Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:55, 9 September 2005 editZscout370 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users59,497 editsm renom was too soon and there are many objections you need to answer still, mine included← Previous edit Revision as of 02:50, 10 September 2005 edit undoGordonWatts (talk | contribs)4,767 edits Rv Zscout370 to last version by Staxringold:RE your comments: I answered all your concerns; however, you must read FA-nom project page to see the answers: Follow procedure & let nomination proceed. GWNext edit →
Line 7: Line 7:
<!-- Add new nominations at the top of the list immediately below.--> <!-- Add new nominations at the top of the list immediately below.-->
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hopkins School}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hopkins School}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Fred Phelps}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Fred Phelps}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Howard Dean}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Howard Dean}}

Revision as of 02:50, 10 September 2005

Purge server cache

For the similar process page for good articles, see Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations.
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Commenting, etc

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

Shortcut
  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.


Featured article (FA) tools

Nominations

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hopkins School Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Fred Phelps Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Howard Dean Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Rosicrucian Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Martin Guerre

Bhutan

previous FAC

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:55, 27 December 2007.

Belarus

previous FAC (00:52, 10 December 2007)

Despite the long and confusing FAC last time around, I have made the following changes. First, I sought help of the League of Copyeditors and they fixed everything that some of yall seem to have problems with. I still have those Manual of Style issues stuck to the back of my mind, but I believe those were fixed too. Second, while not a major issue brought up, I removed all red links that were in the article. I expanded a little but more sections and added about 5-10 more sources to the article. I know someone said to use book sources and I added a few today. I am not sure if a further reading section is needed, but if one is asked for, I can make a list of one or two books I found useful. All links should be working this time, image issues sorted out during the copyedits. Hopefully, this effort was needed to make the article hopefully up to the standards Misplaced Pages begs its users to strive for. User:Zscout370 07:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Support The article is well-written and appears comprehensive and Zscout370 has been very prompt in fixing all of the MOS issues I noticed. Karanacs (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. It is definitely well-written and comprehensive but there are some WP:MOS violations that need to be taken care of.
    • full dates need to be wikilinked so that date preferences will work.
    • Need a non-breaking space between a number and its unit or qualifier (use {{nowrap}} or &nbsp ;); for example 9.85 million could be {{nowrap|9.85 million}}
    • There should not be external links embedded in the body of the article. There is currently one in the history section
    • You can probably combine the two-sentence paragraph on life expectancy with the paragraph before it.
    • You probably ought to specify whether dinner is the midday or evening meal. In the US, many southerners refer to the midday meal as dinner (with the evening meal being supper), and in the northern part of the US the evening meal is dinner.
    • the template on Belarus topics should be at the bottom of the article and not in a See Also section
    • Not all of your references are formatted properly. Some do not have publisher names (22-24, 28, 32, 33, etc)

Karanacs (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in my response, I was out of town for the holidays and forgot to leave a message on my talk page saying so. I saw the message that your sources don't specify which dinner it is, and that's fine. Karanacs (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Support - A few very minor things.

  • "is a landlocked country in Eastern Europe that borders Russia to the north and east" - You need some form of punctuation under the ref, as is done elsewhere in the article (comma, period, etc.)
  • I think ref 8 should go before the sound sample
  • There is half a section tucked under the second image on the "Demographics" section, which looks odd (for me)...perhaps move the image up a bit

— Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Update the demography graph, it only goes up to 2003.--Miyokan (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Taoism Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Salvatore Riina Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Division of Korea

Charles Darwin

Old FACs
Archive 1
Archive 2

This has been a Good Article for some time, with very good prose. Dave Souza has put a lot of effort into it, and we have now very thoroughly referenced it, which was the main remaining criterion to be satisfied. Please help us address any issues that arise, as this is a very important historical figure to have a featured article on. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I would change the Greek endnotes to common Latin. --Brand спойт 15:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, though partially a self-support as I helped with the citations. Adam Cuerden 15:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, essentially a self-support, many thanks to all who have contributed to transforming this article. .. dave souza, talk 17:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support- Its all Greek to me. Seriously though, this is well written and has more references than you can shake a stick at. It is an excellent article about a very important topic and considering how much this man's life has been studied, a very nice summary. Good work. pschemp | talk 17:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, overall, excellent, but....a)solo years should not normally be wikilinked. You have some linked and some aren't. b) at least note a (check for others) is in the middle of a sentence. notes/citations go after punctuation. c) your web reference format isn't consistent. most don't have a retrieval date, so do but in the format "downloaded on", and some do but in the format "retrieved on"--be consistent, suggest using the "retrieved" format.Rlevse 20:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • On b), the guideline, WP:FN, states Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers. The ref tag should be placed directly after most punctuation marks, which is what we have done. Years have been delinked. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I haven't had a chance to read the article yet, but the web access dates should be good now, and ref punctuation doesn't always go at the end of the sentence. Sandy (Talk) 05:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article, well done! --WS 20:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The "children" section needs to be expanded. On the other hand, the list of publications could be split off to a separate article in order to shorten the overall article, which is pretty long. Also it's a long list of references. Has any attempt been made to make sure that these are the most reputable sources? Good luck! -- Ssilvers 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • As all of the sections have been kept concise, the brief summary about Darwin's relationship with his children with dates and links to individual articles seemed appropriate. Having a list of books on the same page is useful for readers who want to refer to what came when, but don't want to go to another page: a link is given to the very full bibliography which the University of Cambridge provide at Darwin Online. Many of the references are to primary sources, the original books made available at that site. A lot of use has been made of the very reputable biographies by Browne and Desmond & Moore, which as it happens have recently been recommended by the Darwin Online founder and director Dr John van Wyhe on this page. Other sources have been checked against these main and primary sources for accuracy. .. dave souza, talk 22:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    Please note that the "children" section has been expanded: any comments? .. dave souza, talk 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The section entitled "Illness, natural selection, and marriage" needs to be renamed, since it isn't clear if all these things could happen to one person! TimVickers 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The original heading for that section was "palpitations of the heart", a somewhat ambiguous quotation that Dave liked because it could be seen to refer both to his chest pains and his romantic involvement with Emma. Would you and others prefer this original heading? Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If you can accept "natural selection" as being an idea rather than a process in this case, they all happened to Darwin in less than eighteen months! :) .. dave souza, talk 22:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Support I'm happy with the revision and I also changed the Section called "Descent of Man, sexual selection, botany and old age." since this had a similar problem, with three of Darwin's areas of study mixed into one thing that happened in his life. TimVickers 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Thinking about it, perhaps "Descent of Man, sexual selection and botany" would work better – the fact that it's the last "Life" section covers the old age point. .. dave souza, talk 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Implemented dave souza, talk 08:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support While I agree some sections could have slightly shorter/more encyclopedic titles, these are very small issues. Staxringold talk 22:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very well written, strong article covering the life and impact of Darwin. (Just be prepared for vandalism when this is the FA of the day.) Excellent work all! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I've been half-paying-attention to the work you guys have put into this article, and it is extremely impressive. The picayunity (picayune-ness? anyway...) of these comments is a testament to how well-done this is to begin with. There's a few minor prose issues -
  • In the lead - 'wrote a series of books on plants, then one on earthworms' - 'followed by', maybe, or 'in addition to'?
  • 'Illness and marriage' section - the prose here is a bit disjointed due to covering both his relationship and his scientific interests during the same period in his life. There's a bit of a jump from his invalid aunt being cared for by Emma, to his studying earthworms - could use some sort of transition. (Also, 'intelligent but unmarried?)
  • Same section, second-to-last paragraph - in one sentence Emma is worrying about the afterlife, and in the next Charles is house-hunting in London. As apt as that may be, there could be a better transition here, if the house-hunting process is really important enough to include.
  • Not terribly relevant to this FAC, but this is as good a place as any - some of the daughter articles, eg Darwin from Insectivorous plants to Worms, are rather awkwardly named. Opabinia regalis 04:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for these pointers, I've tackled the prose issues and tried to make the "illness and marriage" section more informative, as well as adding "Overwork" to the title in case anyone got the impression that Darwin was idling in his sickbed ;) The daughter articles were named at a time when it seemed good to allow the name to be used in a sentence without a piped link, this could certainly be reconsidered but I'm not sure if the effort would be worthwhile: better suggestions welcome. .. dave souza, talk 06:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not weighing in with a support because I've edited to article quite a bit, but I did do a very thorough informal review of the article (here) and, amongst other things, can attest (1) everything is accurate & NPOV and (2) all of the online refs support the claims made. Mikker 05:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Just gone through it, and found a few minor things which I have fixed. Very comprehensive and good article. Just one thing, you may want to mention that Darwin's Sound is a glacier. I had to enter the article to find that out. Great work. --liquidGhoul 10:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Moderate Support - I'd rather have all the References gathered into inline citations as well as Darwin's iconic bearded picture in the infobox, but overall very worthy. Wiki-newbie 15:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The references are now all linked from the inline citation footnotes, using the newish Harvnb template system. There was a lot of discussion earlier resulting in the decision that the image from around the time of publication of The Origin is preferable to the iconic image of Darwin's beard which he grew seven years after publication. .. dave souza, talk 10:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that this is yet "compelling, even brilliant" prose, as required. Here are examples just from the top.
  • "by convincing the scientific community of the occurrence of evolution and proposing that this could be explained"—"Occurrence" is definitely the wrong word here. "notion"?
    • "could"—use present-tense "can".
    • "His theories are now considered the foundation stone of biology"—Remove "now", and possibly "stone".
    • "The wildlife distribution he saw on the voyage"—The first item (three words) is awkward.
    • Unsure that "heretical" requires linking. Tony 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for these examples: it's prodded me to rethink what we're trying to say in the introduction and rephrase it accordingly. Nuances I've tried to incorporate include the point that he was already eminent before publishing his theory, evolution is a phenomenon which he demonstrated convincingly to the community of his day and, citing the linked biography, is "now the unifying theory of the life sciences". Life sciences redirects to biology, though I'd have thought it covered other disciplines. Geographical distribution of species set him thinking, and it seemed desirable to me to link "heretical" since it was literally heresy to the established church. However the linked article probably confuses rather than helps that point, so I've delinked it. I've previously checked over the prose of the rest of the article, will now try to re-examine it with fresh eyes. Thanks for that insight, .. dave souza, talk 09:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. An outstanding article, if a little long (especially since most of the sections have separate articles). Solid prose (as good as it gets by committee), and very well referenced, using well chosen sources among the (literally) hundreds of Darwin biographies out there. Come to think of it, now is about time someone wrote an article on the Darwin Industry.--ragesoss 07:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent, well-researched, and well-cited. You'll have to watch the size, though, as it's edging towards the high end of readable prose size - I hope the article will maintain about 40KB prose size over time. Sandy (Talk) 00:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is one of the best biographical articles for a scientist with which I am familiar. It is long, but the length is probably appropriate for a subject of this importance.Rusty Cashman 07:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Meets every criteria of WP:WIAFA with flying colors. Good job! --Jayron32 04:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • support good article Hmains 04:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

hey guys great article, i did't even have to read it to know how good it was. All these other comments just sums up how excellent this truly is :)

Iowa class battleship

Self-nomination. This article has evolved quite a bit since it was first created, and I believe that it now has what it takes to become featured; to that end I have decided to place it here and see what the community thinks. This is a self-nom TomStar81 02:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

  • NOTE: The University of Texas at El Paso recently started their fall semester, and while I love Misplaced Pages I also love school, and in all fairness to Misplaced Pages school was here first. To that end, a little community help in fixing upcoming issues would be apreciated. TomStar81 02:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - good stuff, but (i) the infobox should be (html2)wikified; (ii) the lists in the lead section (where built, where now) should be turned into text or moved to their own sections; (iii) the first section (General characteristics) is another bullet-point list - shouldn't this be in the infobox? (iv) the article may flow better if history was the first section, then details of armament, etc, finishing with where they are now and reactivation potential. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  1. the infobox should be (html2)wikified
    I have no idea what that means, but I decided to gamble on a hunch to see if I was right
  2. the lists in the lead section (where built, where now) should be turned into text or moved to their own sections
    They have now been consolidated into a paragraph in the intro.
  3. the first section (General characteristics) is another bullet-point list - shouldn't this be in the infobox?
    It is now ;)
  4. the article may flow better if history was the first section, then details of armament, etc, finishing with where they are now and reactivation potential
    Its been rearanged according to your suggestions. Does this work, or should I try again? TomStar81 21:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Support - Thanks for the quick response, and apologies for the jargon - I meant using something like html2wiki to turn the HTML into wiki code. I think you have addressed all of those objections very well. The infobox is now a bit of a monster, but I think the detail is better there than littering the article. I've hacked the article about a bit - the lead section had become a bit top-heavy, and I also meant to mention the units, which should be wikified when first mentioned, as I have done, I hope. Please feel free to change back things you don't like (I hope i have not undone too many of your recent edits). -- ALoan (Talk) 23:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. All the 1-2-sentence paragraphs need to go and the infobox is hogging too much of the article. Consider scaling down the picture and definetly remove the armament information. It's not only well-covered in the "Armament"-section, but actually also briedly summarized (by me) in that very section. / Peter 09:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  1. All the 1-2-sentence paragraphs need to go
    I think I got them all now.
  2. the infobox is hogging too much of the article
    Per your suggestion, the infobox no longer contains armament details. TomStar81 20:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Ann Arbor, Michigan

I got the ball rolling towards improving this article, and since then other users, notably fellow Ann Arborites, helped with its expansion and improvement. The question now becomes: is this article ready for featured status? Pentawing 22:57, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, but I have one concern - if "popularly known as" names are given, why leave out "West Ypsilanti"? Sure, it's meant as an insult, but it's only only "other" name I ever heard for the city. Guettarda 23:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, from my time here, I have never heard of Ann Arbor ever being referred to as "West Ypsilanti." I'll try to reword this, though the passage concerns well-known nicknames for the city. Pentawing 23:37, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, in my seven years in Michigan I never heard the other nicknames. Of course, it isn't what Ann Arborites call their city, it's what other people who think that Ann Arborites are too full of themselves call it (yeah, I was at the other Michigan school). Guettarda 00:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
      • We'll keep it with officially recognized nicknames, or nicknames that locals call the city (in tune to most city articles). Pentawing 00:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Tlogmer 00:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. (Minor note: If the first set of nicknames is in italics, should "Ace Deuce" and "The Deuce" also be italicized rather than in quotes? Or is this different for a reason?) Ropcat 00:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I standardized the font formats for all nicknames in the introduction. Pentawing 00:52, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Pentawing. Another very tiny anomaly is that in the demographics section, the Imperial measures are in parentheses, while in the rest of the article the metric measures are in parentheses. I'll take another glance at this tomorrow. Ropcat 05:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I've addressed the measurement unit issue, though I should note that the information was inserted by Rambot, a script which was designed to place (and update) such information. Pentawing 23:25, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks Pentawing! Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was blaming you for the incongruity. This article would never be in such good shape without all your hard and meticulous work. Ropcat 23:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Pentawing and others did a fine job improving this article, and I only wish I could've been involved with it more. Fully support, it's among the finest of the city articles on the 'pedia. One thing: Image:Annarbor_southU_winter.jpg doesn't show much except the asphalt and a washed-out sky. It also does not show us what should be the main focus of this image: the shops along South U. Sure, they're there, but you can barely see them. Although the area is popular and an image of South U. would be great, this images' removal would improve the article. Right now it just seems distracting. I would've cropped the image myself but I don't want to tamper with the original creator's work. This is, of course, a very minor qualm that I have with this exceedingly comprehensive article. Gsgeorge 04:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Feel free to crop (though I'd prefer if you uploaded the new version under a different name) -- that's why I gave it the Gnu free documentation licence. Tlogmer 08:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Full support – I've put Pentawing through the grind, and he has been kind enough to execute all my suggestions. Good luck! =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor oppose on a few little points, I question some more of the image choices like Image:Annarbor tree.jpg which is artsy but doesn't demonstrate anything about the city and Image:DSCN4776 annarbormhouse e.jpg which would be better replaced by a more general pic of the campus. I think in the economy section should come before the education section. I'm working on an article similar to this myself and I really question the use of ===h3's=== for very short paragraph, like the sister cities section. The sister cities section wouldn't look as bad if this section was expanded by a few sentences to include cultural activites that arise in the city from the relationships. --nixie 06:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I replaced the two images in question with images that I have taken recently (with the aim of getting a more general overview of the city). I also moved the economy section up and expanded some short paragraphs. As for the sister cities, I moved it into the government section (based on what I have seen at the San Jose, California article). Pentawing 21:35, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - nice article.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Great article, it flows very nicely, great work Pentawing! -- PRueda29 11:21 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. But disclaimer, I've lived in AA and I've contributed a little to the article. I'd be more concerned about the low number of book and other high quality references if I couldn't personally verify most of the material. I'll try to pick up a book this weekend and use that to improve anything possible. I'd say we should add that AA generally thinks of itself as the nicer town and looks down on Ypsi if that could be done in any reasonably NPOV way. I'll see what I can find. - Taxman 21:05, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Re: your addition: "This is the first google result for a blog, and does more to speak of AA's status than any pro-AA site could." Yeah, the "Ann Arbor is Overrated" blog was on there for most of this article's life. I think it got pulled only recently when an "outside" peer reviewer recommended pulling all the blogs from the "External Links" in order to advance to FAC. Pentawing, what do you think? Ropcat 21:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • It is probably best to only list official and other "established" websites (e.g. municipal websites, area guides). Blogs, in my opinion, do not really fall under that category. Also, this is to set a precedent since if any website is listed, every website imaginable will be listed (which is best left to a search engine). Pentawing 21:56, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok, I'm sympathetic to that problem. We could end that with a top 20 google result criteria though. An I also like that one for balancing the POV. But if the blogs are yanked, yank all of them. Another thing I thought of is we should mention more than just in the lead the city as a draw to the restaraunts. I think the quoted stat is AA has one of the highest restaraunt per capita in the US. I'll try to dig up something if you can't. - Taxman 22:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
          • See article talk for more on this. Pentawing 22:39, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments. There are no 'notable natives' to mention? No bodies of water other than Huron River worth mentioning? Ann Arbor is never mentioned in fiction/literature/song/whatever? Might want to see if there are any other ideas at Talk:Seattle,_Washington#Comparison_of_topics_and_size_with_other_city_Featured_Articles and/or AA's 'what links here'. Niteowlneils 04:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Nice list. This article compares against it very favorably actually. Most notable people and literature/film etc are associated with the university, not native Ann Arborites. Though I hope not to offend anyone if I'm uninformed. Bob Seger's Main Street, is based on Ann Arbor, but I'm not sure that's important enough to mention. He's not from AA. There is really no other body of water, unless you count pools. A quick look at a map or satelite view would confirm that. I suppose crime should be mentioned. The libraries are good, but just your average small town variety, not sure they're notable enough to mention. Finally there are no towns generally considered suburbs. Saline and Dexter are called that once in a while, but I don't think that's standard. - Taxman 17:07, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Niteownneils - The "Ann Arbor in Literature" section was moved to the separate "Culture in Ann Arbor" article a few weeks ago, since the main article is getting pretty long. Taxman's Main Street song reference should probably go in that article, too. I agree with Taxman that the libraries probably shouldn't get mention in the main article; but I think they're a bit better than the "average small town variety": the AA District Library did win the national Library of the Year Award for 1997-98; and various other national awards (for example, the 2004 diversity award from the American Library Association, etc.). Thanks, Niteowlneils, for suggesting doing a "What Links Here" search. I've been searching "Ann Arbor" as a key word on and off, and I've added a bunch of stuff to the "Ann Arbor, Michigan" category (though not the actual article) based on this. Ropcat 19:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Don't Speak Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Ashlee Simpson Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Solarquest Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)

Black Seminoles

I am nominating this relatively new article because it is so well-done. The author requested a peer review, but I think it's good enough for featured article status already. Well-written, well-illustrated and well-sourced all the way around. --Kitch 20:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Obviously, I support the nomination. --Kitch 20:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, this article looks really great...but the Peer Review on it is still open. --maclean25 23:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Solid article on a lesser-known group in American history. This is the kind of knowledge that Misplaced Pages needs to be promoting. --FOo 02:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. I am familiar with the group and still learned a lot from this article.--Alabamaboy 13:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a rather excellent article. The only quibble is that I'm not very fond of the map at the end, but it's not a major issue. Shimgray 23:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. pamri 03:49, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - it's always a pleasure to see a writer just create a good article, and publish it here. Good work, good article, lets get it promoted. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Extraordinary work. Hydriotaphia 21:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - An interesting and well-written article on a subject of which I previously had no knowledge. User:Austinbirdman deserves a medal. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Whats there is very good, but the article is almost entirely focused on events, and not much on the Black Seminoles as a group. Pretty much the only thing purely about them is the culture section, and that is pretty short. So the culture could use expansion as well as how they organized, etc. Some of that is in limited bits mixed in with other sections, so part of the problem is organization. The organization of the article focuses on events. Anything you would cover about another people or ethnic group should be covered in this article too. - Taxman 15:04, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/TV-FM DX

Sun Yat-sen

previous FAC

Blade Runner

Third nomination. 1st and 2nd nominations. After a few peer reviews and debates, a lot of additions and moves I think this article is ready for prime time. - RoyBoy 01:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Wow. Amazing work on an amazing film. I just wish they'd work out the legal issues over the new director's cut and release the dang thing on DVD. --Alabamaboy 01:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: A long time coming. I supported it last time, too, I think. A little obsessive, but deservedly so, and I'm happy to see that whole side track of "Deckard was so a replicant!" and "Nyunh-unh! Was not!" gone. Geogre 04:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, great article. Covers every detail. Phoenix2 04:06, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Object'—I've run through the opening and made numerous corrections and improvements to the prose; I've also left a few invisible queries. I'll probably support this when the authors clean it up. Tony 05:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: can you link the previous nominations to this page? (thanks)-- Samuel Wantman 07:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object (I hate objecting to such a good article but ...)
1. All the images are claimed as "fair use" however none of them have fair use rationales on the image description pages with the exception of Image:BladeRunner Bradbury.jpg and that is claiming fair use for Cyberpunk, not Blade Runner. Please read through Misplaced Pages:Image description page and have a look at the image description pages for current FA candidate KaDee Strickland which, I think, satisfy the requirement quite well. ie Each Strickland image states 1. the source, 2. the copyright owner and 3. several points addressing fair use claim. I'm also concerned that there is perhaps a surplus of images - part of the requirement of the fair use rationale is to demonstrate that each image is in fact required, and is pertinent to the accompanying text. The captions for the cast images should describe the actor and the role, rather than just the role. They are examples where I think the fair use rationale is going to be hard to establish based on the way the images are used. Why for example illustrate Olmos, Hauer and Turkel under "cast" and then leave the two main stars Ford and Young for the "Criticism" section, where the image serves no purpose at all, and then totally omit Daryl Hannah? To me it makes the fair use claim harder to justify - some thought needs to be given not only to which images should be used, but where they should be placed. I think the first series of images are appropriately placed (the first one does call to mind Metropolis). I think what you need to do is ensure that the image and the text support each other in each case, ie that it genuinely is "fair use", and frame the rationale to address specifically what each image is adding the article. Another example - images that I included for Sunset Boulevard (film) specifically address why each image is unique and what exactly it illustrates in the article.
2. Mostly well cited but there are some exceptions. Example - from "Popular culture" section: the music is the most sampled film music of the 20th Century. It's a great factoid but needs to be either cited or removed. If it's something other than fairly generic information, it must be cited. Rossrs 09:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I conceed Daryl Hannah is overlooked, but that has more to do with the number of images already in the article than missing her. I could justify the images in my sleep, as I could use the overarching excuse Blade Runner's visual style is praised, so it is notable to show it in all its aspects. (re: Deckard and Rachael, since the criticism section mentions their relationship, I felt it appropriate to put an image of them, moreover an intimate image.) The images and placement of Gaff & Roy/Tyrell in cast is a bit arbitrary, but has the obvious purpose of presenting the cast... placing a third and larger image of Daryl would be my pleasure. (perhaps two images, one from the film and one where she recently dressed up to reprise her role as Pris) The popular music factoid is cited in the influence section, and I just decided not to re-reference it; I'll put it in now. I appreciate your relunctance to object, but I see little cause to do so (except for prose fixes Tony mentioned, which may be necessary). Admitedly I'm lax at my fair use explanations... but I'm a creative guy when in the mood. Off to work for the time being. - RoyBoy 15:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
you may have misunderstood what I meant. I'm not suggesting that you add images of Daryl Hannah. I was trying to say that as fair use, it would be difficult to justify the inclusion of Gaff/Roy/Tyrell while omitting Hannah who is at least equal in importance. You described the use of those images as "arbitrary" and that's the correct word. "Arbitrary" and "fair use" don't go hand in hand - they are almost opposite. Rossrs 21:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I meant to specify their location in cast is arbitrary; I intend all starring roles to have at least one picture. Tyrell isn't necessary, but Pris is. - RoyBoy 23:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Support - I want to watch it now! Immensely readable, which is my main criteria.--PopUpPirate 22:01, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

A compliment without equal, many thanks. - RoyBoy 23:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome! --PopUpPirate 00:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. pamri 02:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support A lot of great work has been put in this article and it's almost there, just a few minor problems. The sentence, "partly due to the film's ability to reward repeated viewing" doesn't explain what that means. The sentence "A possible stylistic and conceptual inspiration for the film (apart from the novel) may have been Godard's Alphaville." needs a souce, and Popular culture needs to be rewritten into prose. -MechBrowman 15:18, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Removed Alphaville as I haven't come across that, although Alphaville is mentioned in the BFI book as being part of the sci-fi genre pre-Star Wars. Not sure what the problem is for "reward repeated viewing", as I consider it common shorthand (at least for native english speakers) for saying one learns/discovers/thinks new things on every viewing... just as for great literature and the like. As for Popular Culture, not sure if that is as yet necessary since the section is pretty small; and to implement prose could read/look awkward. - RoyBoy 17:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I stand by Popular culture into prose, all it needs is a simple paragraph or two, that explains how Blade Runner's popularity and cult status has made it referenced and homaged in various other media, and give the examples you have already listed. -MechBrowman 00:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong object extremely poor treatment of the critical reception of the film, thematics and summary (not the Siskel and Ebert "thumbs up, thumbs down" critics). No consideration of differences with novel to specify where the film adaption departs. Specifically:
  1. No treatment of the role of "life", "real", animal, human, or synthetic, including fertility, and sterility
  2. No treatment of the significance of empathy: what does empathy mean in the film, given that it is apparently a key term
  3. Fails to note that religion and media play an important part of the novel but not the screenplay
  4. Fails to note test audience issues which led to voice-overs and change of ending
  5. Fails to note that novel forces reader to contemplate whether Decker is himself human, which may be given treatment at the ending of the film, depending on the version
  6. No treatment of the symbolic use made of eyes, just a brief mention
I'll try to dig out the book of criticism I have on the film. Buffyg 22:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Your passion is noted, but many of your objections are premature. This is not an article on the novel, but rather on the film which ended up being being loosely based on the novel. The lack of comparisons to the novel was conscious, not an oversight... well actually it can be both. :"D
  1. Fertility/Sterility not in BR, the rest is covered in the Themes overview with the exception of animal, which can certainly be added.
  2. Empathy is mentioned in themes, and can certainly be expanded upon in the sub Themes article. I tweaked themes to say it is the "essential" indicator of the humanity.
  3. Religion and media and other themes in the novel are irrelevant to this film. You may yet convince me section comparing the novel to the film is called for; I admit I've been involved with this subject for so long I've gotten use to treating them as seperate works; but I guess why that's the case needs to be explained to others.
  4. Did you read the article or not? Test screenings are noted in the Documentaries section, but that should be in version as well. Thanks for the suggestion, and done.
  5. Again, the novel doesn't matter here; and the Deck-a-rep debate is referenced and linked to.
  6. The themes section is simply a lead to the main article, which you can read at your leisure... and can expand all you want on eyes in there, but I think you'll find the treatment there is not too bad.
-RoyBoy 02:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I added a Novel section to clarify the differences between the film and the novel. Also I added mentions of animals in themes. - RoyBoy 19:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Support- Simply amazing. igordebraga ≠ 21:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Support Fantastic article well done RoyBoy.Yakuzai 22:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

History of Alaska

previous FAC

Final Fantasy VI

I think this article is close to the level of Final Fantasy VIII. Both articles have similar styles and whatnot; the prose may need work, but I'll leave you guys as the judges of that. I'll keep this nom short, since I basically explained everything on the FF8 nomination below. — Deckiller 15:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Co-nom/Support: Pretty much what Deckiller said above and what we both said below. This article's pretty solid, I think. There might be a few spots where things could be better, but that's what you guys are here to determine. Overall, like Deck, I feel that it's about level with FFVIII below. Ryu Kaze 15:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Co-nom/support. Improved a lot since it was last nominated and failed. Then, the censorship section was overdone, now it has been toned down. Then, there were only three references, now there are thirty-five. It's definitely on par with FFVIII (and in a way I feel it's better, but that's just me). Redundancies and weasel words are pretty much gone. Crazyswordsman 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - It is truly amazing to see how the article has changed since I nominated it last year. The quality of it has improved dramatically and the editors who lead the recent round of improvements to it should be commended. Great job guys. --ZeWrestler 21:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support The development section doesn't have a single inline citation. Once that's fixed, full support. Staxringold talk 21:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The reception section is pretty skimpy considering this is commonly listed by critics as one on the greatest games of all time. This article is well on its way, but it's lacking significant discussion of what the critics particularly found so great about it --someone who had never played this game would not have a sense of what made it so special and historically important, ie, the unusual depth (and length) of story, the unique visual aesthetic, etc. Also, am I correct in my recollection that this was the first RPG to juggle such a large cast of playable characters? I would love to see an FA on this, but considering it's one of the most beloved games of all time, I feel this article is incomplete without giving the reader a sense of what set it apart from other games of its era. -- (Lee)Bailey 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Problem is, it would be difficult to reference. Crazyswordsman 22:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, we do make mention of FFVI having the largest FF cast, but the problem with what critics thought of the game is how old it is. There's certainly reviews buried in 12 year old issues of gaming magazines somewhere, but most of us don't have those and the most we've been able to find online were some scores that were given out back then (which I was surprised to find even that). Nonetheless, I certainly understand the concern with this section and felt much the same. It's just that given our limitations, I'm not sure what we'll be able to do about it. Of course, that just makes the information all the more valuable. Ryu Kaze 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I found a retroreview by RPGamer and a review from IGN for the Anthology version. They make some comments about the effect rendered at the time of the original release, so that'll have to do, I think. I'll try working them in. Ryu Kaze 00:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Alright, I've gone back and made a ton of edits to the Reception area. I believe it should now address your concerns, Lee. Thank you for your input and please let us know if there's more that could be done. Ryu Kaze 01:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Reception and criticism looks much better now, Ryu. I'll see if I can find anything to fix later tonight.— Deckiller 02:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Looking better -- speedy work! I'd still like to see a smidge more in the "gameplay" section acknowledging what was new to FF in this game (the esper-system, and possibly the degree of customization allowed for by the equipment/relic system). Also, if I'm correctly remembering that this was the first FF to allow the player to use hi-tech weaponry, that's probably deserving of a nod. Incidentally, has anyone tried a proquest/magazine database search at their local libray? I'm not sure how commonly game magazines are archived, but I'd be willing to give it a shot, if no one else has. I believe in particular, old Nintendo Power magazines are not especially rare. Overall, good work, though. -- (Lee)Bailey 18:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the fast response. I'll see if there's a way to fit in the stuff about Relics, as I believe you're right with regard to their innovative inclusion. As for hi-tech weaponry, there's only one character who uses any (Edgar), but I'll see if there's any way to fit it into the flow. Thanks. I'll leave you a message on your talk page after I've addressed these matters. Ryu Kaze 19:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support wonderful game, and the article is more deserving of the FA than ever. igordebraga ≠ 15:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Object – The Game Boy Advance section should probably have a future game tag. The Reception and criticism has absolutely no criticism whatsoever. Additionally, the PlayStation section needs work:
The only notable changes to gameplay involve the correction of a few software bugs from the original, the addition of new bugs and the addition of a new "memo save" feature, allowing players to quickly save their progress to the PlayStation's RAM. The rerelease included other special features, such as a bestiary and artwork gallery.
I believe the addition of a cutscene is also notable. What bugs were fixed, what bugs were created in the process? Source, if possible. ♠ SG →Talk 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
There's one in the story section. Crazyswordsman 17:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll add the future game tag, but I'm not seeing quite how the Reception and criticism section is lacking in criticism. It features two paragraphs of it. Two paragraphs of substantial size, in fact. Criticism isn't just negative views of something. Criticism can be positive or negative. It's merely the act of analyzing something and passing judgement on it. Even were it only negative, though, there's quite a bit of negative criticism in the second paragraph.
I'll see if I can find out what added cutscene you're referring for adding to that sentence you quoted, by the way (you weren't referring to the FMVs were you? Those are mentioned earlier in the paragraph and aren't changes to gameplay anyway), and also see if I can get us a source on the bugs. Ryu Kaze 19:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
SG, I've added the future game template and gotten some references for the bugs, as well as added a few other references throughout the article. Ryu Kaze 20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Great work. Nothing but support from me. ♠ SG →Talk 00:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Awesome. Thank you very much! Ryu Kaze 01:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Crazyswordsman 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This article has come a long way. Tarret 00:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This article is good, even someone who didn't play the game like me can follow it easily Renmiri 01:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment many thanks for your supports. — Deckiller 03:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly, I have to object. It's well written, and the flurry of activity recently has only served to improve it further. But that's a problem in and of itself: the last time this was brought up for FAC, I had to concede that the article was just being too much, and too quickly, following the initial FAC posting. At this point, the article does not appear to be stable, one of the listed requirements for featured articles. Obviously, this is no fault of the editors who've toiled away at the thing, and I'm loathe to respond this way, but there you go. – Seancdaug 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • During an FAC, changes made in accordance with other things brought up wouldn't count toward an instability problem I would think. It would either be leave things that people are saying is wrong with it, or fix them. Unless you mean all the work done immediately prior to the FAC, in which case no one would have nominated it for FA in the first place without that. All that work was performed for the purpose of getting it ready for the nomination. Looking at it with these newest changes, it's very likely to remain as it is unless another problem is brought up here that needs to be addressed. Ryu Kaze 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Like Ryu said, addressing concerns during an FAC doesn't count towards instability. The article was pretty much stable for several months, and edits made in good faith don't necessarilly make an article instable, especially when only three or four editors are touching it. Crazyswordsman 22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Sean, the stability criteria was designed for instances where the article was undergoing massive swings of changes based on an edit war, not improvements. — Deckiller 02:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I respectfully disagree. The stability required was designed to ensure that the article was stable. Period. Featured articles should be the kind of article that we can cite in a scholarly manner, and feel reasonably safe that, when we come back in a few months, little of substance will have changed. In particular, Crazyswordsman, it's not an issue of good vs. bad faith, and I appreciate that the changes have not only been made in good faith, but have served to improve the article. There's nothing wrong with an article being edited and adjusted to improve it as needed. And, quite frankly, I'd prefer that such positive changes be made even if it results a period of relative instability. But until the article reaches a point where it is obvious that it will "not change significantly from day to day" ("and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars," not "because it is the subject of ongoing edit wars"), it's cannot be cited as a reliable, scholarly source. And if it cannot be cited as such, for whatever reason, it's not ready to be featured. It tears me up to vote like this, and I don't want to slap you guys in the face for all your hard work and the superb article you've produced, but there's still the one additional factor of time, and and that's pretty much out of anyone's hands. Again, I'm really horribly sorry, everyone. – Seancdaug 03:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This has gone a long way. I also looked at the edit summary and saw Crazyswordman, Ryu Kaze, Hibana, and deckiller's hard work to make this of FA status. Extreme support here. -ScotchMB 01:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Renmiri; I've never played the game either and I've always been a bit mystified as to the frenzy it invokes among FF fans; the article explains it well. I imagine that's a large part of what brings people to this article - "what's the big deal about this game, anyway?" - and that's definitely answered. Great job, guys. -RaCha'ar 15:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I imagine every FF game will one day be featured! Did a thorough read of the article and liked it. Nice work. Thunderbrand 16:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry to hold things up! The changes that have been made here are all for the better -- good work again. I had a few little nagging qualms about the respresentation of critical response, so I went looking for sources, and found some old Nintendo Power issues that cover the game, as well as a reference to EGM's coverage. I was going to quickly add these things in order to avoid slowing things up, but by the time I re-touched the relevant sections, I felt iffy about it, especially considering that stability issues have been raised above. I decided to split the difference and place what I came up with in my sandbox, here. The article is really well done in any case, so please consider my vote a Weak Support without any changes, or Full Support with some reference to mention of the game's critical standing in the lead -- my version does not have to be taken literally, but take whatever's useful. Sorry to be extra-picky. ^_^ -- (Lee)Bailey 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much, Lee. Your research into this matter is also very much appreciated. I'll certainly be adding some of that info to the article. I realize Sean has some concerns over stability, but making the article's content the best it can be comes first. Thanks again! Ryu Kaze 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks from me for everybody's input. I don't have much time during the week to monitor the article and debates, so I'll just make this a universal thanks for everyone's input from today. Crazyswordsman 00:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Objections all satisfied now, and as I read this over, it looks very much like an FA to me. Thanks for a great CVG article. -- (Lee)Bailey 12:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
And thank you for your constructive input and the aid you offered with those additional criticism references. Ryu Kaze 13:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks from me as well. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Pan American World Airways

Suburbs of Johannesburg

Self-nom. I have worked extremely hard on this article and had great assistance from several other people. After User:NicholasTurnbull finished helping me slave away with the map, I feel comfortable nominating this article for FAC. It is an extremely comprehensive look at the suburbs of the city of Johannesburg, South Africa, itself already a featured article. I have tried to look at both the social and economic importance of all the different areas of the city. Previous nomination can be seen here. Thank you! Páll 16:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Because the significant discussion lives at the appropriate place, Government of Johannesburg. And no, the city, its regions, and its suburbs are completely independent entities. Its like asking why there should be an aritlce on New York City, on the boroughs of New York, and the different neighbourhoods of New York. They're related, but completely independent of each other so far as articles on Misplaced Pages are concerned. Páll 16:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
But there aren't separate articles on New York City, boroughs of NYC, and neighborhoods of NYC. There may be heirarchies of articles like NYC > Manhattan > Greenwich Village. But Johannesburg isn't part of a heirarchy; it's just part of a set of overlapping overviews. And if the suburbs and regions are as distinct as you say, there should be articles on Govt of suburbs of JBrg and Govt of regions of Jburg. The article you cite doesn't explain how subdivisions of Jbrg are governed; it just says the subdivisions have "operational responsiblity for some govtal functions. Monicasdude 17:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
If there is nothing there, its just for the fact that it hasn't yet been written. I don't see these articles as overlapping in any way. And there are articles on the government of Regions of Johannesburg, see Regions of Johannesburg. That articles discusses the government structure of the regions. The reason there is no articles on the government of the suburbs is because there is none, although a few suburbs such as the City Centre have elected to create Ambassadors to the region that are neither police officers nor tourist officials. Páll 17:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


Featured articles missing pictures

The following featured articles lack copyleft pictures and would greatly benefit from having one added:


Michel Foucault

One image, unverified. →Raul654 20:29, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • The best thing I could find was this book cover is has a decent pic and is a good size, usable as fair use.--nixie 11:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • If it's a book cover, are you sure you've got the right to reproduce it here? Buffyg 14:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Only as fair use. --nixie 00:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And since the article isn't about the book, we can't rightly claim fair use. Gmaxwell 19:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, no, that's not true. →Raul654 22:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since you've made no argument to consider, I am left only to criticize your judgment on these matters. Lets not forget who uploaded Image:Morissette_-_Ironic.ogg and insisted that it was public domain. Gmaxwell 23:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please show me where it says in title 17 that fair use of a given work only applies to criticisms/summaries of that work. Hint - it doesn't at all. It does say that it is acceptable "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" - any and all of which might cover this article. →Raul654 23:44, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair use is fine for all of those activities, but only when the activity is related to the work in question. These uses are not a free pass to copy, if it were the case why would schools spend any money at all on educational materials, and why would newspapers pay such high prices for the use of AP photographs. Fair use is intended to protect public discourse and the expansion of knowledge, it does this by allowing access to unique and important works where there could be little acceptable replacement when copyright would otherwise allow the copyright holder to deny such access. As such, it is almost always the case that fair use needs to be directly related to the specific work whos copyright we are infringing. This same reasoning is why it is not permissible to take a microphone manufacturers product images to make a point on pressure transducers. Gmaxwell 00:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "Fair use is fine for all of those activities, but only when the activity is related to the work in question." - would you care to cite the place on that page where it says this? I see no mention of it. →Raul654 00:19, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you have westlaw access? Almost every case on the use of copyrighted material in satire is decided on this aspect of fair use. Again, complex analysis of the law isn't needed here, if your simplistic decoding of the rules were true no school or news agency would ever need to pay for copyrighted works... which is clearly not the case. Gmaxwell 01:33, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is complete lunacy. If fair use were to be interpretted that way, which is incredibly narrower than anyone would think, it stands to reason that there would be something *actually written into the law* that says that. Some kind of limiting clause, like "for purposes such as criticism ..." except where the use is outside the scope of the original work. So, please cite something more substantive than 'IANAL and the law doesn't really say this but here's how I think should is interpreted.' →Raul654 01:47, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know what more to say but you are completely wrong. The position you are advocating would make any use of copyrighted material in wikipedia into fair use, a view which is consistent with your other dealings with copyright, but a view we can clearly reject as false. You've still failed to answer my simplified argument on educational use. As far as citations, see "Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.", "Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc.", "Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.". A core consideration for fair use is Is the use of the work transformative?, that is Are we parodying, criticizing, or otherwise commenting on the copyrighted work. If we are not, it is much less likely that our use is fair use. Gmaxwell 02:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The image has been added to the article. Stop cluttering this page. If you want to debate copyright policy, do it at Template:Bookcover or some related page, please. --brian0918&#153; 4 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, my father (who got his PhD in Philosophy from Fribourg and has a lot of connections to the European academic scene in the field) may get me a free (as in GFDL) photo of Foucault. I just hope he finds one of reasonable quality. More on this in a week or so. Phils 4 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Miles Davis

Has two (rather low quality) pictures - a fair use and a noncommerical-wikipedia-only image. It's crying out for something a bit better. (If peeing you're pants is cool, I'm Miles Davis - Billy Madison) →Raul654 05:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Will this do? I'll have to check for availability. 24.254.92.184 23:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • that was an unsigned me. Jobe6 23:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Category: