of available featured articles that are about warfare, we would expect 5 warfare articles to run in a typical month. However, only 1 has run this month so far, and only 2 ran last month. That means that warfare has been significantly underrepresented recently. Suggestions like "wait a few months" makes no sense, as warfare articles run every month, so there will never be a time when a bunch haven't run recently. Also, my sense is that over the last couple months we have run less warfare articles than is typical, so now seems like the best time there will ever be to nominate a warfare article (in terms of there not haveing been many recent similar articles). Calathan (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support — an interesting article, non-Anglocentric, and it isn't simply about war but espionage as well.—A bit iffy (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support – I'm persuaded by the above arguments. Good work on the article. However, the hatnote looks like improper usage. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. References have been all screwed up since this “passed” by indef'd Leandrod (blocked for just this sort of poor referencing damage, too).
  • as-passed fac
  • as-is now

Article should be reverted to last August and fixed from there. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Date requests (5 max)

July 21

Eduard Streltsov (1937–1990) was a Soviet football forward who represented Torpedo Moscow and the Soviet national team. He was widely regarded as one of the Soviet Union's finest players, earning the nickname "the Russian Pelé". Streltsov joined Torpedo in 1953, aged 16, and made his international debut two years later; he then played a key role in winning the gold medal for the USSR at the 1956 Melbourne Olympics. Ranked among the top seven footballers in Europe during 1957, he was accused of rape the following year. Evidence against Streltsov was inconclusive, but government agents told him that he would be retained in the USSR's 1958 World Cup team if he confessed. When he did so, he was instead convicted and sentenced to twelve years in the Gulag. He was released after five, and received a hero's welcome from fans when he resumed his football career with Torpedo Moscow in 1965. In the first season of Streltsov's comeback, Torpedo won the Soviet Championship. He returned to the national team in 1966, and was twice named Soviet Footballer of the Year before he retired in 1970. Since Streltsov's death in 1990, Torpedo's home stadium has been renamed after him, and two statues depicting his likeness have been erected in Moscow. (more…)

3 points: this article on a controversial Russian soccer star was promoted in March last year, and gets 2 points for this date, which would have been his 75th birthday. Nothing similar in the last month, so far as I can see; the most recent in my interpretation was Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927, which was featured on 11 June. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Interesting figure with a landmark date.--Chimino (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support- Featuring a man that many will find interesting on his 75th birthday sounds like a good idea. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support- and how sad it is that he died several hours after his birthday.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support — interesting.—A bit iffy (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

July 22

π (or pi) is a mathematical constant that is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. It is approximately equal to 3.14159. π is an irrational number, which means that it cannot be expressed exactly as a ratio of two integers, although it is roughly approximated by 22/7. It is a transcendental number – a number that cannot be produced with a finite sequence of algebraic operations (sums, products, powers, and roots). The transcendence of π implies that it is impossible to solve the ancient challenge of squaring the circle with a compass and ruler. The digits in the decimal representation of π appear to be random. Because its definition relates to the circle, π is found in many formulae in trigonometry and geometry, such as the elegant formula, Euler's identity, ${\displaystyle e^{i\pi }+1=0.}$ It is also found in formulae from other branches of science, such as cosmology, number theory, statistics, fractals, thermodynamics, mechanics, and electromagnetism. (more...)

I believe this is 8 points: 4 for vital; 1 for underrepresented; 1 point for date relevance (22/7 approx=π); 2 for not recently on Main (last math article > 6 months ago?). --Noleander (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral Support- A fascinating article that is fairly easy to understand compared to most other math articles. Additionally, we get to use, in my opinion, one of the best images on WP. However, why not save this for Pi Day as opposed to using it on Pi Approximation Day? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There was some discussion of that on the article Talk page. The consensus was that pi day is US-only, and in keeping with WP's international appeal, we went with a more universal 22/7. --Noleander (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The pi day article says it's celebrated worldwide... Do we have stats on this? Axem Titanium (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm from the US, and I have heard of pi day; but non-US editors on the pi Talk page said that pi was not known to them. I think it may be due to the date conventions: in the US, March 14 is typically 3/14; whereas in Europe it is 14/3. --Noleander (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

!vote changed. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 14:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support, yet I hate math. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 2) Support Definitely a great article. I, however, think it should be spelled out as "Pi" somewhere in the blurb (like at the beginning; I don't think it's incredibly clear that's a link). Also, it'd be great if its approximation as 22/7 is mentioned somewhere. -- tariqabjotu 01:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I had 22/7 in the blurb, but took it out to get under the size limit. I'll try again to see if I can squeeze it in. --Noleander (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Not totally necessary to include 22/7 in the blurb in my opinion — it's a fairly peripheral point. (I'm the one who originally suggested 22 July, and it was a slightly tongue in cheek suggestion, though 22 July was not far away.)—A bit iffy (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It'd be nice if you could squeeze in a mention of why the article is being featured on that day. Reasoning behind requested TFA days should not be a piece of knowledge privy only to editors who frequent this page. I know not every TFA blurb can fit the mention in easily, but this one seems like it can. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If the consensus is to include 22/7 in the blurb, one simple approach is to reword the first sentence as follows:

π (or pi) is a mathematical constant – approximately equal to 22/7 – that is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.

I'm certain some mathematicians would express concerns about including 22/7 in the 1st sentence because that fraction is irrelevant from a pure math standpoint. --Noleander (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

But if 22/7 is the rationale to show it that day, it should be visible in the blurb, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps use wording like "sometimes approximated as 22/7" or "imprecisely approximated as"? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support A rare article about one of the most important constants numbers in mathematics and science.—A bit iffy (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support It's a great article and a great demonstration of the breadth of Misplaced Pages—something mathematical yet known to the public. There is no need to mention "22/7" as you would then have to explain "that's today's UTC date as written by some people"—subtlety is good, and readers with any interest in the topic will hear about the connection elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support – This is an excellent article on an important mathematical topic, so I wholeheartedly support it for front page presentation. Good job! Hey, will this be the first time an animated gif is featured on the front page? Regards, RJH (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No - there was one on the main page three weeks ago for starters. This image itself has already been on the main page back in 2007. I'd recommend using this version instead, which seems to me to work better at small size. Mogism (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• I was told there would be no math, but support anyway. I would also have thought Pi Day was the better choice, but Noleander's point about how Europe has its calendar all backwards is a good one! Resolute 04:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I was also told there would be pie with this article as well. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think Pi Day would be a better date. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• See discussion above. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Maths on the front page! Yay! Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - In an effort to make the blurb more interesting, I've removed the list of mathematicians associated with pi (a bit boring) and inserted Euler's identity. The layout of that math formula is not ideal ... a problem that plagues all WP articles with formulae. I'll see if I can make it more attractive. Thoughts on including that formula? --Noleander (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple of layouts:

π is included in a very famous math formula, Euler's identity, ${\displaystyle e^{i\pi }+1=0.}$ It is also found in formulae ...

π is included in a very famous math formula, Euler's identity, ${\displaystyle \scriptstyle e^{i\pi }+1=0.}$ It is also found in formulae...

--Noleander (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I would drop "math" out of that; it avoids the engvar argument and is largely redundant since the formula is clearly not anything else. Substituting it for "algebraic" would work too. GRAPPLE X 22:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Done ... removed the word "math" in the blurb. --Noleander (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nit picking a little: "although it is sometimes roughly approximated by 22/7" doesn't really need the ambiguous "sometimes". Regards, RJH (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Euler is fine with me, but please come up with something more descriptive than "very famous", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • How about "famously beautiful" or "elegant"? There are a bunch of sourced quotes to that effect on the Euler's identity page. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - The article is well-sourced and intriguing. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support We had no mathematic articles for more than one year or more as far as I know.--GoP_{TN 15:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)}
• Comment – Do we really need that misproportioned formula? Wouldn't e + 1 = 0 do the job? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the current one looks ugly.—A bit iffy (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Today's featured article requests