The article was promoted 16:30, 31 March 2007.
I believe this article meets the featured article criteria. A " good article" since November 28, it follows the club pages manual of style and is fully referenced.
As a note, it had a peer review at the end of November, which mainly focused on structural issues at the time.
In my opinion, one of the best parts about this page is the images, which are generally so lacking in most sports articles. A lot of time and effort has gone in to securing free images from the club and photographers, all of which have permission archived in the OTRS system.
Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. Very good overall. Excellent prose I must say. Throughout comments:
Oppose I must have missed the peer review for this one. A few (mostly minor) things before this can get my support:
A good article from a fantastic editor! Believe me, nobody, more than myself would like to see a Central Coast article featured, however their are a few things I believe need to be fixed up.
Good article, yet more to do. In the meantime Oppose. SUPPORT.
[1]
Todd661
Conditional
[2] Support. Good article, but a few things:
Hey, been offline a while so missed an opportunity perhaps, but overall this is a great article. I have only a few very minor comments which you can look at as you see fit.
Hopefully some of that makes sense and/or helps. Great work, all the best. The Rambling Man 19:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. Great article. Only one comment. Would it be possible to write something about the clubs ownership. Thanks. Kyriakos 12:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose—1a. Before we jump to conclusions ("excellent prose I must say"), let's take a proper look. I've chosen at random the "Colours and badge" section, which I see comprises three stubby paragraphs.
Then further down:
Please don't just correct these issues; they're examples of why a thorough copy-edit is required, preferably by someone who's unfamiliar with the text. Tony 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:30, 31 March 2007.
Nom restarted ( old nom) Raul654 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support More citations have been added to this article, which I am happy to see. It would be nice if they were all cited the same way (why is that so difficult?), but all things cannot be achieved. This is a well-written, well-sourced and at least appears to me as a comprehensive article. I am not an expert in Mayan languages, so I cannot really speak to its comprehensiveness. I greatly appreciate the work that the editors have done to make it more accessible to those of us who want to understand their work. Awadewit 22:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support with Comment - I supported the initial nomination, and am very impressed with the newer version. My only concern (and I don't know if it was dicussed in the archive - there's a lot to go through there) is the high number of single-sentence paragraphs. If these could be condensed with associated text, that would be great. -- Oaxaca dan 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comments: I've not waded through the previous nom, but the article certainly seems to have improved for it.
Overall, very impressive article and I look forward to supporting it shortly. The Land 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
}
The article was promoted 16:30, 31 March 2007.
Self-nom — hello again everybody. This article has been the result of a couple months of "chipping away" by no fewer than ten members of WikiProject Final Fantasy. It is the second most well-referenced Final Fantasy title article, as well as one of the most comprehensive. Hopefully, all that remains are minor issues that can be weeded out via this discussion (peer review yielded only one response, which was taken care of). Although there is another FA nom up for this WikiProject, it is more narrow in its contributors' scope, so it is not a major tax on our manpower, in my opinion.
The history of the article is a little complex, so I'll skip over that. If the rest of the team who worked on this article could co-nom below and add their comments, that would be great. As usual, the no spoiler tags for the plot section is part of the WP:FF's belief system since last year, and part of the compromise being struck on the project talk page. Images issues should be all set, so the issues should (hopefully) only come from the prose itself. Let the discussion begin, and thank you for taking the time to add your voice to this nomination. — Deckill er 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:30, 31 March 2007.
This was my idea for a perfect April 1 article — a switcheroo of a major historical figure for a quirky nobody. So, in the Main Page box we could say, "George Washington was an early inventor of instant coffee, and ensured a full supply to soldiers fighting at the front lines", and similar sorts of absurd, but vaguely historical-sounding things. Well, that was the idea, anyway. It's hard for me to judge if in its short development time this article has really reached near FA quality, but I've spent way too much time on it in too short a space not to submit this now. Of course, any further improvements would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.-- Pharos 07:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Good job!! Do you subscribe to newspaperarchives.com? BlueLotas 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:30, 31 March 2007.
Having worked on developing this article and requesting a peer review (which provided many helpful suggestions), I think it's now ready in terms of completeness, stability, referencing, and style to be considered for featured-article status. I'm happy to address any deficiencies or suggestions mentioned here to improve the article further. This is essentially a self-nomination. MastCell Talk 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
This article was spun off of the current Iowa class battleship article to help reduce the page size. It just cleared A-class on the Military History Wikiproject, so I am now fixed on getting it promoted to FA class. One minor note: I am in school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond have patience; it is likely school work has me tied up. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
Self-nom — hello again everybody. I'm also a little nervous nomming this article, because something like this has not quite been done on FAC; it's uncharted waters for everyone. As always, I'd like to provide a brief overview. Character coverage of Final Fantasy VIII was initially spread out among eight character articles and a list of minor characters, all with little or no citations. Approximately two weeks ago, I started a sandbox entry with the goal of merging all the character pages with the minor character list. After this was accomplished, I placed it in namespace. I looked at some old versions of the Final Fantasy VIII page, and noticed an extremely large, sourced development section. I took this and added it into a new section, and then I went to these sources and found information for even some of the minor characters. This allowed the article to have an out of universe perspective. But even better, Teggles added a merchandise section and found image sources. A reception and criticism section was soon created, and more information was trimmed; following this, Axem — one of the people instrumental in the latest surge of project activity — performed a very nice and much needed round of consolidation and copy-editing while expanding on several concepts. Several other editors contributed to the effort as well.
Another Final Fantasy FAC may be coming soon — Final Fantasy XII. I understand that projects should not spread themselves too thin, but we should be able to withstand two fronts (we have done it in the past with Final Fantasy VI and Final Fantasy VIII).
The article itself features a two paragraph lead; it helps establish the notability of the game as a whole, how the characters were received, and a brief overview of the cast. This is followed by a development section, which outlines the inspirations for creating these characters from the perspective of the game designers. It uses sources that are reliable in relation to this subject at hand, and many are used in current FAs. This section is followed by an outline of the major characters; Axem helped organize the information here so that we had three paragraphs for most major characters, and not four in some cases. Two other character sections follow, and the aforementioned merchandise and reception and criticism sections follow suit. An external link is provided to the Final Fantasy Wikia's FF8 character category, where extreme details of this game's characters belong. Anyway, I'm being long-winded like Laguna Loire, so let the discussion begin! — Deckill er 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
Queen Consort of George VI of the United Kingdom; Mother to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Support Self-nominated There were some problems with POV raised at Peer review, but I hope that these are now resolved. DrKiernan 09:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support- the work done by DrK has surely brought it up to FA status. Astrotrain 09:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support- Wow...I don't think I could be more impressed. Sue Rangell[ citation needed 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support- Factually accurate,well researched,well presented.An example of what a FA should be. Lemon martini 14:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Good article, well written. However, after a quick scan I'd of like to have read mention of the following from Woodrow Wyatt's diaries and other sources about Bowes-Lyon's views of the commonwealth, and African efforts to end apartheid [8]. Which is one of the few things that sticks in my mind when I think of her as a person. Of note is ....
**Perhaps because she felt that by imposing sanctions the worst hit economically would be the black African population? (I'm not defending that position, I'm just saying that others held it)
DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) I can find no evidence in Wyatt that she scolded any Commonwealth countries for demanding sanctions.
DrKiernan 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
If this has already been discussed then forgive me. If not, then perhaps it should be.-- Zleitzen (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The exclusion of these points shouldn't bar the article from reaching featured status, as DrKiernan is correct to note that they are debatable. However, Be warned that the exclusion of various verifiable details on the basis that perhaps she meant something else - or that they could be judged in a certain light by us - is problematic. If I've spotted possible ommisions at first glance, then be sure that others will in the future. It may be worth pre-empting that by adding a sentence or so briefly covering these points in an NPOV way, rather than seeing some POV hack coming along and making a mess of it after it reaches featured status. In response to Astrotrain, all major British royals have a role in politics whether they like it or not, and their political views are of notable interest to articles.--
Zleitzen
(talk) 16:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
Comment Good article, very readable. As far as POV language goes, I found only one pressing sample: "Her ceaseless smile, endurance and longevity gave a consistent impression of stable continuity." The only other problem I have is with the image QM Arms.png, which is of too poor quality for a FA. Tweak the wording of that one sentence and find a larger/higher resolution image, and I'll gladly support this as a FA. Caknuck 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support Oppose POV issues and other problems.
I've decided I'm not at all impressed by Wheen's reading of Wyatt's diary. The actual conversation on South Africa reads,
[Queen Mother]: How disgraceful it is that the press is trying to involve the Queen in the row about sanctions and whether some states might leave the Commonwealth.
[Wyatt]: Is there any truth in the story that she [the Queen]'s at odds with Mrs. Thatcher?
[Queen Mother]: None whatever (vol. I p. 167)
So, she does not say that she is against sanctions. What she actually says is that she is against the Queen becoming involved in politics. The passage "She thinks it is awful how the BBC and media misrepresent everything that Botha is trying to do." (vol. I p. 101) is accurately reported by Wheen, but as I said before that could be in relation to his few liberal policies. These are the only mentions of her in relation to South Africa in the entire 3 volumes. In fact, on reading the journal, it is Wyatt who is revealed to be a right-wing racist, not her. When he rubbishes the blacks by saying that they are not like us, her contribution is, "I am very keen on the Commonwealth. They're all like us." (vol. II p. 547) I'm more than ever convinced that Wheen's comments are unrepresentative and bias, and should not go in the article.
DrKiernan 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
This article has undergone a significant improvement drive recently and has been improved in a number of areas. Several images have been added, all claims have citations, the recentism that afflicts most football club articles has been eradicated and all-in-all I think we have a very good shout for elevation to featured status. The Rambling Man 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
All of Michaelas10's comments have been actioned or rebutted at the article talk page, with one exception to-date:
I have no experience of fair-use rationale and would welcome assistance. -- Dweller 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Brilliant. All done for this set of comments then. Thank you Michaelas10 - the article's considerably improved as a result. -- Dweller 14:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
There is also no piont giving the same information twice. Remove it from the lead if it's mentioned later then. Buc 12:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose - 1a. The prose needs cleaning up throughout. Here are random examples:
Please don't just fix these examples. Tony 08:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support - very good article, matches the criteria. Bigmike 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
Ok, I've worked on this one a bit and I've tried to keep it within WP:MOS. The biography is as succinct as I could make it without losing meaning, and I've interjected out-of-world perspective where possible without disrupting the flow per guidelines. I did a google search on Andrew and trawled through all 37 pages for critical material - all but three articles have been worked into the article. I've gone through it on paper and copyedited it. I think it's ready. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
Self-nomination. I did a lot of work on this article to bring it from its original state to its current level of quality. I think that I've done a very good job with it. ( Ibaranoff24 04:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)) reply
{{subst:furd}}
.Comment. The prose of this nomination needs scrutiny before promotion. Overall it's not badly written, but there are glitches. Here are a few examples at random.
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
An interesting topic with a side-order of academic mud-slinging. Thanks to Jmabel for help with Spanish, and Sandy for ref formatting. I don’t usually post long nominations, but I’m anticipating some concerns, so:
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
Because the old nomination had no outstanding objections, and per user:SPUI's request, I'm renominating this ( previous FAC). Raul654 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The links to Wiki images are problematic for the following reasons:
Terraserver-usa.com should be identified as publisher on maps, and there is a blue-linked reference that should be expanded ( http://www.route56.com/photobrowse.cgi?photo=10112 ) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
From the People who brought you Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, Compsognathus & many many more, comes Archaeopteryx, hopefully the next Featured Dinosaur! Seriously though, this is another great article from the Wikiproject Dino team & it has come a long way in the last month or so & I'm proud to be able to nominate it. It has 34 inline ciations & many more references. It is informative, thourough & easy to read. It has pictures to boot & is one of my pet projects. But enough about my opinion, I'll just let you make your opinion up on your own... Thanks a bunch! -- Spawn Man 06:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
James and I wrote the Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ to give people a basic understanding of copyright law. It's a bit confusing in this case -- basically, pictures of 2D works old enough to be in the public domain (created before 1922) are also public domain, regardless of when the picture was taken (because a picture of a public domain picture is still public domain, according to the Bridgeman case). However, for 3d objects such as statues, taking a picture (which involves deciding what angle, among other things) involves creative input. This creative input is large enough to warrant a new copyright. Thus, picture of 3D objects are copyrighted.
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
This GA article has gone through an FA Drive and Pre-FA review on WikiProject Taxation, had two peer-reviews, and a prior FAC. I believe we've handled all points and issues presented. Morphh (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
Respectfully submit this article on a World War II event for featured article consideration. Self-nomination with helpful assistance from other editors in the military history project. Cla68 03:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
<div class="references-small">
and </div>
around the other subsections: books and web. Cheers,
S.D. 00:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replyThe article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
A broad overview of the chemical basis of life, dealing with metabolic processes in microbes, plants and animals. Self-nomination. The article is 78 kb in total size with 43 kb of readable text. It has recently been peer-reviewed. TimVickers 19:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Anyway I'm going to support it as a perfectly referenced, well illustrated article. Really one of the best works of Wikipedia. Well done, Tim! NCurse work 20:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
This was recently demoted for being not very good. I received a book through interlibrary loan and rewrote it. I feel it is now ready for FAC, and the book is due back in a week, so I would like to know before then if anything should be added or expanded. Thank you. -- NE2 21:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
I've been working on this article since the Autumn of last year after seeing his horrific death on YouTube. I first saw Pryce's article was, to be it at best, a stub. I'm very happy about the way the article has taken shape now and I do hope it'll pass this FAC. The only concern I have is the fact that a majority of the references come from David Tremayne's book, The Lost Generation. My "excuse", if you like, for this is because the other usual resources I use, such as F1 encyclopedias and a book by Murray Walker only mention his death and only have either in the encyclopedia's cases: a paragraph and in Walker's book: a single sentence in the profile for Alan Jones - Oh and websites, except BBC Wales' article, are the same as well, either sourcing the Wiki article or just talking about his death and his potential to become a World Champion. Tremayne's book, however, goes into such detail about Pryce I needed to pick out the important bits! Anyway, hopefully that'll excuse the article's dependance on (almost) a single source.-- Phill talk Edits 09:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your replies. 4u1e 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer 15:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
Self-nomination: Hello. This article is about the recent Academy Award winning American Screenwriter for Best Adapted Screenplay, William Monahan. It's a GA currently. I have previously brought the Aaron Sorkin article to featured status. I hope to do the same with this article. They follow a similar template, so you may find making comparisons between them useful. My hope is that Monahan's previous career as a man of letters will receive more attention if this article reaches featured status and appears on the main page. He has had an interesting career and I have enjoyed researching it. So let me know what you think. This article is also a part of the nascent Screenwriters Wikiproject.- BillDeanCarter 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment The nominator of this article asked me to look over its prose. I would suggest that this article be sent to the League of Copyeditors or that the editors find a trusted wikipedia editor to copyedit for them. The prose needs a lot of work. I will give detailed examples from the lead and the first sections only.
<outdented>There are 4 facts that would have to be weaved into the body. The 1998 birth of his son, which would be out of place in the list of articles, novels, etc... he did in his man of letters years. Then the 2001 wedding, which could go in many places. His daughter's birth, is the only fact that has a place, alongside the production of Kingdom. The fourth fact, is where he resides, which I can't quite position anywhere in the text yet. Is it really worth it to break up the family of facts, and haphazardly spread them around the article? I mean, Awadewit talks about a kind of sexism, but what about breaking up the family? This way, you see in an orderly and contextual fashion exactly what kind of people he has around him; his family. I have tried briefly to put together an edit that works, but it seems clumsy. If it is really a simple matter of style then I won't do it. But if there really is something wrong here, with writing up a section about his family then I'll change it. What's the general consensus among Wikipedians?- BillDeanCarter 23:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC) reply
<outdented> Done It looks good. I didn't think there would be room, but there is. Thanks once again for the help.- BillDeanCarter 18:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The whole piece is getting better. Revision is hard work. Awadewit 11:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support This article's prose has greatly improved since its first appearance here due to the editor's tireless efforts to revise it for clarity and accessibility. I cannot speak to the page's comprehensiveness since I do not know about the subject, but there is certainly a lot of detailed information here about Monahan's films and theories regarding screenwriting. While this article does not reference any scholarly sources, I do not see that as a reason to object to this article becoming an FA there are no scholarly sources yet on this person (I did a search of all of the major databases, JSTOR, MUSE, MLA, etc.) It will be a few years before scholars have a chance to publish on these films. The information is thus well-sourced from the sources available. (There does not seem to be a policy to wait for the research to come out or anything like that.) Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support Phew, that was a tough one. Kudos on your work—the article has improved a lot. I still think the prose could use more work, but I can't put my finger on anything specific. Perhaps a final once-over by the League of Copyeditors would be a good idea? Anyway, after a more thorough read, I found all my concerns have been addressed, and one thing is undeniable about this article: its comprehensiveness. I think we can safely say that, despite its (now very minor) shortcomings, this article has become an excellent resource. Fvasconcellos 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comments. Some remarks to a generally very nice article:
QUESTION: When I talk about his writings in the "Man of letters" section does it sound like these were the only articles he wrote? Or does it sound like I'm only mentioning the notable ones?- BillDeanCarter 05:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
There's no doubt in my mind that the Devil May Cry 2 article is close to, if not meets the requirements for Featured Article status. Having recently been promoted to Good Article class, as well as having addressed the concerns raised in the Peer Review, I feel there is no other path for me to take than to present this article for review as a Featured Article and address any and all concerns other editors may have.
Thanks in advance to anyone who comments. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Iffy Support. Even though the art is, in fact, a great article, with all point in peer review covered, there are still a lot of points left to be covered. We need more information and less cruft. If someone else has said this, this makes 2. I own the game, and I will work on the art furhter to improve it. Then, maybe, we can stay featured.
Quatreryukami 03:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
I originally started this article as a section within Minnesota when we were getting that article up to FA status. Ravedave decided that the text made a better History of Minnesota article than what was currently there, so I began the process of expanding the article to its current status. It isn't all my own work, though. I'd like to recognize the contributions of Mulad, who wrote many sections that are now in the article, Appraiser, who has helped out with several topics, and others in Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota. -- Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This isn't to say there aren't more issues, I'm just tired. Good try, very thorough, but needs a re-edit and re-organization. In fact, it may be too thorough - if some of the details were shortened, the organization task would be easier. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply
-- AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment. It's not bad, but needs sifting through to correct problems in language and logic. Here are just a few examples from the top.
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
After nearly a year of improvements, a complete re-write, and several branch-off articles, I think it's finally ready for FAC. Fire away! - Running On Brains 19:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe most-to-all of the concerns have been addressed. I am awaiting comments. - Running On Brains 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe I have followed all recommendations above, aside from merging prediction and detection (I just don't see it working smoothly) and the bit about the waterspout paragraph (I believe that it is ok the way it is). - Running On Brains 01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
Previously nominated 2005-10-08 ( old nom). Over the last few months there's been a lot of work on this article, initially from myself but later with the help of Samir and Pdeitiker, amongst others. It now has a lot of supporting content, bags of references, and is fairly well organised. When I'd one a lot of editing, I asked for external expert review by Prof Paul Ciclitira of King's College, London (the author of the UK guidelines on the disease and also principal contributor to the American/AGA guidelines); it was reviewed by one of his researchers and found to be in good form. I think it's ready for featured status. JFW | T@lk 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
The article was nominated for peer review two weeks back and did not receive any comments. The article however is fully compatible with recent successful India History FA's. It is well cited, the citations are in the correct format, the format of the sections follows recent India History FA's closely. The Western Chalukyas played an important role in the history of South India in general and Karnataka more specifically, especially in the field of architecture and Kannada literature. Dineshkannambadi 22:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->If the question is why they are called Western Chalukyas, this is what many historians call them to differentiate from the contemporeneous Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi. Equally they are called "Kalyani Chalukyas" , sometimes "Chalukyas of Kalyani" and only ocassionally "Later Chalukyas". I have differentiated between western and eastern in the lead now.thanks Dineshkannambadi 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
reply-->removed parenthesis. working on flow.thanks Dineshkannambadi 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 00:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Corrected terminology of measure. Its grains not grams.sorry. added link Dineshkannambadi 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Done by User:Dwaipayanc.thanks Dineshkannambadi 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->not sure what is missing. A pointer would help.thanks. Dineshkannambadi 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Done' Dineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply--> I shall look into this tonight.thanks. Dineshkannambadi 21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply Good question. When the Western Chalukyas weakened, four empires emerged from their ruins. The Hoysalas, Seunas, Kakatiyas and Southern Kalachuri. There was a time frame between 1150-1185 when the region which is todays northern Karnataka and Southern Maharashtra may have been in flux untill the Kalachuri themselves (having been the earliest to have taken control of Kalyani) vanished into oblivion by 1190.Then the fight for control of this region between the Seuna and Hoysalas continued when the Chalukyas were still around. Each of the four empires were responsible for the down fall of the Western Chalukyas and I should include names of all kings who brought them down. Kakatiya Prolla took Chalukya Tailapa III captive and released him, Hoysala Narasimha I killed Tailapa III little later, the Seuna drove his successor out of Kalyani. The Kalachuri's were the first to draw blood by taking over Kalyani itself in ~1150 for about 20 years. The reason I mentioned only Hoysala Vera Ballala II is because the Hoysalas essentially succceded the the Chalukyas in Karnataka. But the Seunas did control northern Karnataka (north of Krishna river) for significant periods and should be mentioned too. I will take care of this.thanks Dineshkannambadi 21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Done. I have left out the Kalachuris because they too went into oblivion at the same time as Chalukyas, though they were the first to capture Kalyani.Is that ok? Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply I believe the usage of the term Pagoda came into existance because of the presence of temple like designs on reverse or obverse of the coin. Please see this link for an explanation. The author, Govindaraya Prabhu is a well known numismatist from Karnataka. [15] Dineshkannambadi 22:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
great literary classics and poets (a few, given the limited space), important literary developments and traditions. Dineshkannambadi 16:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC) The Manasollasa is a famous Sanskrit language work. Dineshkannambadi 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I verified from my sources that Manasollosa is indeed a Sanskrit writing (Sastri 1955, p315), (Kamath 2001, p114), (Thapar 2002, 393) (Dr. Jyotsna Kamat [16]). In the citation#84, Dhere may have been refereing to a poem(s) in this otherwise Sanskrit literature. Dineshkannambadi 21:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Question Shall I rename this article "Western Chalukya Empire"? Dineshkannambadi 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
Self-nomination. The article was prematurely nominated in July 2006 by another editor and failed. Since then I have been working to fix the problems and it appears to be completed now. Any objection will be responded promptly. -- BorgQueen 16:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
I've devoted quite a lot of time to the article, bringing it from this to its current state. It is extensively referenced using authoritative sources, thorough and, I believe, exhaustive, well-illustrated with media such as own-made SVG maps, miniatures, quotes and a family tree, accurate, neutral and stable.
Very importantly, the article is up-to-date with the modern historiographic treatment of the more obscure moments of Simeon's life (such as the 912 coronation and the proclamation of the patriarchate), for which I consulted Ian Mladjov, an instructor at the University of Michigan, via e-mail. As I'm not a native speaker, I requested a copyedit, which was carried out by Bcasterline, in order to meet the "well-written" requirement.
I chose to have footnotes in the lead section because I generally like to have even the general observations and summaries referenced. The article has had a peer review (though, unfortunately, by only a single person). Todor → Bozhinov 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
Many of the objections to this article have been rendered moot, and I'd like some fresh opinions, so I'm resetting this nomination. ( old nom) Raul654 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The combination of the semi-mechanized process, the non-painterly style, and the commercial subject initially caused offense, as the work's blatantly mundane commercialism represented a direct affront to the technique and philosophy of Abstract expressionism. The Abstract expressionism art movement was dominant during the post-war period, and it held not only to "fine art" values and aesthetics but also to a mystical inclination. This controversy led to a great deal of debate about the merits and ethics of such work. Warhol's motives as an artist were questioned, and they continue to be topical to this day. The public commotion helped transition Warhol from being an accomplished 1950s commercial illustrator to a notable fine artist, and it helped distinguish him from other rising pop artists. Although commercial demand for his paintings was not immediate, Warhol's association with the subject lead to his name becoming synonymous with the Campbell's Soup can paintings.
-- AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
I worked on this article over the past month, where it was a unreferenced stub. Since then it's had two peer-reviews, GA review (passed), has been copyedited by Ceoil with LuciferMorgan providing useful feedback on improving the article. I think it covers the song well and ready for FAC, if you have any objections i will deal with them promptly, thanks. M3tal H3ad 07:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
I believe that this passes all criteria. It's extremely well-written, the only problem might be references. I personally think there's enough (at least 1 in every paragraph), but it that's a huge problem I'll add some.-- Wizardman 03:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
I've been working on this article for a while. Originally it was modelled after Pilot (House), which is a FA. And is in the same format as the recently promoted Cape Feare. It is a GA and has been peer reviewed. I will try and fix any objections that might come out. Gran 2 07:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
Self-Nominated: After two months of work and very helpful feedback and contributions from the Wikipedia community, I think this article is ready for a hard look by the FA editors. I believe it meets the functional criteria of Featured Article status, so the question is whether the content is compelling enough, and writing is good enough to be featured. I think the content is compelling for a couple of reasons:
Whether or not the writing itself meets the hurdles of "Brilliance", well, that's not for me to suggest. We've tried to be concise where necessary, and offer some flourishes to bring some of the story to life. This was a balancing act, but I'll let you all be the judges of that. Mattnad 18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
Back when I nominated this for GA status, I was reccomended to send the article to Peer Review and, all going well, then nominate the article here. The only comment at the Peer Review ( here) covered only minor problems, all of which were addressed. That comment was seven days ago; nothing since. Consequently, I am pressing on and nominating here. What do you make of it? Is it good enough??? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply
-- AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
Stable. Right size, not too long, suitably referenced. -- ppm 20:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Another copyedit drive, along with some added info to make it great NPOV would do the trick, very much. Aditya Kabir 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC) reply
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18acres, use 18 acres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 acres.Overall, the article is pretty good. Address my concerns and I'll at least remove my objection, but I think a fair amount of work is still required for this to pass. - Bluedog423 Talk 02:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
The old nom had lots of problems, so I'm restarting it clean. Raul654 07:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
Self-nomination I have worked quite a bit on expanding this page on an important feminist text from a mere list of quotations and chapter headings to its GA current form. I believe that it is well-written, comprehensive and well-sourced. It has recently been through a thorough peer-review as well as a review from another wikipedia editor. See Talk:A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and Wikipedia:Peer review/March 2007. I may have given extensive answers to questions you have at those locations. Thanks. Awadewit 16:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
Well-written article, rich of great relevant pictures, which is currently the article of the week on the Mathematics Portal. Tomer T 12:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Nice work - I learned a lot. Awadewit 12:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I thought that the "cultural legacy" section was excellent. Never have I seen pop culture references worked in so seamlessly. Awadewit 10:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support This article is well-written (one of the few that has really "compelling prose"), well-sourced and comprehensive. I am particularly impressed with its ability to integrate information into a cohesive article. My only remaining quibble is the bibliography (see above). This article was a pleasure to review. Awadewit 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.
Well, it's about to be 10 years since he died, and to mark the occasion I am nominating The Notorious B.I.G.'s Wikipedia article for featured status! Here are some reasons why I hope you will support me:
Those are my reasons. I think this is a really outstanding article, above all. I hope I will get others to agree with me. 2Pac 23:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Problem fixed, it was due to some unconstructive edit, I think. Hopefully it won't happen again. But now that's done, will you support please? 2Pac 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.
The console has been out for a few months now, meaning that it is stable, and it has already been labeled as a Good Article. It appears to meet all the criteria for a featured article.
Ixistant 12:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.
Support Self-nominated We've just done his brother, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom. DrKiernan 08:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Minor object: Not my strong point, but the images Image:033278.jpg and Image:Kinggeorge-FDR.jpe seem to have (minor) copyright problems. The first doesn't specify which reason for crown copyright expiry is relevant. The second gives "These pictures may be used for research and educational purposes, but may not be published or sold in any way." as the fair use rationale, which doesn't seem to work because they are being published.
4u1e 17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.
Self-nom. This is not a typical FAC, I think, but the recent appearance of Polar coordinate system on the main page gave me hope that there is also room for articles targeted to a specialist audience. The article has had a peer review and has been listed as a Good article since November. At first I was content to keep it a GA, but then I noticed that the 1.0 assessment system says of GAs, "Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job", and in all modesty I don't think that's true. I don't think other encyclopedias could do a better job, and in fact I think this is the most comprehensive introduction to Irish phonology currently available anywhere (either online or in print, in either English or Irish). And so, since I believe it to be an "outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information", I'm nominating it for promotion to FA. — An gr 23:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I've rewritten the third paragraph of the lead to be more accessible to laypeople. Let me know what you think. — An gr 15:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Okay, I've incorporated the examples into the paragraphs so that they are prose rather than lists. I've also tried to tone down some of the more technical language and to explain the technical terms that are used. I've also added several images to try to make some points more visually salient. Please let me know what you think! — An gr 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.
Self-nom. This two-week-old article has had an appearance on DYK and a brief peer review, which I'm cutting short so that I can get the ball rolling here. Other editors have made helpful suggestions, and I think the article is looking pretty good.
The article isn't very long, but I think it's comprehensive. The topic isn't very important, but I think it's interesting. The subject area isn't very accessible, but… it lends itself to pretty pictures? Melchoir 10:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.
Self-nomination. Less than a month ago, I did a major expansion and restructuring to this article where a few newly-created images (my authorship) were also added. It is an A-Class article according to WikiProject Portugal and is expecting a class reassessment from the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject. I believe it follows all FA criteria, but the final decision is yours. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 15:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
Originally a Jumpaclass entry at WP:LGBT, I somehow just kept working on the article long after the competition. I think it's ready for FA (though possibly with a few finishing touches which I'm sure you'll tell me about). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Halloween was nominated for a Saturn Award by the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films for Best Horror Film in 1979, but lost to The Wicker Man (1973).[28] The film has received other honors since its theatrical debut. Halloween is 68th on the American Film Institute's list 100 Most Thrilling Movies Ever, compiled in 2001. In 2006, the United States Library of Congress deemed Halloween to be "culturally significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry.[29]
On a final note, no need to bite my head off either. LuciferMorgan 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Ok:
So, how's it looking now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Quick comment : ref format trouble at critical reception section. Will proceed to finish article and then give my opinion on it.
Raystorm 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Fixed it myself.
reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
I am nominating Compsognathus to FA status. This is another production of the Wikiproject dinosaur team on a lesser known of these prehistoric critters. The article has been extensively edited during the last few weeks and as it is now, it is as comprehensive as possible considering that only two reasonably complete skeletons of this animal have been found (a century and a half apart). The article currently cites 32 scientific references which is more than for the previous successful FA candidates Albertosaurus, Psittacosaurus and Velociraptor. ArthurWeasley 16:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
(Self nom) I have been working on this article for some weeks now, and believe that it's now ready for evaluation here. To the best of my knowledge, no on-line source brings together a complete history of the ship like this. Your comments would of course be welcome. An earlier peer review by members of WikiProject Military history may be read here— BillC talk 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
I've tried to model this article after Clyde Miller and Deckiller's Empires: Dawn of the Modern World; they helped me on this one too. The article has improved from Start to A-Class, and I thought it might be ready for FA. I'd appreciate any suggestions. Thanks! · AO Talk 00:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This could probably do with a copyedit to weed out clumsy phrases. Trebor 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
sumal 14:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
A solid piece of work, mostly by User:The Rambling Man, this has grown from a run of the mill cricket bio to an outstanding article, worthy of FA status. Particularly tricky has been lifiting the article out of the welter of stats that threatened to drown the narrative flow. Masses of OR has been removed. Even more has been sourced - witness 120+ references at the last count. Constructive criticism welcomed, as ever. Even better, please do feel free to support this nom! -- Dweller 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
OK, I identified 10 criticisms in Blnguyen's oppose. At the article talk page, 9 have been addressed by User:The Rambling Man and the other (the least concrete) rebutted by (erm) me. -- Dweller 11:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
We seem to be all done. Any other comments? -- Dweller 11:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
author
referencing parameter is reserved solely for people.
List of cricket terms improperly linked. A Test series whitewash over New Zealand,[70] was followed.. - Whenever a reference is placed in the middle of a sentence, adding a comma prior to it is unnecessary as this would normally result in a grammatical error. ...moved the family > ...moved with the family.
Michaelas10
(Talk) 16:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replyThe article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
This article was the last GA collaboration and is a article of high quality. All of the peer review issues were addressed so here it is and feel free to leave comments. Tarret 17:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
It is with great pleasure that I nominate the "Mozambican War of Independence" article, created by User:SGGH. This article which tell us about the conflict which resulted in a negotiated independence of Mozambic, is extemely well written and referenced. It already has a GA status, but after reading it I came to the conclusion that it has the makings of an FA article. Tony the Marine 03:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks, the author of the source in question used a huge amount of sources himself which are all listed there, so I personaly would vouch for its NPOV, plus it doesn't make many bold statements of observations which would suggest it had a POV to get across SGGH 17:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: Seems nice, and it can't be commended enough having decided to cover such a topic so subject to systemic bias. Iì'll just make some observations, and pardon if I'll be deliberately iper-fastidious :-):
-- Aldux 22:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: Some formatting is needed, to unify notes. To this, I would observe: 1) is the "further reading" section really needed? 2)Should Rhodesia be among the combatants in the warbox? It supported the Portuguese, but the Rhodesians start serious operations in Mozambique only after the end of the war. 3)Is a "further reading" section really needed? 4) Also, I'm afraid "Location of the provinces" section is a bit out of place; I don't see exactly why it's there (there are interwiki links if it has to show where to search for).-- Aldux 01:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: Sorry for deserting you in the last couple of days. You're proceeding great: in my opinion the only things that need a bit of work is the notes and the references, to unify them. You could also consider removing some of the references involving Westfall's essay; if you use him for all a paragraphy, you don't have to leave a citation for him in every sentence. And continue with the good work!-- Aldux 22:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I have replaced the FAP image with a new one. SGGH 10:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Plenty of new images now, all commons okay'd. The two general ones are in still place at the moment. SGGH 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Main image now infact replaced by a compositie of 4 images from commons which all have all rights released. SGGH 22:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
SGGH 23:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
All issues raised on the talk page have been addressed by Zleitzen, Jmabel or myself. SGGH 08:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
Self-nomination. I spent some time last month building the content and references in this article up, as I believe Kneale to be a subject more than worthy of a useful biographical article on Wikipedia. It is a current Good Article, having very recently been promoted after having been nominated by User:LuciferMorgan, one of several users who I asked to proofread the article. Others, User:Josiah Rowe and User:Seegoon, left highly positive remarks about the article on my talk page here and here. The article has also had a recent peer review, here, which attracted useful feedback which I believe I have acted upon. Angmering 16:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
Self-nomination. This article has been through a peer-review, and has been approved as a Good article. The biography is as complete as the sources available, and I don't see much room left for expansion. I am more than willing to make whatever changes/edits are deemed to be necessary for this to be a FA. Pastordavid 22:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
This is an article about an episode from the TV series The Simpsons. The article was modelled after Pilot (House), which is a FA. Compared to the House episode, this article holds more information that is not just the synopsis. The article is currently a GA and has been peer reviewed. I will try and fix any objections that might come during this candidacy. -- Maitch 15:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
Self nomination The story of a specimen collecting expedition taken by John Steinbeck and Ed Ricketts around the Gulf of California. It was a stub until a couple of weeks ago when I took pity on it. It's been through a helpful peer review and I now present it for your consideration. Yomangani talk 11:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
Having read through the article, this article seems to meet all the feature article criteria. Atomic1609 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
I did this article about a month ago, and after looking back at it I think it's featured worthy. Comments? Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Seems to pass all criteria. It is a bit small, but smaller articles have passed. I'm not sure to whether support this or not. Evilclown93 22:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
This is a self-nomination. This article has been through a peer review and was rated as a Good Article. I've attempted to cover the subject matter as broadly as possible and to present a neutral tone. I think it's well-written, but I'm open to any suggestions to improve upon it. -- Bookworm857158367 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support DrKiernan 10:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
Self Nomination I've been working on this article for quite some time. I helped build it up from a stub article to where it is now. I have properly formatted all sources in the Harvard Citation method and documented everything within the article. It was originally 2 articles, one on the Knifemaker, the other on his knives and I merged them into this current version. I welcome all comments and advice to get this article to Featured Status.
Thank You -- Mike Searson 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Added to the above, the article has a tendency to read like a puff piece. There are POV statements, like "The system is based on simple and effective techniques" (who says they're simple and effective?). The second paragraph of the lead in particular makes him seem too good. Have there been criticisms of him or his knives? It feels unbalanced at present. Trebor 23:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment. Back for another look, sorry for the delay.
Sorry if I walked on your edits. OK, thanks...I'll get to work on it. I used the template on the photo of Ernest and on the Bowie logo...is this what I need to do for the rest? Do I need added permission from Emerson? Thanks for pointing this out. I'll do what it takes to make them compliant. Mike Searson 21:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
Self-nomination. This article was nominated for FAC a while back here at a point where almost everyone agreed (including myself) that the nomination was premature. However, after much work I feel the article fulfills the nomination criteria and is ready for Featured Article consideration. WesleyDodds 07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
I wrote this article in January with the FA criteria in mind. It has since been peer reviewed. This article is currently the only thorough overview of this species available online (or in print since 1966) in the English language. -- NoahElhardt 18:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
Self-nomination. After working hard on the article, I'm being bold and applying for Featured article candidate status. I hope this article is good enough now, I've tried to make it as well-referenced as possible. I hope to be able to address and fix anything else that may be needed to make it FA-worthy. Shrumster 16:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
I began work on this article in early January and helped expand upon the biography of one of the most famous generals during Soviet times. The original article was only several kilobytes long [38] and so now in its expanded form comprehensively covers much of Bagramyan's life, especially his career during the Second World War. Its nomination coincidentally comes only 1-2 weeks after another article I nominated, the Nagorno-Karabakh War, passed its FA nomination. I believe the article meets the criteria to become an FAC: its stable, is well written in a NPOV perspective, is abundantly cited from a variety of reputable, verifable and easy to find sources and has plenty of images.-- MarshallBagramyan 01:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I gave the photograph's fair use rationale one more shot but if does not suffice, I suppose we have to look for a substitute picture.
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
Self-nomination - The article's had a lot of work up from a stub, a couple copy-edits, a peer review, made GA, and seems to be pretty stable. It's a little shorter than I'd like, but I think it covers the topic pretty thoroughly. - Mocko13 23:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose (Reason for striking opposition is that I now feel the article meets my objections and is of FA standard. Since I have been editing it so much myself recently, I feel I shouldn't vote "support", as such, as I'm probably now biased in its favour. See my waffling comments much lower down.)
qp10qp 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC) It's a valuable article, in my opinion, but not a featured one, though hats off to Mocko for the work he has done here. I have two objections: the first is that there are other sources that could be used to vary this article—if the article was totally reliable that wouldn't matter, but the narrative here seems a little shaky, with opaque motivations ascribed on the basis of only one source. Secondly, the prose style seems to me vague and even odd ("Sir Cecil" for "Sir Robert Cecil"?) in places. Here are a few examples which, for me, raise more questions than they answer:
reply
By 1612, Calvert's star had risen enough in the King's eye that the death of Sir Cecil did no harm to his political career, and he was made a Clerk of the Privy Council in 1613. (Odd way of puttting it.)
In his new position, Calvert was assigned by the King to go to Ireland and review the results of English policies there, the failures of which Calvert blamed on the Jesuits.[7] Calvert was knighted in 1617 for his service to the King and only two years later completed his remarkable rise to power when he was appointed one of two Secretaries of State, a position similar to the modern role of Prime Minister. (What happened in Ireland? What was remarkable about his rise? In what way similar to the role of Prime Minister?)
Whether as a way to save face upon exiting the political arena or due to a true turn of faith, in 1624 or 1625 Calvert claimed to be a convert to Catholicism and resigned from his Secretaryship. (Archaic phrasing. It wouldn't be a claim if it was genuine.)
Just a few weeks later, King James died, but the newly crowned King Charles maintained Calvert's Baronet and his honored place on the Privy Council. (Baronetcy?)
The land he saw there was not the paradise that had been described by some early settlers, but was a marginally productive rocky island that had, unknown to Baltimore or his contemporaries, been too difficult for even Viking settlers from Greenland to stay. (Is this true? My understanding is that the Vikings only set up hunting bases in that area, before returning to Greenland. I don't think they were settlers.)
qp10qp 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
By shaky narrative, I mean that here we have a guy doing one seemingly unconnected thing after another (there are hints of motivation, but they aren't followed up). There is a suggestion that he had pinned his hope on a Spanish wife for Charles. Why? Because he was leaning towards Catholicism? When and why did he fall out of favour? What was the timescale of that, as he seems to still be a secretary of state in 1624 or 5 when he resigns (yet you say he reached the apex of his power in 1621, so how did he hang on to this prime-ministerlike job for three or four more years)? Did he fall out of favour because he was leaning towards Catholicism? Did he lean towards Catholicism because he was falling out of favour? If Calvert was falling out of favour, why did the king "suddenly" appoint him Baron Baltimore? The article merely says that James suddenly remembered his fondness for him, which seems a bit thin. And if Calvert was falling out of favour, why did Charles confirm him in powerful posts when coming to power? Because he sympathised with Catholics himself? This all seems very jumpy and unclear. And then, just as this business of falling out of favour and yet being given titles and posts is starting to intrigue me, the subject of Calvert's position in government is abandoned and all we read about from then on is his venture in Newfoundland, though he didn't go there till 1627.
Those are the sorts of things I mean by the narrative being shaky and the motivations opaque.
qp10qp 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
Superfluous and self-indulgent comment: I feel the article is worthy of FA status now, though it awaits a merge in about four days' time.
I sometimes wish I had never opposed this article, as without my objection, it might well have passed by now, with its three or four support votes and no other objectors. I don't believe in just criticising and running, and so I've been working for the last fortnight to meet my own objections. Since one of them was that the article wasn't sourced to enough books, that has landed me with a mother-and-father of a load of reading and editing. But as a result, the article now has at least double the number of references and much extra material, as well as considerable corroboration of the original information.
At first I was reluctant to get involved, thinking this guy was a minor figure in history (he hardly gets a mention in my three James I biographies—only a single entry in one of them, which is inaccurate, even then). But as I read through Krugler and Codignola, among others, he emerged for me as something of a quiet hero. In the age of James, when murders, plots, affairs, and corruption infested the royal court, here was a man behaving in a civilised, honourable way at all times, and for five years pretty much holding the government and foreign policy together singlehandedly. In his belief in freedom of worship, he is also a crucial figure in the history of the early American states, which might otherwise have gone too far down the Puritan road. In treating Calvert in this much detail, I believe Wikipedia has a unique article here (kudos to user:Mocko)—and it amuses me that quiet George for the moment sports a better article (in my opinion) than do the incompetent monsters who messed up England (and George's life) at this time in history and excresce the history books with their oozing odiousness—such as Sir Thomas Lake, Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, and, dare I say it (since his article purports to be a featured one), James I himself. If only that cartload of popinjays had listened to sensible George, maybe Charlie would have lived. qp10qp 09:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks again for your comments. (I haven't forgotten that I was going to drop you a note about my "essay style" remark re Anna Laetitia Barbauld: I will get round to that before long.) qp10qp 09:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
Grab a trencher, pass the frumenty and dunk a sop or two in the nearest cup o' wine, because here's a culinary delight sweeter than a galley worth of hypocras!
It all began with my accidental discovery of the none-too-humble subtlety when reading Timeline. From then on my fascination with medieval cookery just kept growing, and the result was a full-fledged gastronomical orgy of academic indulgence. I've plowed well over a thousand pages of literature by now, and considering how delightfully scrumptious the topic is, there's bound to be more in the form of various sub-articles ( one has already been spawned). This is primarily a self-nomination, but I would like to thank Choess for his thorough and highly motivating GA-review, Andrew Dalby for his informative explanation on wine making, Geogre for a round of copyediting and miscellaneous pointers, Itinerant for providing useful URLs on calorie statistics, and, of course, all the users who have helped with everything from spell-checking to the occasional factual tidbit.
I'm sure that there might be a lot of things that need to be tweaked and copyedited. There's probably even gaps in the coverage, but I've reached the point where I feel that it's time to put the article through an FAC, as the peer review was unable to provoke anything but automated comments. So, without further banter, I bid you to do your worst! Peter Isotalo 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
I've spent a considerable amount of time working on the Ohio Wesleyan University article. The article has had two peer reviews (which are here and here). The peer review found no major problems and the suggestions for improvement have all been addressed. user:Rintrah, user:Galena11 and user:SandyGeorgia from the League of Copyeditors have been incredibly helpful with both feedback and editing over the course of the last three months.
This is a self-nomination in that I have made most of the edits to the article, but I have sought feedback from many and have received positive comments. Thanks for any feedback, LaSaltarella 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
When OWU opened, it was an academy (prep school) for 2 years before becoming a University. This is mentioned in connection with the academy's closing in the 1920s, but I think it needs to be said at the beginning first. Also, the first college of the university was the College of Liberal Arts established in 1844. I think it is inaccurate to say "By the end of the 19th century, Wesleyan had added a College of Liberal Arts (founded in 1844)..." as adding implies there is something in existence to add to, but this was the first college and my understanding is that the University came into existence with the college's formation (unless the Academy was somehow the same as the University, which would also need to be explained here if true). The Academy and College of Liberal Arts need to be mentioned in the Founding section.
I also wonder about the choice of buildings in the article and worry it might run into WP:Recentism problems, as it seems most buildings built in the past 50 years are mentioned, but none are mentioned between the purchase of Elliott Hall in 1842 and building University Hall in 1893 (the first 51 years). See History of Ohio Wesleyan University for other buildings built then. I would argue that for a very new University the decision to build a second or even third building is a much bigger event than building two dorms 110 years later (i.e. Thomson and Bashford Halls). Obviously not all buildings on campus now or in the past need to be mentioned, but some are omitted that probably should not be.
Finally three minor points: I would add that the Ohio Legislature approved Poe and Elliott's charter; I am also not sure of the significance of a student in Ohio in 1862 praising Washington; and I am not sure that the other members of the Ohio Five (now mentioned in the article body) are worthy of inclusion in the lead paragraphs (which are a summary of the most important things in the article). Ohio Five yes, all other members no. I think the article is very close to FA and hope this helps,
Ruhrfisch 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
I also wonder if there couldn't be some condensation of book footnotes. I searched on the Tull book notes and there are currently 14 different refs for this book, four of which are duplicates (current refs #49 and #50 are both "Tull p. 182", and refs #139 and #140 are both "Tull p. 132"). I think you could get away with condensing all 14 into just five refs, saving 9 more refs (at end of my comments). So just these saves 20 refs or about 10%.
My guess is that the other books and other duplicates could save 20 or 30 more refs. In any case, the use of p. and pp. is not consistent for the books and needs to be cleaned up. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 17:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
Antioxidants are important in biology and widely-used as nutrient supplements. This article gives a comprehensive overview of the various types of antioxidants and their applications. It is 65 kb in total length, self-nomination. TimVickers 05:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
previous FAC, note on closing—former featured article
This article was originally Featured, but went through an upheaval following the contentious events surrounding the IAU's decision in 2006. It was subsequently stripped of its Featured status. I have gone through and attempted to answer most of the criticisms raised in its Review, and I think I have dealt with most if not all of the issues.
Serendipodous 14:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
This article meets all criteria for FA promotion. It has gone thru two GA processes, but denied because the reviewers refused to reasses after changes were made. And a peer review with all issues being addressed. Jo e I 21:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
This article has had a peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Harbhajan Singh/archive1, it has been copyedited by ALoan, and the article is a comprehensive account of the life and career of India's most successful off spin bowler and the first Indian cricketer to take a Test hat trick. It is part of WP:CRIC's {{ CWC Advert}} FA Drive for the 2007 Cricket World Cup. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support Good work on the article/bio but can you please fix the two red links, ICC referee already have an article. I think, its icc elite referee or something like that so just redirect it.-- Thugchildz 07:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
This is an article concerning a music album that has been improved to GA, and after further improvement from many other gracious editors, I feel is now ready for FAC given the fact it has been sufficiently expanded per the sources currently available on the article topic. My thanks to all those that have contributed, who's help has been greatly appreciated (can any of those contributors who wish to comment on this FAC and / or vote please make the fact clear they've been contributors to the article when commenting / voting?.. thanks). If there's any concerns as relates the article not meeting a specific part of FA criteria, can they please be specific in what they feel needs addressing and I'll get onto addressing them asap. My thanks to all FAC reviewers in advance, and I hope the article is of joy. LuciferMorgan 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't class Blabbermouth.net as a news reference - news is like CNN on TV etc. as far as I'm concerned, and Blabbermouth.net is a web source, thus why they have CD reviews.
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
Support. Self-nominated. DrKiernan 09:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
Self-nomination. I am continuing to work on the Star Wars film articles in the hopes of getting all six films promoted to featured status. I have been working on this article since A New Hope was promoted just a few months ago. It has had a peer review and has been rated as A-class. It is not only a good article, but also a part of the newly formed featured topic. If The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, and A New Hope are featured worthy, I feel that this article is worthy as well. The Filmaker 08:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
A lot of work has been done, but it needs a lot more tweaking. I'll go ahead and give it a pass. — Deckill er 15:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
(Previous FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Montreal Screwjob)
Hi all - I've expanded and revised the article thoroughly. I feel the next step is the FAC, where I can obtain the main round of criticism and corrections. I request your input and support for this article to become an FA. Rama's arrow 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
AreJay 20:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support: Excellently executed ;) AreJay 01:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
Self Nomination I've worked on it, I've put it up for peer review, so I'm putting it up for FAC. Goldfritha 18:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
This is one of the more impressive biographies I've seen. It is well-cited, well-written, and attractively presented. It looks like a featured article to me.-- Bookworm857158367 04:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
Currently rated A-class by the ScoutingWikiProject. An article on an adult leader training program. Rlevse 17:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
Hoysala architecture article has been through a peer review. This architectural style which was developed by the Hoysala Empire (which is already a FA) is considered an unique idiom in the annals of medieval Indian architecture. Please provide positive feedback to help get this topic to FA status. Dineshkannambadi 18:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-> I have tried to clarify this after reading the line in my book. The term clockwise (which has been used for clarity and does apear in my book, Foekema page 25) must be seen as a top view. When a devotee gets on to the jagati, the devotee starts walking towards his/her left to see the sequence of scenes (my book calls it "right to left sequence of epic scenes in the direction of circumabulation". Dineshkannambadi 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply--> I have provided citation (#4) from Prof. Settar. In the 12th century, when Islam hardly had any impact on South India and Christianity had not made its presence yet, I suppose a temple with Vishnu/Shiva and Jain depictions are "relatively" considered secular, given the competition among devotees of these faith. Dineshkannambadi 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply My book says Lord of. I can change it to Lord. In "Hoysaleswara" temple, the word means Lord of Hoysala (Foekema, p20). My book says while a Shiva temple can have the ending word esvara or eswara, or the name of a devotee or person who commissioned the temple, Vishnu temples only are named after the deity form of Vishnu (Krishna, Rama etc). I will add this info more accurately with citation. Provided citation.thanks Dineshkannambadi 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
( talk) 04:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Reply-->wikilinked. Will create stubs where necessary.thanks. Dineshkannambadi 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply--> I have added bracketed clarifying phrases and wording Dineshkannambadi 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->I have made edits to clarify your doubts. In large temples, the open mantapa serves as outer mantapa and the inner mantapa is the closed mantapa. In Smaller temples, the inner mantapa is all the temple has. So the concept of outer/inner does not arise. I have also copyedited the pillars section to improve readability. Dineshkannambadi 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->the Vimana is the "Shrine" (inner sanctum, its outer decorated walls), the Garbhagriha would be inside of the Vimana where the Idol is placed. If there is only one shrine with a tower it is called Ekakuta vimana. If there are two shrines with two towers its called Dvikuta vimana and so on. The term Vimana has nothing to do with the mantapa. The tower on top of the shrine does not seem to have its own seperate designation. The tower on top of the entrance porch is the Gopuram. Dineshkannambadi 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Dineshkannambadi 15:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->done Dineshkannambadi 23:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
Self-nomination. This article has been progressively re-written over the last year. Achieved GA status some time ago and has undergone a peer review. The article is about a New Zealand Rugby union team that competes in the Super 14. Believe it is well referenced, NPOV, comprehensive and well-written. Thanks. - Shudda talk 03:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
A lot of hardwork and time has been put into this article; although I understand that hardwork and time are not on the featured article criteria, I think that the article meets most of the requirements. Admittedly, the prose may not be brilliant, but hopefully this FAC will help get it there. This article has gone through a good article review, A-class article review and a peer review. This is a self-nomination. JonCatalan 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Could you make a difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources? Wandalstouring 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: there are still a few unreferenced paragraphs. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 07:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
JonCatalan 20:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment:In the design section a paragraph comparing the T-26 with it's close relatives it's ancestor the Vickers 6-Ton and it's half-brother the 7TP would be very apreciated, Especialy since the T-26 and 7TP could have been used against each other. Mieciu K 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support As a member of Military history I believe that this would make a very good featured article. Zaz zer
Really, the three quotes used in the T-26 article, IMO, are not suggesting a certain point of view. JonCatalan 08:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I know there are precedents for articles using quotations passing FA. Had I participated in those FAC discussions I probably would have objected to them being granted FA status with the quotations in place. My question to you, however, is: How do those quotations improve the article at all? I only find them distracting and I think they mar what is otherwise a really good article (besides those few issues I mentioned above and some missing wikilinks I'm going to add myself soon).-- Carabinieri 13:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
Worked on by a devoted cadre of editors, ( User:The Rambling Man probably put in the most time and effort) and thoroughly referenced, peer reviewed and copy edited, this has been a wonderful example of how a collaboration can take a B class article onwards and upwards in a very short time. We are hoping to secure FA status in time for the start of the Cricket World Cup. -- Dweller 13:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
"Natural athlete" is a quote from the reference - it's the first words of Cricinfo's profile of Collingwood (below the stats). Thanks for the excellent review Yomangi; clear and precise. -- Dweller 05:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Shirt number information hidden. Agreed, it's tacky and not particularly useful, as he's not beholden to it and spectators can see his name on his shirt in ODIs anyway. -- Dweller 05:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Are all objections properly addressed? I can't see any remaining, and Rambling Man has fixed the dashes that were incorrectly corrected! If there are outstanding concerns, please clarify - I think we're done. -- Dweller 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't want to sound like an auctioneer, but "all done?" -- Dweller 09:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
There were a lot of issues brought up in the old nom that are now moot. Nomination reset. Raul654 04:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, gee, two actions you could take would be to replace the fair use image (you did that, but apparently you MUST MUST MUST have the image in) or remove the fair use image. Are those not actions? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
This article on a well-known genus of dinosaur is a product of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team, the same group who created Featured Articles Stegosaurus, Velociraptor, Tyrannosaurus, and others. This article is currently one of Wikipedia's longest articles on dinosaurs. Article is sourced with 84 references, mostly from primary scientific sources (over 260 cites altogether). A FAC reviewer went over the text to work out the last kinks. I find the prose compelling, and it is hard to imagine an article more comprehensive or factually accurate. The article presents now-discredited views (200 years of changing theories) but does not give undue weight. This article is not the subject of edit wars and is stable. Appropriate images are peppered throughout. In short, this is one of the best dinosaur articles on Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. How could I not support such a thorough, detailed article: it's definitely a tour de force, of a sort. However, I'm surprised at the complacency of the above comments. The two difficulties I had with the article were a clunky, sometimes ungrammatical, prose style and a tendency to descend in places into unreadability through too dense a use of technical and Latin terms. I also feel that the article is far too long at over 60 kb. If it was left to me, I'd address that by offloading the "Reassigned species" and "Dubious species" sections into a summary-style daughter article, particularly as these sections are really about non-iguanodons when you come down to it. They are also some of the worst for unreadability, containing material like this:
I. atherfieldensis, described by R.W. Hooley in 1925,[28] was smaller and less robust than I. bernissartensis, with longer neural spines. It was renamed Mantellisaurus atherfieldensis in 2006.[40] I. exogyrarum (also spelled I. exogirarum or I. exogirarus) was described by Fritsch in 1878. It is a nomen dubium based on very poor material and has been reassigned, by George Olshevsky, to Ponerosteus.[47]
I. foxii (also spelled I. foxi) was originally described by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 as the type species of Hypsilophodon; Owen (1873 or 1874) reassigned it to Iguanodon, but his assignment was soon overturned.[48]I. hollingtoniensis (also spelled I. hollingtonensis), described by Lydekker in 1889, is a synonym of I. fittoni. I. prestwichii (also spelled I. prestwichi), described by John Hulke in 1880, has been reassigned to Camptosaurus prestwichii. I. seeleyi (also spelled I. seelyi), described by Hulke two years after I. prestwichii, has been synonymized with I. bernissartensis. I. suessii, described by Emanuel Bunzel in 1871, has been reassigned to Mochlodon suessi.[1]
I feel that at such times this article forgets it is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry for the general reader. Far too many technical terms are introduced during the article without explanation (I don't believe linking is enough)—for example, the article takes for granted that the reader will know what a "clade" is, and I didn't. A Wikipedia article should explain its technical terms as it goes along, so I felt I was being catered for much better by sentences like:
Overall, I believe the general reader will be most interested in the discoveries and in the descriptions of the iguanodon's appearance, movements, feeding habits, etc. some of which was left rather late in the article (the article took me over an hour to read), by which time I fear some readers will have been put off.
The language rather wore me out. Often antecedents were unclear and grammar blurry, producing a wearying effect. An example would be:
Clearly the opening phrase is misattached to the subject of the sentence. However, I can't expect this generalised comment to be actioned without my making a long list of examples, and so I will maybe have a go at copyediting the article myself, sometime.
I hope these remarks don't take away from my vote of support for the article. We'd clearly be nuts not to feature an article containing this much valuable information. qp10qp 18:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support - excellent article. And hey if the article provides as much info as possible and is well written who says it must be short? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
In reply to Firstfron of Ronchester, who said this above: "Because long parentheticals tend to disrupt the flow of the sentence, making it difficult to understand what is being said, I truly prefer using a wikilink on words which require a lengthier explanation."
I don't agree that a phrase of explanation would make it difficult to understand what is being said; quite the opposite, especially if it's a literal translation of the Greek. It's recommended Wikipedia practice to explain technical words as we go along, and wikilinks don't satisfy that recommendation, in my opinion. I've just had a look at the article with a view to maybe copyediting it, and the task really is quite daunting: I already have a row of wikilinked tabs open and a row of dictionary tabs. Finding the meaning of the wikilinked words purely from wikipedia is not as straightforward as it should be. Take the first sentence of the article:
Iguanodon ( IPA pronunciation /ɪˈgwɑːnəˌdɒn/ or /ɪˈgwænəˌdɒn/, meaning " Iguana tooth") is the name given to a genus of ornithopod dinosaur which lived roughly halfway between the early hypsilophodontids and their culmination in the duck-billed dinosaurs.
I looked up ornithopod and got an entry which started:
Ornithopods are a group of ornithischian dinosaurs who started out as small, cursorial grazers ...
More wikilinks to check out! I looked up hypsilophodontid, and got:
Hypsilophodonts were small ornithopod dinosaurs. The group traditionally has included almost all ornithopods other than iguanodonts, but recent phylogenetic analyses have found that the group is mostly paraphyletic and the taxa within usually represent a stepwise arrangement leading up to Iguanodontia ( Weishampel et al., 2003; Norman et al, 2004). Thus, the only certain member at this time is Hypsilophodon.
None of this stuff helped me. My next stop therefore was dictionaries, and they proved more helpful—so now I know that ornithopods are "bird-footed" dinosaurs and hypsilophodonts are small, swift-running bipedal dinosaurs (and that hypsilo means "crested"). I think it would be nicer if the readers of the article had easy access to such helpful descriptions; after all, that same first sentence willingly gives us "duck-billed" for hadrosaurs, a helpful decision which saved me a third detour. qp10qp 02:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
First, let me repeat that this is an excellent article. I wouldn't dream of lousing it up. When it comes to language, I'm an Orwellian:
Trust me on the last one. I'm not going to do anything barbarous. (I may not do anything at all.) I'd only change something if I thought it would be better, and that would involve using fewer words, not more. By the way, parentheses aren't necessarily the best idea, I agree: clear, explanatory writing might be, using good old-fashioned subordinate clauses. qp10qp 04:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. I did some minor tweaking per WP:MOS, etc. trimmed some redundant wording, and made a few other fixes. I have no problems supporting now. — Brian ( talk) 09:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. It would be nice to have a diagram that illustrated how some anatomical feature evolved from the hypsilophodontids through the Iguanodon to the duck-billed dinosaurs, supporting the comment in the opening paragraph that the Iguanodon lies approximately "half-way" through ornithopod evolution. Bluap 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
Currently rated GA (as of 7 weeks ago), and has gone through a peer review and an exhaustive rewriting process. Special effort has been undertaken to ensure the article is inline-sourced, using the cite.php system of citation, and that all available literature has been consulted through the State Library of Western Australia. Nearly all the images are photographs taken or drawings made by myself, with only one image having been taken directly from an external source - all are appropriately tagged and have information sections. It also fills a gap in the online literature on this subject. The article is 54 kb, although a large part of this is because of the extensive citations. I hope that this article is worthy of FA status, and I am happy to work through any points raised in this review. Orderinchaos 14:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
I have been working intensively on this article for the last two months. The article has been expanded significantly. It has been copyedited several times too. Several other users help me with copyediting the article and/or commenting on the article (User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld, User:Mtevfrog , User:Francis Tyers and many others) Moreover it was peer reviewed and also GA assessed (promoted to GA). Since GA assessment the article underwent another major editing where its size was reduced nearly 27%. I think the article is in a good shape after all. Based on feedbacks from reviewers I have the impression that it is featured worthy. I would be very happy to have your comments for further improvements. Sangak 16:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your comments. Please let me know what you think about my plan. Sangak 10:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Sangak 13:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Here are the improvements:
Thanks. Sangak 18:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
OK, I'm just having a bit of fun to make you sweat a little! These are minor faults, & easily remedied (tip: the Delete key may come in handy).
I suggest you use this version—unless there's a compelling reason to use the version in the article (eg you prefer it, it was quoted in English in the film, ...).
Good luck! -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
Self nom. Article significantly expanded, cited and several sections rewritten. See also: Wikipedia:Peer review/Uranium/archive1. This is my first FAC in a long time and the subject matter demanded a huge amount of work, so please bear with me as I try to fix any remaining issues. -- mav 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks - Ctbolt 01:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
This is a self-nom, I've been massaging this article for some time. It has been peer-reviewed and has passed GA. (It has also been assessed as 'A' by the Military History project.) I hope that it is good enough for FA now, but I am happy to make any changes that it needs to get there. I am very proud of this work. JRP 05:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
This article is about a rather obscure event to which little research has been dedicated. As a result, the article relies largely on the reconstruction done by Jonathan Frankel in The Damascus Affair: "Ritual Murder," Politics, and the Jews in 1840 based on primary sources. It is a good article now, and it had a peer review most of the comments on which seems to have been implemented. I believe that the article meets all the featured article criteria and deserves a promotion. Beit Or 19:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:30, 31 March 2007.
I believe this article meets the featured article criteria. A " good article" since November 28, it follows the club pages manual of style and is fully referenced.
As a note, it had a peer review at the end of November, which mainly focused on structural issues at the time.
In my opinion, one of the best parts about this page is the images, which are generally so lacking in most sports articles. A lot of time and effort has gone in to securing free images from the club and photographers, all of which have permission archived in the OTRS system.
Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. Very good overall. Excellent prose I must say. Throughout comments:
Oppose I must have missed the peer review for this one. A few (mostly minor) things before this can get my support:
A good article from a fantastic editor! Believe me, nobody, more than myself would like to see a Central Coast article featured, however their are a few things I believe need to be fixed up.
Good article, yet more to do. In the meantime Oppose. SUPPORT.
[1]
Todd661
Conditional
[2] Support. Good article, but a few things:
Hey, been offline a while so missed an opportunity perhaps, but overall this is a great article. I have only a few very minor comments which you can look at as you see fit.
Hopefully some of that makes sense and/or helps. Great work, all the best. The Rambling Man 19:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. Great article. Only one comment. Would it be possible to write something about the clubs ownership. Thanks. Kyriakos 12:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose—1a. Before we jump to conclusions ("excellent prose I must say"), let's take a proper look. I've chosen at random the "Colours and badge" section, which I see comprises three stubby paragraphs.
Then further down:
Please don't just correct these issues; they're examples of why a thorough copy-edit is required, preferably by someone who's unfamiliar with the text. Tony 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:30, 31 March 2007.
Nom restarted ( old nom) Raul654 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support More citations have been added to this article, which I am happy to see. It would be nice if they were all cited the same way (why is that so difficult?), but all things cannot be achieved. This is a well-written, well-sourced and at least appears to me as a comprehensive article. I am not an expert in Mayan languages, so I cannot really speak to its comprehensiveness. I greatly appreciate the work that the editors have done to make it more accessible to those of us who want to understand their work. Awadewit 22:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support with Comment - I supported the initial nomination, and am very impressed with the newer version. My only concern (and I don't know if it was dicussed in the archive - there's a lot to go through there) is the high number of single-sentence paragraphs. If these could be condensed with associated text, that would be great. -- Oaxaca dan 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comments: I've not waded through the previous nom, but the article certainly seems to have improved for it.
Overall, very impressive article and I look forward to supporting it shortly. The Land 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
}
The article was promoted 16:30, 31 March 2007.
Self-nom — hello again everybody. This article has been the result of a couple months of "chipping away" by no fewer than ten members of WikiProject Final Fantasy. It is the second most well-referenced Final Fantasy title article, as well as one of the most comprehensive. Hopefully, all that remains are minor issues that can be weeded out via this discussion (peer review yielded only one response, which was taken care of). Although there is another FA nom up for this WikiProject, it is more narrow in its contributors' scope, so it is not a major tax on our manpower, in my opinion.
The history of the article is a little complex, so I'll skip over that. If the rest of the team who worked on this article could co-nom below and add their comments, that would be great. As usual, the no spoiler tags for the plot section is part of the WP:FF's belief system since last year, and part of the compromise being struck on the project talk page. Images issues should be all set, so the issues should (hopefully) only come from the prose itself. Let the discussion begin, and thank you for taking the time to add your voice to this nomination. — Deckill er 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:30, 31 March 2007.
This was my idea for a perfect April 1 article — a switcheroo of a major historical figure for a quirky nobody. So, in the Main Page box we could say, "George Washington was an early inventor of instant coffee, and ensured a full supply to soldiers fighting at the front lines", and similar sorts of absurd, but vaguely historical-sounding things. Well, that was the idea, anyway. It's hard for me to judge if in its short development time this article has really reached near FA quality, but I've spent way too much time on it in too short a space not to submit this now. Of course, any further improvements would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.-- Pharos 07:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Good job!! Do you subscribe to newspaperarchives.com? BlueLotas 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:30, 31 March 2007.
Having worked on developing this article and requesting a peer review (which provided many helpful suggestions), I think it's now ready in terms of completeness, stability, referencing, and style to be considered for featured-article status. I'm happy to address any deficiencies or suggestions mentioned here to improve the article further. This is essentially a self-nomination. MastCell Talk 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
This article was spun off of the current Iowa class battleship article to help reduce the page size. It just cleared A-class on the Military History Wikiproject, so I am now fixed on getting it promoted to FA class. One minor note: I am in school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond have patience; it is likely school work has me tied up. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
Self-nom — hello again everybody. I'm also a little nervous nomming this article, because something like this has not quite been done on FAC; it's uncharted waters for everyone. As always, I'd like to provide a brief overview. Character coverage of Final Fantasy VIII was initially spread out among eight character articles and a list of minor characters, all with little or no citations. Approximately two weeks ago, I started a sandbox entry with the goal of merging all the character pages with the minor character list. After this was accomplished, I placed it in namespace. I looked at some old versions of the Final Fantasy VIII page, and noticed an extremely large, sourced development section. I took this and added it into a new section, and then I went to these sources and found information for even some of the minor characters. This allowed the article to have an out of universe perspective. But even better, Teggles added a merchandise section and found image sources. A reception and criticism section was soon created, and more information was trimmed; following this, Axem — one of the people instrumental in the latest surge of project activity — performed a very nice and much needed round of consolidation and copy-editing while expanding on several concepts. Several other editors contributed to the effort as well.
Another Final Fantasy FAC may be coming soon — Final Fantasy XII. I understand that projects should not spread themselves too thin, but we should be able to withstand two fronts (we have done it in the past with Final Fantasy VI and Final Fantasy VIII).
The article itself features a two paragraph lead; it helps establish the notability of the game as a whole, how the characters were received, and a brief overview of the cast. This is followed by a development section, which outlines the inspirations for creating these characters from the perspective of the game designers. It uses sources that are reliable in relation to this subject at hand, and many are used in current FAs. This section is followed by an outline of the major characters; Axem helped organize the information here so that we had three paragraphs for most major characters, and not four in some cases. Two other character sections follow, and the aforementioned merchandise and reception and criticism sections follow suit. An external link is provided to the Final Fantasy Wikia's FF8 character category, where extreme details of this game's characters belong. Anyway, I'm being long-winded like Laguna Loire, so let the discussion begin! — Deckill er 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
Queen Consort of George VI of the United Kingdom; Mother to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Support Self-nominated There were some problems with POV raised at Peer review, but I hope that these are now resolved. DrKiernan 09:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support- the work done by DrK has surely brought it up to FA status. Astrotrain 09:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support- Wow...I don't think I could be more impressed. Sue Rangell[ citation needed 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support- Factually accurate,well researched,well presented.An example of what a FA should be. Lemon martini 14:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Good article, well written. However, after a quick scan I'd of like to have read mention of the following from Woodrow Wyatt's diaries and other sources about Bowes-Lyon's views of the commonwealth, and African efforts to end apartheid [8]. Which is one of the few things that sticks in my mind when I think of her as a person. Of note is ....
**Perhaps because she felt that by imposing sanctions the worst hit economically would be the black African population? (I'm not defending that position, I'm just saying that others held it)
DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) I can find no evidence in Wyatt that she scolded any Commonwealth countries for demanding sanctions.
DrKiernan 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
If this has already been discussed then forgive me. If not, then perhaps it should be.-- Zleitzen (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The exclusion of these points shouldn't bar the article from reaching featured status, as DrKiernan is correct to note that they are debatable. However, Be warned that the exclusion of various verifiable details on the basis that perhaps she meant something else - or that they could be judged in a certain light by us - is problematic. If I've spotted possible ommisions at first glance, then be sure that others will in the future. It may be worth pre-empting that by adding a sentence or so briefly covering these points in an NPOV way, rather than seeing some POV hack coming along and making a mess of it after it reaches featured status. In response to Astrotrain, all major British royals have a role in politics whether they like it or not, and their political views are of notable interest to articles.--
Zleitzen
(talk) 16:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
Comment Good article, very readable. As far as POV language goes, I found only one pressing sample: "Her ceaseless smile, endurance and longevity gave a consistent impression of stable continuity." The only other problem I have is with the image QM Arms.png, which is of too poor quality for a FA. Tweak the wording of that one sentence and find a larger/higher resolution image, and I'll gladly support this as a FA. Caknuck 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support Oppose POV issues and other problems.
I've decided I'm not at all impressed by Wheen's reading of Wyatt's diary. The actual conversation on South Africa reads,
[Queen Mother]: How disgraceful it is that the press is trying to involve the Queen in the row about sanctions and whether some states might leave the Commonwealth.
[Wyatt]: Is there any truth in the story that she [the Queen]'s at odds with Mrs. Thatcher?
[Queen Mother]: None whatever (vol. I p. 167)
So, she does not say that she is against sanctions. What she actually says is that she is against the Queen becoming involved in politics. The passage "She thinks it is awful how the BBC and media misrepresent everything that Botha is trying to do." (vol. I p. 101) is accurately reported by Wheen, but as I said before that could be in relation to his few liberal policies. These are the only mentions of her in relation to South Africa in the entire 3 volumes. In fact, on reading the journal, it is Wyatt who is revealed to be a right-wing racist, not her. When he rubbishes the blacks by saying that they are not like us, her contribution is, "I am very keen on the Commonwealth. They're all like us." (vol. II p. 547) I'm more than ever convinced that Wheen's comments are unrepresentative and bias, and should not go in the article.
DrKiernan 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
This article has undergone a significant improvement drive recently and has been improved in a number of areas. Several images have been added, all claims have citations, the recentism that afflicts most football club articles has been eradicated and all-in-all I think we have a very good shout for elevation to featured status. The Rambling Man 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
All of Michaelas10's comments have been actioned or rebutted at the article talk page, with one exception to-date:
I have no experience of fair-use rationale and would welcome assistance. -- Dweller 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Brilliant. All done for this set of comments then. Thank you Michaelas10 - the article's considerably improved as a result. -- Dweller 14:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
There is also no piont giving the same information twice. Remove it from the lead if it's mentioned later then. Buc 12:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose - 1a. The prose needs cleaning up throughout. Here are random examples:
Please don't just fix these examples. Tony 08:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support - very good article, matches the criteria. Bigmike 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
Ok, I've worked on this one a bit and I've tried to keep it within WP:MOS. The biography is as succinct as I could make it without losing meaning, and I've interjected out-of-world perspective where possible without disrupting the flow per guidelines. I did a google search on Andrew and trawled through all 37 pages for critical material - all but three articles have been worked into the article. I've gone through it on paper and copyedited it. I think it's ready. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
Self-nomination. I did a lot of work on this article to bring it from its original state to its current level of quality. I think that I've done a very good job with it. ( Ibaranoff24 04:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)) reply
{{subst:furd}}
.Comment. The prose of this nomination needs scrutiny before promotion. Overall it's not badly written, but there are glitches. Here are a few examples at random.
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
An interesting topic with a side-order of academic mud-slinging. Thanks to Jmabel for help with Spanish, and Sandy for ref formatting. I don’t usually post long nominations, but I’m anticipating some concerns, so:
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
Because the old nomination had no outstanding objections, and per user:SPUI's request, I'm renominating this ( previous FAC). Raul654 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The links to Wiki images are problematic for the following reasons:
Terraserver-usa.com should be identified as publisher on maps, and there is a blue-linked reference that should be expanded ( http://www.route56.com/photobrowse.cgi?photo=10112 ) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
From the People who brought you Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, Compsognathus & many many more, comes Archaeopteryx, hopefully the next Featured Dinosaur! Seriously though, this is another great article from the Wikiproject Dino team & it has come a long way in the last month or so & I'm proud to be able to nominate it. It has 34 inline ciations & many more references. It is informative, thourough & easy to read. It has pictures to boot & is one of my pet projects. But enough about my opinion, I'll just let you make your opinion up on your own... Thanks a bunch! -- Spawn Man 06:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
James and I wrote the Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ to give people a basic understanding of copyright law. It's a bit confusing in this case -- basically, pictures of 2D works old enough to be in the public domain (created before 1922) are also public domain, regardless of when the picture was taken (because a picture of a public domain picture is still public domain, according to the Bridgeman case). However, for 3d objects such as statues, taking a picture (which involves deciding what angle, among other things) involves creative input. This creative input is large enough to warrant a new copyright. Thus, picture of 3D objects are copyrighted.
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
This GA article has gone through an FA Drive and Pre-FA review on WikiProject Taxation, had two peer-reviews, and a prior FAC. I believe we've handled all points and issues presented. Morphh (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
Respectfully submit this article on a World War II event for featured article consideration. Self-nomination with helpful assistance from other editors in the military history project. Cla68 03:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
<div class="references-small">
and </div>
around the other subsections: books and web. Cheers,
S.D. 00:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replyThe article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
A broad overview of the chemical basis of life, dealing with metabolic processes in microbes, plants and animals. Self-nomination. The article is 78 kb in total size with 43 kb of readable text. It has recently been peer-reviewed. TimVickers 19:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Anyway I'm going to support it as a perfectly referenced, well illustrated article. Really one of the best works of Wikipedia. Well done, Tim! NCurse work 20:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
This was recently demoted for being not very good. I received a book through interlibrary loan and rewrote it. I feel it is now ready for FAC, and the book is due back in a week, so I would like to know before then if anything should be added or expanded. Thank you. -- NE2 21:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
I've been working on this article since the Autumn of last year after seeing his horrific death on YouTube. I first saw Pryce's article was, to be it at best, a stub. I'm very happy about the way the article has taken shape now and I do hope it'll pass this FAC. The only concern I have is the fact that a majority of the references come from David Tremayne's book, The Lost Generation. My "excuse", if you like, for this is because the other usual resources I use, such as F1 encyclopedias and a book by Murray Walker only mention his death and only have either in the encyclopedia's cases: a paragraph and in Walker's book: a single sentence in the profile for Alan Jones - Oh and websites, except BBC Wales' article, are the same as well, either sourcing the Wiki article or just talking about his death and his potential to become a World Champion. Tremayne's book, however, goes into such detail about Pryce I needed to pick out the important bits! Anyway, hopefully that'll excuse the article's dependance on (almost) a single source.-- Phill talk Edits 09:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your replies. 4u1e 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer 15:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
Self-nomination: Hello. This article is about the recent Academy Award winning American Screenwriter for Best Adapted Screenplay, William Monahan. It's a GA currently. I have previously brought the Aaron Sorkin article to featured status. I hope to do the same with this article. They follow a similar template, so you may find making comparisons between them useful. My hope is that Monahan's previous career as a man of letters will receive more attention if this article reaches featured status and appears on the main page. He has had an interesting career and I have enjoyed researching it. So let me know what you think. This article is also a part of the nascent Screenwriters Wikiproject.- BillDeanCarter 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment The nominator of this article asked me to look over its prose. I would suggest that this article be sent to the League of Copyeditors or that the editors find a trusted wikipedia editor to copyedit for them. The prose needs a lot of work. I will give detailed examples from the lead and the first sections only.
<outdented>There are 4 facts that would have to be weaved into the body. The 1998 birth of his son, which would be out of place in the list of articles, novels, etc... he did in his man of letters years. Then the 2001 wedding, which could go in many places. His daughter's birth, is the only fact that has a place, alongside the production of Kingdom. The fourth fact, is where he resides, which I can't quite position anywhere in the text yet. Is it really worth it to break up the family of facts, and haphazardly spread them around the article? I mean, Awadewit talks about a kind of sexism, but what about breaking up the family? This way, you see in an orderly and contextual fashion exactly what kind of people he has around him; his family. I have tried briefly to put together an edit that works, but it seems clumsy. If it is really a simple matter of style then I won't do it. But if there really is something wrong here, with writing up a section about his family then I'll change it. What's the general consensus among Wikipedians?- BillDeanCarter 23:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC) reply
<outdented> Done It looks good. I didn't think there would be room, but there is. Thanks once again for the help.- BillDeanCarter 18:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The whole piece is getting better. Revision is hard work. Awadewit 11:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support This article's prose has greatly improved since its first appearance here due to the editor's tireless efforts to revise it for clarity and accessibility. I cannot speak to the page's comprehensiveness since I do not know about the subject, but there is certainly a lot of detailed information here about Monahan's films and theories regarding screenwriting. While this article does not reference any scholarly sources, I do not see that as a reason to object to this article becoming an FA there are no scholarly sources yet on this person (I did a search of all of the major databases, JSTOR, MUSE, MLA, etc.) It will be a few years before scholars have a chance to publish on these films. The information is thus well-sourced from the sources available. (There does not seem to be a policy to wait for the research to come out or anything like that.) Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support Phew, that was a tough one. Kudos on your work—the article has improved a lot. I still think the prose could use more work, but I can't put my finger on anything specific. Perhaps a final once-over by the League of Copyeditors would be a good idea? Anyway, after a more thorough read, I found all my concerns have been addressed, and one thing is undeniable about this article: its comprehensiveness. I think we can safely say that, despite its (now very minor) shortcomings, this article has become an excellent resource. Fvasconcellos 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comments. Some remarks to a generally very nice article:
QUESTION: When I talk about his writings in the "Man of letters" section does it sound like these were the only articles he wrote? Or does it sound like I'm only mentioning the notable ones?- BillDeanCarter 05:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
There's no doubt in my mind that the Devil May Cry 2 article is close to, if not meets the requirements for Featured Article status. Having recently been promoted to Good Article class, as well as having addressed the concerns raised in the Peer Review, I feel there is no other path for me to take than to present this article for review as a Featured Article and address any and all concerns other editors may have.
Thanks in advance to anyone who comments. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Iffy Support. Even though the art is, in fact, a great article, with all point in peer review covered, there are still a lot of points left to be covered. We need more information and less cruft. If someone else has said this, this makes 2. I own the game, and I will work on the art furhter to improve it. Then, maybe, we can stay featured.
Quatreryukami 03:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
I originally started this article as a section within Minnesota when we were getting that article up to FA status. Ravedave decided that the text made a better History of Minnesota article than what was currently there, so I began the process of expanding the article to its current status. It isn't all my own work, though. I'd like to recognize the contributions of Mulad, who wrote many sections that are now in the article, Appraiser, who has helped out with several topics, and others in Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota. -- Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This isn't to say there aren't more issues, I'm just tired. Good try, very thorough, but needs a re-edit and re-organization. In fact, it may be too thorough - if some of the details were shortened, the organization task would be easier. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply
-- AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment. It's not bad, but needs sifting through to correct problems in language and logic. Here are just a few examples from the top.
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
After nearly a year of improvements, a complete re-write, and several branch-off articles, I think it's finally ready for FAC. Fire away! - Running On Brains 19:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe most-to-all of the concerns have been addressed. I am awaiting comments. - Running On Brains 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe I have followed all recommendations above, aside from merging prediction and detection (I just don't see it working smoothly) and the bit about the waterspout paragraph (I believe that it is ok the way it is). - Running On Brains 01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
Previously nominated 2005-10-08 ( old nom). Over the last few months there's been a lot of work on this article, initially from myself but later with the help of Samir and Pdeitiker, amongst others. It now has a lot of supporting content, bags of references, and is fairly well organised. When I'd one a lot of editing, I asked for external expert review by Prof Paul Ciclitira of King's College, London (the author of the UK guidelines on the disease and also principal contributor to the American/AGA guidelines); it was reviewed by one of his researchers and found to be in good form. I think it's ready for featured status. JFW | T@lk 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
The article was nominated for peer review two weeks back and did not receive any comments. The article however is fully compatible with recent successful India History FA's. It is well cited, the citations are in the correct format, the format of the sections follows recent India History FA's closely. The Western Chalukyas played an important role in the history of South India in general and Karnataka more specifically, especially in the field of architecture and Kannada literature. Dineshkannambadi 22:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->If the question is why they are called Western Chalukyas, this is what many historians call them to differentiate from the contemporeneous Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi. Equally they are called "Kalyani Chalukyas" , sometimes "Chalukyas of Kalyani" and only ocassionally "Later Chalukyas". I have differentiated between western and eastern in the lead now.thanks Dineshkannambadi 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
reply-->removed parenthesis. working on flow.thanks Dineshkannambadi 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 00:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Corrected terminology of measure. Its grains not grams.sorry. added link Dineshkannambadi 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Done by User:Dwaipayanc.thanks Dineshkannambadi 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->not sure what is missing. A pointer would help.thanks. Dineshkannambadi 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Done' Dineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply--> I shall look into this tonight.thanks. Dineshkannambadi 21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply Good question. When the Western Chalukyas weakened, four empires emerged from their ruins. The Hoysalas, Seunas, Kakatiyas and Southern Kalachuri. There was a time frame between 1150-1185 when the region which is todays northern Karnataka and Southern Maharashtra may have been in flux untill the Kalachuri themselves (having been the earliest to have taken control of Kalyani) vanished into oblivion by 1190.Then the fight for control of this region between the Seuna and Hoysalas continued when the Chalukyas were still around. Each of the four empires were responsible for the down fall of the Western Chalukyas and I should include names of all kings who brought them down. Kakatiya Prolla took Chalukya Tailapa III captive and released him, Hoysala Narasimha I killed Tailapa III little later, the Seuna drove his successor out of Kalyani. The Kalachuri's were the first to draw blood by taking over Kalyani itself in ~1150 for about 20 years. The reason I mentioned only Hoysala Vera Ballala II is because the Hoysalas essentially succceded the the Chalukyas in Karnataka. But the Seunas did control northern Karnataka (north of Krishna river) for significant periods and should be mentioned too. I will take care of this.thanks Dineshkannambadi 21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Done. I have left out the Kalachuris because they too went into oblivion at the same time as Chalukyas, though they were the first to capture Kalyani.Is that ok? Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply I believe the usage of the term Pagoda came into existance because of the presence of temple like designs on reverse or obverse of the coin. Please see this link for an explanation. The author, Govindaraya Prabhu is a well known numismatist from Karnataka. [15] Dineshkannambadi 22:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
great literary classics and poets (a few, given the limited space), important literary developments and traditions. Dineshkannambadi 16:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC) The Manasollasa is a famous Sanskrit language work. Dineshkannambadi 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I verified from my sources that Manasollosa is indeed a Sanskrit writing (Sastri 1955, p315), (Kamath 2001, p114), (Thapar 2002, 393) (Dr. Jyotsna Kamat [16]). In the citation#84, Dhere may have been refereing to a poem(s) in this otherwise Sanskrit literature. Dineshkannambadi 21:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Question Shall I rename this article "Western Chalukya Empire"? Dineshkannambadi 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
Self-nomination. The article was prematurely nominated in July 2006 by another editor and failed. Since then I have been working to fix the problems and it appears to be completed now. Any objection will be responded promptly. -- BorgQueen 16:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
I've devoted quite a lot of time to the article, bringing it from this to its current state. It is extensively referenced using authoritative sources, thorough and, I believe, exhaustive, well-illustrated with media such as own-made SVG maps, miniatures, quotes and a family tree, accurate, neutral and stable.
Very importantly, the article is up-to-date with the modern historiographic treatment of the more obscure moments of Simeon's life (such as the 912 coronation and the proclamation of the patriarchate), for which I consulted Ian Mladjov, an instructor at the University of Michigan, via e-mail. As I'm not a native speaker, I requested a copyedit, which was carried out by Bcasterline, in order to meet the "well-written" requirement.
I chose to have footnotes in the lead section because I generally like to have even the general observations and summaries referenced. The article has had a peer review (though, unfortunately, by only a single person). Todor → Bozhinov 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
Many of the objections to this article have been rendered moot, and I'd like some fresh opinions, so I'm resetting this nomination. ( old nom) Raul654 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The combination of the semi-mechanized process, the non-painterly style, and the commercial subject initially caused offense, as the work's blatantly mundane commercialism represented a direct affront to the technique and philosophy of Abstract expressionism. The Abstract expressionism art movement was dominant during the post-war period, and it held not only to "fine art" values and aesthetics but also to a mystical inclination. This controversy led to a great deal of debate about the merits and ethics of such work. Warhol's motives as an artist were questioned, and they continue to be topical to this day. The public commotion helped transition Warhol from being an accomplished 1950s commercial illustrator to a notable fine artist, and it helped distinguish him from other rising pop artists. Although commercial demand for his paintings was not immediate, Warhol's association with the subject lead to his name becoming synonymous with the Campbell's Soup can paintings.
-- AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
I worked on this article over the past month, where it was a unreferenced stub. Since then it's had two peer-reviews, GA review (passed), has been copyedited by Ceoil with LuciferMorgan providing useful feedback on improving the article. I think it covers the song well and ready for FAC, if you have any objections i will deal with them promptly, thanks. M3tal H3ad 07:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
I believe that this passes all criteria. It's extremely well-written, the only problem might be references. I personally think there's enough (at least 1 in every paragraph), but it that's a huge problem I'll add some.-- Wizardman 03:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
I've been working on this article for a while. Originally it was modelled after Pilot (House), which is a FA. And is in the same format as the recently promoted Cape Feare. It is a GA and has been peer reviewed. I will try and fix any objections that might come out. Gran 2 07:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
Self-Nominated: After two months of work and very helpful feedback and contributions from the Wikipedia community, I think this article is ready for a hard look by the FA editors. I believe it meets the functional criteria of Featured Article status, so the question is whether the content is compelling enough, and writing is good enough to be featured. I think the content is compelling for a couple of reasons:
Whether or not the writing itself meets the hurdles of "Brilliance", well, that's not for me to suggest. We've tried to be concise where necessary, and offer some flourishes to bring some of the story to life. This was a balancing act, but I'll let you all be the judges of that. Mattnad 18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
Back when I nominated this for GA status, I was reccomended to send the article to Peer Review and, all going well, then nominate the article here. The only comment at the Peer Review ( here) covered only minor problems, all of which were addressed. That comment was seven days ago; nothing since. Consequently, I am pressing on and nominating here. What do you make of it? Is it good enough??? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply
-- AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
Stable. Right size, not too long, suitably referenced. -- ppm 20:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Another copyedit drive, along with some added info to make it great NPOV would do the trick, very much. Aditya Kabir 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC) reply
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18acres, use 18 acres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 acres.Overall, the article is pretty good. Address my concerns and I'll at least remove my objection, but I think a fair amount of work is still required for this to pass. - Bluedog423 Talk 02:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
The old nom had lots of problems, so I'm restarting it clean. Raul654 07:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
Self-nomination I have worked quite a bit on expanding this page on an important feminist text from a mere list of quotations and chapter headings to its GA current form. I believe that it is well-written, comprehensive and well-sourced. It has recently been through a thorough peer-review as well as a review from another wikipedia editor. See Talk:A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and Wikipedia:Peer review/March 2007. I may have given extensive answers to questions you have at those locations. Thanks. Awadewit 16:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
Well-written article, rich of great relevant pictures, which is currently the article of the week on the Mathematics Portal. Tomer T 12:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Nice work - I learned a lot. Awadewit 12:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I thought that the "cultural legacy" section was excellent. Never have I seen pop culture references worked in so seamlessly. Awadewit 10:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support This article is well-written (one of the few that has really "compelling prose"), well-sourced and comprehensive. I am particularly impressed with its ability to integrate information into a cohesive article. My only remaining quibble is the bibliography (see above). This article was a pleasure to review. Awadewit 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.
Well, it's about to be 10 years since he died, and to mark the occasion I am nominating The Notorious B.I.G.'s Wikipedia article for featured status! Here are some reasons why I hope you will support me:
Those are my reasons. I think this is a really outstanding article, above all. I hope I will get others to agree with me. 2Pac 23:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Problem fixed, it was due to some unconstructive edit, I think. Hopefully it won't happen again. But now that's done, will you support please? 2Pac 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.
The console has been out for a few months now, meaning that it is stable, and it has already been labeled as a Good Article. It appears to meet all the criteria for a featured article.
Ixistant 12:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.
Support Self-nominated We've just done his brother, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom. DrKiernan 08:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Minor object: Not my strong point, but the images Image:033278.jpg and Image:Kinggeorge-FDR.jpe seem to have (minor) copyright problems. The first doesn't specify which reason for crown copyright expiry is relevant. The second gives "These pictures may be used for research and educational purposes, but may not be published or sold in any way." as the fair use rationale, which doesn't seem to work because they are being published.
4u1e 17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.
Self-nom. This is not a typical FAC, I think, but the recent appearance of Polar coordinate system on the main page gave me hope that there is also room for articles targeted to a specialist audience. The article has had a peer review and has been listed as a Good article since November. At first I was content to keep it a GA, but then I noticed that the 1.0 assessment system says of GAs, "Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job", and in all modesty I don't think that's true. I don't think other encyclopedias could do a better job, and in fact I think this is the most comprehensive introduction to Irish phonology currently available anywhere (either online or in print, in either English or Irish). And so, since I believe it to be an "outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information", I'm nominating it for promotion to FA. — An gr 23:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I've rewritten the third paragraph of the lead to be more accessible to laypeople. Let me know what you think. — An gr 15:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Okay, I've incorporated the examples into the paragraphs so that they are prose rather than lists. I've also tried to tone down some of the more technical language and to explain the technical terms that are used. I've also added several images to try to make some points more visually salient. Please let me know what you think! — An gr 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.
Self-nom. This two-week-old article has had an appearance on DYK and a brief peer review, which I'm cutting short so that I can get the ball rolling here. Other editors have made helpful suggestions, and I think the article is looking pretty good.
The article isn't very long, but I think it's comprehensive. The topic isn't very important, but I think it's interesting. The subject area isn't very accessible, but… it lends itself to pretty pictures? Melchoir 10:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.
Self-nomination. Less than a month ago, I did a major expansion and restructuring to this article where a few newly-created images (my authorship) were also added. It is an A-Class article according to WikiProject Portugal and is expecting a class reassessment from the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject. I believe it follows all FA criteria, but the final decision is yours. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 15:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
Originally a Jumpaclass entry at WP:LGBT, I somehow just kept working on the article long after the competition. I think it's ready for FA (though possibly with a few finishing touches which I'm sure you'll tell me about). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Halloween was nominated for a Saturn Award by the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films for Best Horror Film in 1979, but lost to The Wicker Man (1973).[28] The film has received other honors since its theatrical debut. Halloween is 68th on the American Film Institute's list 100 Most Thrilling Movies Ever, compiled in 2001. In 2006, the United States Library of Congress deemed Halloween to be "culturally significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry.[29]
On a final note, no need to bite my head off either. LuciferMorgan 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Ok:
So, how's it looking now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Quick comment : ref format trouble at critical reception section. Will proceed to finish article and then give my opinion on it.
Raystorm 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Fixed it myself.
reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
I am nominating Compsognathus to FA status. This is another production of the Wikiproject dinosaur team on a lesser known of these prehistoric critters. The article has been extensively edited during the last few weeks and as it is now, it is as comprehensive as possible considering that only two reasonably complete skeletons of this animal have been found (a century and a half apart). The article currently cites 32 scientific references which is more than for the previous successful FA candidates Albertosaurus, Psittacosaurus and Velociraptor. ArthurWeasley 16:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
(Self nom) I have been working on this article for some weeks now, and believe that it's now ready for evaluation here. To the best of my knowledge, no on-line source brings together a complete history of the ship like this. Your comments would of course be welcome. An earlier peer review by members of WikiProject Military history may be read here— BillC talk 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
I've tried to model this article after Clyde Miller and Deckiller's Empires: Dawn of the Modern World; they helped me on this one too. The article has improved from Start to A-Class, and I thought it might be ready for FA. I'd appreciate any suggestions. Thanks! · AO Talk 00:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This could probably do with a copyedit to weed out clumsy phrases. Trebor 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
sumal 14:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
A solid piece of work, mostly by User:The Rambling Man, this has grown from a run of the mill cricket bio to an outstanding article, worthy of FA status. Particularly tricky has been lifiting the article out of the welter of stats that threatened to drown the narrative flow. Masses of OR has been removed. Even more has been sourced - witness 120+ references at the last count. Constructive criticism welcomed, as ever. Even better, please do feel free to support this nom! -- Dweller 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
OK, I identified 10 criticisms in Blnguyen's oppose. At the article talk page, 9 have been addressed by User:The Rambling Man and the other (the least concrete) rebutted by (erm) me. -- Dweller 11:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
We seem to be all done. Any other comments? -- Dweller 11:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
author
referencing parameter is reserved solely for people.
List of cricket terms improperly linked. A Test series whitewash over New Zealand,[70] was followed.. - Whenever a reference is placed in the middle of a sentence, adding a comma prior to it is unnecessary as this would normally result in a grammatical error. ...moved the family > ...moved with the family.
Michaelas10
(Talk) 16:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replyThe article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
This article was the last GA collaboration and is a article of high quality. All of the peer review issues were addressed so here it is and feel free to leave comments. Tarret 17:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
It is with great pleasure that I nominate the "Mozambican War of Independence" article, created by User:SGGH. This article which tell us about the conflict which resulted in a negotiated independence of Mozambic, is extemely well written and referenced. It already has a GA status, but after reading it I came to the conclusion that it has the makings of an FA article. Tony the Marine 03:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks, the author of the source in question used a huge amount of sources himself which are all listed there, so I personaly would vouch for its NPOV, plus it doesn't make many bold statements of observations which would suggest it had a POV to get across SGGH 17:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: Seems nice, and it can't be commended enough having decided to cover such a topic so subject to systemic bias. Iì'll just make some observations, and pardon if I'll be deliberately iper-fastidious :-):
-- Aldux 22:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: Some formatting is needed, to unify notes. To this, I would observe: 1) is the "further reading" section really needed? 2)Should Rhodesia be among the combatants in the warbox? It supported the Portuguese, but the Rhodesians start serious operations in Mozambique only after the end of the war. 3)Is a "further reading" section really needed? 4) Also, I'm afraid "Location of the provinces" section is a bit out of place; I don't see exactly why it's there (there are interwiki links if it has to show where to search for).-- Aldux 01:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: Sorry for deserting you in the last couple of days. You're proceeding great: in my opinion the only things that need a bit of work is the notes and the references, to unify them. You could also consider removing some of the references involving Westfall's essay; if you use him for all a paragraphy, you don't have to leave a citation for him in every sentence. And continue with the good work!-- Aldux 22:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I have replaced the FAP image with a new one. SGGH 10:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Plenty of new images now, all commons okay'd. The two general ones are in still place at the moment. SGGH 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Main image now infact replaced by a compositie of 4 images from commons which all have all rights released. SGGH 22:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
SGGH 23:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
All issues raised on the talk page have been addressed by Zleitzen, Jmabel or myself. SGGH 08:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
Self-nomination. I spent some time last month building the content and references in this article up, as I believe Kneale to be a subject more than worthy of a useful biographical article on Wikipedia. It is a current Good Article, having very recently been promoted after having been nominated by User:LuciferMorgan, one of several users who I asked to proofread the article. Others, User:Josiah Rowe and User:Seegoon, left highly positive remarks about the article on my talk page here and here. The article has also had a recent peer review, here, which attracted useful feedback which I believe I have acted upon. Angmering 16:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
Self-nomination. This article has been through a peer-review, and has been approved as a Good article. The biography is as complete as the sources available, and I don't see much room left for expansion. I am more than willing to make whatever changes/edits are deemed to be necessary for this to be a FA. Pastordavid 22:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
This is an article about an episode from the TV series The Simpsons. The article was modelled after Pilot (House), which is a FA. Compared to the House episode, this article holds more information that is not just the synopsis. The article is currently a GA and has been peer reviewed. I will try and fix any objections that might come during this candidacy. -- Maitch 15:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
Self nomination The story of a specimen collecting expedition taken by John Steinbeck and Ed Ricketts around the Gulf of California. It was a stub until a couple of weeks ago when I took pity on it. It's been through a helpful peer review and I now present it for your consideration. Yomangani talk 11:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
Having read through the article, this article seems to meet all the feature article criteria. Atomic1609 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
I did this article about a month ago, and after looking back at it I think it's featured worthy. Comments? Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Seems to pass all criteria. It is a bit small, but smaller articles have passed. I'm not sure to whether support this or not. Evilclown93 22:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
This is a self-nomination. This article has been through a peer review and was rated as a Good Article. I've attempted to cover the subject matter as broadly as possible and to present a neutral tone. I think it's well-written, but I'm open to any suggestions to improve upon it. -- Bookworm857158367 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support DrKiernan 10:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
Self Nomination I've been working on this article for quite some time. I helped build it up from a stub article to where it is now. I have properly formatted all sources in the Harvard Citation method and documented everything within the article. It was originally 2 articles, one on the Knifemaker, the other on his knives and I merged them into this current version. I welcome all comments and advice to get this article to Featured Status.
Thank You -- Mike Searson 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Added to the above, the article has a tendency to read like a puff piece. There are POV statements, like "The system is based on simple and effective techniques" (who says they're simple and effective?). The second paragraph of the lead in particular makes him seem too good. Have there been criticisms of him or his knives? It feels unbalanced at present. Trebor 23:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment. Back for another look, sorry for the delay.
Sorry if I walked on your edits. OK, thanks...I'll get to work on it. I used the template on the photo of Ernest and on the Bowie logo...is this what I need to do for the rest? Do I need added permission from Emerson? Thanks for pointing this out. I'll do what it takes to make them compliant. Mike Searson 21:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
Self-nomination. This article was nominated for FAC a while back here at a point where almost everyone agreed (including myself) that the nomination was premature. However, after much work I feel the article fulfills the nomination criteria and is ready for Featured Article consideration. WesleyDodds 07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
I wrote this article in January with the FA criteria in mind. It has since been peer reviewed. This article is currently the only thorough overview of this species available online (or in print since 1966) in the English language. -- NoahElhardt 18:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
Self-nomination. After working hard on the article, I'm being bold and applying for Featured article candidate status. I hope this article is good enough now, I've tried to make it as well-referenced as possible. I hope to be able to address and fix anything else that may be needed to make it FA-worthy. Shrumster 16:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
I began work on this article in early January and helped expand upon the biography of one of the most famous generals during Soviet times. The original article was only several kilobytes long [38] and so now in its expanded form comprehensively covers much of Bagramyan's life, especially his career during the Second World War. Its nomination coincidentally comes only 1-2 weeks after another article I nominated, the Nagorno-Karabakh War, passed its FA nomination. I believe the article meets the criteria to become an FAC: its stable, is well written in a NPOV perspective, is abundantly cited from a variety of reputable, verifable and easy to find sources and has plenty of images.-- MarshallBagramyan 01:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I gave the photograph's fair use rationale one more shot but if does not suffice, I suppose we have to look for a substitute picture.
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
Self-nomination - The article's had a lot of work up from a stub, a couple copy-edits, a peer review, made GA, and seems to be pretty stable. It's a little shorter than I'd like, but I think it covers the topic pretty thoroughly. - Mocko13 23:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose (Reason for striking opposition is that I now feel the article meets my objections and is of FA standard. Since I have been editing it so much myself recently, I feel I shouldn't vote "support", as such, as I'm probably now biased in its favour. See my waffling comments much lower down.)
qp10qp 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC) It's a valuable article, in my opinion, but not a featured one, though hats off to Mocko for the work he has done here. I have two objections: the first is that there are other sources that could be used to vary this article—if the article was totally reliable that wouldn't matter, but the narrative here seems a little shaky, with opaque motivations ascribed on the basis of only one source. Secondly, the prose style seems to me vague and even odd ("Sir Cecil" for "Sir Robert Cecil"?) in places. Here are a few examples which, for me, raise more questions than they answer:
reply
By 1612, Calvert's star had risen enough in the King's eye that the death of Sir Cecil did no harm to his political career, and he was made a Clerk of the Privy Council in 1613. (Odd way of puttting it.)
In his new position, Calvert was assigned by the King to go to Ireland and review the results of English policies there, the failures of which Calvert blamed on the Jesuits.[7] Calvert was knighted in 1617 for his service to the King and only two years later completed his remarkable rise to power when he was appointed one of two Secretaries of State, a position similar to the modern role of Prime Minister. (What happened in Ireland? What was remarkable about his rise? In what way similar to the role of Prime Minister?)
Whether as a way to save face upon exiting the political arena or due to a true turn of faith, in 1624 or 1625 Calvert claimed to be a convert to Catholicism and resigned from his Secretaryship. (Archaic phrasing. It wouldn't be a claim if it was genuine.)
Just a few weeks later, King James died, but the newly crowned King Charles maintained Calvert's Baronet and his honored place on the Privy Council. (Baronetcy?)
The land he saw there was not the paradise that had been described by some early settlers, but was a marginally productive rocky island that had, unknown to Baltimore or his contemporaries, been too difficult for even Viking settlers from Greenland to stay. (Is this true? My understanding is that the Vikings only set up hunting bases in that area, before returning to Greenland. I don't think they were settlers.)
qp10qp 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
By shaky narrative, I mean that here we have a guy doing one seemingly unconnected thing after another (there are hints of motivation, but they aren't followed up). There is a suggestion that he had pinned his hope on a Spanish wife for Charles. Why? Because he was leaning towards Catholicism? When and why did he fall out of favour? What was the timescale of that, as he seems to still be a secretary of state in 1624 or 5 when he resigns (yet you say he reached the apex of his power in 1621, so how did he hang on to this prime-ministerlike job for three or four more years)? Did he fall out of favour because he was leaning towards Catholicism? Did he lean towards Catholicism because he was falling out of favour? If Calvert was falling out of favour, why did the king "suddenly" appoint him Baron Baltimore? The article merely says that James suddenly remembered his fondness for him, which seems a bit thin. And if Calvert was falling out of favour, why did Charles confirm him in powerful posts when coming to power? Because he sympathised with Catholics himself? This all seems very jumpy and unclear. And then, just as this business of falling out of favour and yet being given titles and posts is starting to intrigue me, the subject of Calvert's position in government is abandoned and all we read about from then on is his venture in Newfoundland, though he didn't go there till 1627.
Those are the sorts of things I mean by the narrative being shaky and the motivations opaque.
qp10qp 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
Superfluous and self-indulgent comment: I feel the article is worthy of FA status now, though it awaits a merge in about four days' time.
I sometimes wish I had never opposed this article, as without my objection, it might well have passed by now, with its three or four support votes and no other objectors. I don't believe in just criticising and running, and so I've been working for the last fortnight to meet my own objections. Since one of them was that the article wasn't sourced to enough books, that has landed me with a mother-and-father of a load of reading and editing. But as a result, the article now has at least double the number of references and much extra material, as well as considerable corroboration of the original information.
At first I was reluctant to get involved, thinking this guy was a minor figure in history (he hardly gets a mention in my three James I biographies—only a single entry in one of them, which is inaccurate, even then). But as I read through Krugler and Codignola, among others, he emerged for me as something of a quiet hero. In the age of James, when murders, plots, affairs, and corruption infested the royal court, here was a man behaving in a civilised, honourable way at all times, and for five years pretty much holding the government and foreign policy together singlehandedly. In his belief in freedom of worship, he is also a crucial figure in the history of the early American states, which might otherwise have gone too far down the Puritan road. In treating Calvert in this much detail, I believe Wikipedia has a unique article here (kudos to user:Mocko)—and it amuses me that quiet George for the moment sports a better article (in my opinion) than do the incompetent monsters who messed up England (and George's life) at this time in history and excresce the history books with their oozing odiousness—such as Sir Thomas Lake, Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, and, dare I say it (since his article purports to be a featured one), James I himself. If only that cartload of popinjays had listened to sensible George, maybe Charlie would have lived. qp10qp 09:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks again for your comments. (I haven't forgotten that I was going to drop you a note about my "essay style" remark re Anna Laetitia Barbauld: I will get round to that before long.) qp10qp 09:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
Grab a trencher, pass the frumenty and dunk a sop or two in the nearest cup o' wine, because here's a culinary delight sweeter than a galley worth of hypocras!
It all began with my accidental discovery of the none-too-humble subtlety when reading Timeline. From then on my fascination with medieval cookery just kept growing, and the result was a full-fledged gastronomical orgy of academic indulgence. I've plowed well over a thousand pages of literature by now, and considering how delightfully scrumptious the topic is, there's bound to be more in the form of various sub-articles ( one has already been spawned). This is primarily a self-nomination, but I would like to thank Choess for his thorough and highly motivating GA-review, Andrew Dalby for his informative explanation on wine making, Geogre for a round of copyediting and miscellaneous pointers, Itinerant for providing useful URLs on calorie statistics, and, of course, all the users who have helped with everything from spell-checking to the occasional factual tidbit.
I'm sure that there might be a lot of things that need to be tweaked and copyedited. There's probably even gaps in the coverage, but I've reached the point where I feel that it's time to put the article through an FAC, as the peer review was unable to provoke anything but automated comments. So, without further banter, I bid you to do your worst! Peter Isotalo 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
I've spent a considerable amount of time working on the Ohio Wesleyan University article. The article has had two peer reviews (which are here and here). The peer review found no major problems and the suggestions for improvement have all been addressed. user:Rintrah, user:Galena11 and user:SandyGeorgia from the League of Copyeditors have been incredibly helpful with both feedback and editing over the course of the last three months.
This is a self-nomination in that I have made most of the edits to the article, but I have sought feedback from many and have received positive comments. Thanks for any feedback, LaSaltarella 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
When OWU opened, it was an academy (prep school) for 2 years before becoming a University. This is mentioned in connection with the academy's closing in the 1920s, but I think it needs to be said at the beginning first. Also, the first college of the university was the College of Liberal Arts established in 1844. I think it is inaccurate to say "By the end of the 19th century, Wesleyan had added a College of Liberal Arts (founded in 1844)..." as adding implies there is something in existence to add to, but this was the first college and my understanding is that the University came into existence with the college's formation (unless the Academy was somehow the same as the University, which would also need to be explained here if true). The Academy and College of Liberal Arts need to be mentioned in the Founding section.
I also wonder about the choice of buildings in the article and worry it might run into WP:Recentism problems, as it seems most buildings built in the past 50 years are mentioned, but none are mentioned between the purchase of Elliott Hall in 1842 and building University Hall in 1893 (the first 51 years). See History of Ohio Wesleyan University for other buildings built then. I would argue that for a very new University the decision to build a second or even third building is a much bigger event than building two dorms 110 years later (i.e. Thomson and Bashford Halls). Obviously not all buildings on campus now or in the past need to be mentioned, but some are omitted that probably should not be.
Finally three minor points: I would add that the Ohio Legislature approved Poe and Elliott's charter; I am also not sure of the significance of a student in Ohio in 1862 praising Washington; and I am not sure that the other members of the Ohio Five (now mentioned in the article body) are worthy of inclusion in the lead paragraphs (which are a summary of the most important things in the article). Ohio Five yes, all other members no. I think the article is very close to FA and hope this helps,
Ruhrfisch 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
I also wonder if there couldn't be some condensation of book footnotes. I searched on the Tull book notes and there are currently 14 different refs for this book, four of which are duplicates (current refs #49 and #50 are both "Tull p. 182", and refs #139 and #140 are both "Tull p. 132"). I think you could get away with condensing all 14 into just five refs, saving 9 more refs (at end of my comments). So just these saves 20 refs or about 10%.
My guess is that the other books and other duplicates could save 20 or 30 more refs. In any case, the use of p. and pp. is not consistent for the books and needs to be cleaned up. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 17:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
Antioxidants are important in biology and widely-used as nutrient supplements. This article gives a comprehensive overview of the various types of antioxidants and their applications. It is 65 kb in total length, self-nomination. TimVickers 05:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
previous FAC, note on closing—former featured article
This article was originally Featured, but went through an upheaval following the contentious events surrounding the IAU's decision in 2006. It was subsequently stripped of its Featured status. I have gone through and attempted to answer most of the criticisms raised in its Review, and I think I have dealt with most if not all of the issues.
Serendipodous 14:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
This article meets all criteria for FA promotion. It has gone thru two GA processes, but denied because the reviewers refused to reasses after changes were made. And a peer review with all issues being addressed. Jo e I 21:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
This article has had a peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Harbhajan Singh/archive1, it has been copyedited by ALoan, and the article is a comprehensive account of the life and career of India's most successful off spin bowler and the first Indian cricketer to take a Test hat trick. It is part of WP:CRIC's {{ CWC Advert}} FA Drive for the 2007 Cricket World Cup. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Support Good work on the article/bio but can you please fix the two red links, ICC referee already have an article. I think, its icc elite referee or something like that so just redirect it.-- Thugchildz 07:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
This is an article concerning a music album that has been improved to GA, and after further improvement from many other gracious editors, I feel is now ready for FAC given the fact it has been sufficiently expanded per the sources currently available on the article topic. My thanks to all those that have contributed, who's help has been greatly appreciated (can any of those contributors who wish to comment on this FAC and / or vote please make the fact clear they've been contributors to the article when commenting / voting?.. thanks). If there's any concerns as relates the article not meeting a specific part of FA criteria, can they please be specific in what they feel needs addressing and I'll get onto addressing them asap. My thanks to all FAC reviewers in advance, and I hope the article is of joy. LuciferMorgan 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't class Blabbermouth.net as a news reference - news is like CNN on TV etc. as far as I'm concerned, and Blabbermouth.net is a web source, thus why they have CD reviews.
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
Support. Self-nominated. DrKiernan 09:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
Self-nomination. I am continuing to work on the Star Wars film articles in the hopes of getting all six films promoted to featured status. I have been working on this article since A New Hope was promoted just a few months ago. It has had a peer review and has been rated as A-class. It is not only a good article, but also a part of the newly formed featured topic. If The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, and A New Hope are featured worthy, I feel that this article is worthy as well. The Filmaker 08:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
A lot of work has been done, but it needs a lot more tweaking. I'll go ahead and give it a pass. — Deckill er 15:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
(Previous FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Montreal Screwjob)
Hi all - I've expanded and revised the article thoroughly. I feel the next step is the FAC, where I can obtain the main round of criticism and corrections. I request your input and support for this article to become an FA. Rama's arrow 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
AreJay 20:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support: Excellently executed ;) AreJay 01:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
Self Nomination I've worked on it, I've put it up for peer review, so I'm putting it up for FAC. Goldfritha 18:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
This is one of the more impressive biographies I've seen. It is well-cited, well-written, and attractively presented. It looks like a featured article to me.-- Bookworm857158367 04:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
Currently rated A-class by the ScoutingWikiProject. An article on an adult leader training program. Rlevse 17:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
Hoysala architecture article has been through a peer review. This architectural style which was developed by the Hoysala Empire (which is already a FA) is considered an unique idiom in the annals of medieval Indian architecture. Please provide positive feedback to help get this topic to FA status. Dineshkannambadi 18:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-> I have tried to clarify this after reading the line in my book. The term clockwise (which has been used for clarity and does apear in my book, Foekema page 25) must be seen as a top view. When a devotee gets on to the jagati, the devotee starts walking towards his/her left to see the sequence of scenes (my book calls it "right to left sequence of epic scenes in the direction of circumabulation". Dineshkannambadi 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply--> I have provided citation (#4) from Prof. Settar. In the 12th century, when Islam hardly had any impact on South India and Christianity had not made its presence yet, I suppose a temple with Vishnu/Shiva and Jain depictions are "relatively" considered secular, given the competition among devotees of these faith. Dineshkannambadi 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply My book says Lord of. I can change it to Lord. In "Hoysaleswara" temple, the word means Lord of Hoysala (Foekema, p20). My book says while a Shiva temple can have the ending word esvara or eswara, or the name of a devotee or person who commissioned the temple, Vishnu temples only are named after the deity form of Vishnu (Krishna, Rama etc). I will add this info more accurately with citation. Provided citation.thanks Dineshkannambadi 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
( talk) 04:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Reply-->wikilinked. Will create stubs where necessary.thanks. Dineshkannambadi 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply--> I have added bracketed clarifying phrases and wording Dineshkannambadi 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->I have made edits to clarify your doubts. In large temples, the open mantapa serves as outer mantapa and the inner mantapa is the closed mantapa. In Smaller temples, the inner mantapa is all the temple has. So the concept of outer/inner does not arise. I have also copyedited the pillars section to improve readability. Dineshkannambadi 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->the Vimana is the "Shrine" (inner sanctum, its outer decorated walls), the Garbhagriha would be inside of the Vimana where the Idol is placed. If there is only one shrine with a tower it is called Ekakuta vimana. If there are two shrines with two towers its called Dvikuta vimana and so on. The term Vimana has nothing to do with the mantapa. The tower on top of the shrine does not seem to have its own seperate designation. The tower on top of the entrance porch is the Gopuram. Dineshkannambadi 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Dineshkannambadi 15:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->done Dineshkannambadi 23:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
Self-nomination. This article has been progressively re-written over the last year. Achieved GA status some time ago and has undergone a peer review. The article is about a New Zealand Rugby union team that competes in the Super 14. Believe it is well referenced, NPOV, comprehensive and well-written. Thanks. - Shudda talk 03:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
A lot of hardwork and time has been put into this article; although I understand that hardwork and time are not on the featured article criteria, I think that the article meets most of the requirements. Admittedly, the prose may not be brilliant, but hopefully this FAC will help get it there. This article has gone through a good article review, A-class article review and a peer review. This is a self-nomination. JonCatalan 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Could you make a difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources? Wandalstouring 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: there are still a few unreferenced paragraphs. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 07:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
JonCatalan 20:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment:In the design section a paragraph comparing the T-26 with it's close relatives it's ancestor the Vickers 6-Ton and it's half-brother the 7TP would be very apreciated, Especialy since the T-26 and 7TP could have been used against each other. Mieciu K 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support As a member of Military history I believe that this would make a very good featured article. Zaz zer
Really, the three quotes used in the T-26 article, IMO, are not suggesting a certain point of view. JonCatalan 08:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I know there are precedents for articles using quotations passing FA. Had I participated in those FAC discussions I probably would have objected to them being granted FA status with the quotations in place. My question to you, however, is: How do those quotations improve the article at all? I only find them distracting and I think they mar what is otherwise a really good article (besides those few issues I mentioned above and some missing wikilinks I'm going to add myself soon).-- Carabinieri 13:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
Worked on by a devoted cadre of editors, ( User:The Rambling Man probably put in the most time and effort) and thoroughly referenced, peer reviewed and copy edited, this has been a wonderful example of how a collaboration can take a B class article onwards and upwards in a very short time. We are hoping to secure FA status in time for the start of the Cricket World Cup. -- Dweller 13:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
"Natural athlete" is a quote from the reference - it's the first words of Cricinfo's profile of Collingwood (below the stats). Thanks for the excellent review Yomangi; clear and precise. -- Dweller 05:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Shirt number information hidden. Agreed, it's tacky and not particularly useful, as he's not beholden to it and spectators can see his name on his shirt in ODIs anyway. -- Dweller 05:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Are all objections properly addressed? I can't see any remaining, and Rambling Man has fixed the dashes that were incorrectly corrected! If there are outstanding concerns, please clarify - I think we're done. -- Dweller 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't want to sound like an auctioneer, but "all done?" -- Dweller 09:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
There were a lot of issues brought up in the old nom that are now moot. Nomination reset. Raul654 04:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, gee, two actions you could take would be to replace the fair use image (you did that, but apparently you MUST MUST MUST have the image in) or remove the fair use image. Are those not actions? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
This article on a well-known genus of dinosaur is a product of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team, the same group who created Featured Articles Stegosaurus, Velociraptor, Tyrannosaurus, and others. This article is currently one of Wikipedia's longest articles on dinosaurs. Article is sourced with 84 references, mostly from primary scientific sources (over 260 cites altogether). A FAC reviewer went over the text to work out the last kinks. I find the prose compelling, and it is hard to imagine an article more comprehensive or factually accurate. The article presents now-discredited views (200 years of changing theories) but does not give undue weight. This article is not the subject of edit wars and is stable. Appropriate images are peppered throughout. In short, this is one of the best dinosaur articles on Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. How could I not support such a thorough, detailed article: it's definitely a tour de force, of a sort. However, I'm surprised at the complacency of the above comments. The two difficulties I had with the article were a clunky, sometimes ungrammatical, prose style and a tendency to descend in places into unreadability through too dense a use of technical and Latin terms. I also feel that the article is far too long at over 60 kb. If it was left to me, I'd address that by offloading the "Reassigned species" and "Dubious species" sections into a summary-style daughter article, particularly as these sections are really about non-iguanodons when you come down to it. They are also some of the worst for unreadability, containing material like this:
I. atherfieldensis, described by R.W. Hooley in 1925,[28] was smaller and less robust than I. bernissartensis, with longer neural spines. It was renamed Mantellisaurus atherfieldensis in 2006.[40] I. exogyrarum (also spelled I. exogirarum or I. exogirarus) was described by Fritsch in 1878. It is a nomen dubium based on very poor material and has been reassigned, by George Olshevsky, to Ponerosteus.[47]
I. foxii (also spelled I. foxi) was originally described by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 as the type species of Hypsilophodon; Owen (1873 or 1874) reassigned it to Iguanodon, but his assignment was soon overturned.[48]I. hollingtoniensis (also spelled I. hollingtonensis), described by Lydekker in 1889, is a synonym of I. fittoni. I. prestwichii (also spelled I. prestwichi), described by John Hulke in 1880, has been reassigned to Camptosaurus prestwichii. I. seeleyi (also spelled I. seelyi), described by Hulke two years after I. prestwichii, has been synonymized with I. bernissartensis. I. suessii, described by Emanuel Bunzel in 1871, has been reassigned to Mochlodon suessi.[1]
I feel that at such times this article forgets it is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry for the general reader. Far too many technical terms are introduced during the article without explanation (I don't believe linking is enough)—for example, the article takes for granted that the reader will know what a "clade" is, and I didn't. A Wikipedia article should explain its technical terms as it goes along, so I felt I was being catered for much better by sentences like:
Overall, I believe the general reader will be most interested in the discoveries and in the descriptions of the iguanodon's appearance, movements, feeding habits, etc. some of which was left rather late in the article (the article took me over an hour to read), by which time I fear some readers will have been put off.
The language rather wore me out. Often antecedents were unclear and grammar blurry, producing a wearying effect. An example would be:
Clearly the opening phrase is misattached to the subject of the sentence. However, I can't expect this generalised comment to be actioned without my making a long list of examples, and so I will maybe have a go at copyediting the article myself, sometime.
I hope these remarks don't take away from my vote of support for the article. We'd clearly be nuts not to feature an article containing this much valuable information. qp10qp 18:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support - excellent article. And hey if the article provides as much info as possible and is well written who says it must be short? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
In reply to Firstfron of Ronchester, who said this above: "Because long parentheticals tend to disrupt the flow of the sentence, making it difficult to understand what is being said, I truly prefer using a wikilink on words which require a lengthier explanation."
I don't agree that a phrase of explanation would make it difficult to understand what is being said; quite the opposite, especially if it's a literal translation of the Greek. It's recommended Wikipedia practice to explain technical words as we go along, and wikilinks don't satisfy that recommendation, in my opinion. I've just had a look at the article with a view to maybe copyediting it, and the task really is quite daunting: I already have a row of wikilinked tabs open and a row of dictionary tabs. Finding the meaning of the wikilinked words purely from wikipedia is not as straightforward as it should be. Take the first sentence of the article:
Iguanodon ( IPA pronunciation /ɪˈgwɑːnəˌdɒn/ or /ɪˈgwænəˌdɒn/, meaning " Iguana tooth") is the name given to a genus of ornithopod dinosaur which lived roughly halfway between the early hypsilophodontids and their culmination in the duck-billed dinosaurs.
I looked up ornithopod and got an entry which started:
Ornithopods are a group of ornithischian dinosaurs who started out as small, cursorial grazers ...
More wikilinks to check out! I looked up hypsilophodontid, and got:
Hypsilophodonts were small ornithopod dinosaurs. The group traditionally has included almost all ornithopods other than iguanodonts, but recent phylogenetic analyses have found that the group is mostly paraphyletic and the taxa within usually represent a stepwise arrangement leading up to Iguanodontia ( Weishampel et al., 2003; Norman et al, 2004). Thus, the only certain member at this time is Hypsilophodon.
None of this stuff helped me. My next stop therefore was dictionaries, and they proved more helpful—so now I know that ornithopods are "bird-footed" dinosaurs and hypsilophodonts are small, swift-running bipedal dinosaurs (and that hypsilo means "crested"). I think it would be nicer if the readers of the article had easy access to such helpful descriptions; after all, that same first sentence willingly gives us "duck-billed" for hadrosaurs, a helpful decision which saved me a third detour. qp10qp 02:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
First, let me repeat that this is an excellent article. I wouldn't dream of lousing it up. When it comes to language, I'm an Orwellian:
Trust me on the last one. I'm not going to do anything barbarous. (I may not do anything at all.) I'd only change something if I thought it would be better, and that would involve using fewer words, not more. By the way, parentheses aren't necessarily the best idea, I agree: clear, explanatory writing might be, using good old-fashioned subordinate clauses. qp10qp 04:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. I did some minor tweaking per WP:MOS, etc. trimmed some redundant wording, and made a few other fixes. I have no problems supporting now. — Brian ( talk) 09:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. It would be nice to have a diagram that illustrated how some anatomical feature evolved from the hypsilophodontids through the Iguanodon to the duck-billed dinosaurs, supporting the comment in the opening paragraph that the Iguanodon lies approximately "half-way" through ornithopod evolution. Bluap 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
Currently rated GA (as of 7 weeks ago), and has gone through a peer review and an exhaustive rewriting process. Special effort has been undertaken to ensure the article is inline-sourced, using the cite.php system of citation, and that all available literature has been consulted through the State Library of Western Australia. Nearly all the images are photographs taken or drawings made by myself, with only one image having been taken directly from an external source - all are appropriately tagged and have information sections. It also fills a gap in the online literature on this subject. The article is 54 kb, although a large part of this is because of the extensive citations. I hope that this article is worthy of FA status, and I am happy to work through any points raised in this review. Orderinchaos 14:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
I have been working intensively on this article for the last two months. The article has been expanded significantly. It has been copyedited several times too. Several other users help me with copyediting the article and/or commenting on the article (User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld, User:Mtevfrog , User:Francis Tyers and many others) Moreover it was peer reviewed and also GA assessed (promoted to GA). Since GA assessment the article underwent another major editing where its size was reduced nearly 27%. I think the article is in a good shape after all. Based on feedbacks from reviewers I have the impression that it is featured worthy. I would be very happy to have your comments for further improvements. Sangak 16:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your comments. Please let me know what you think about my plan. Sangak 10:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Sangak 13:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Here are the improvements:
Thanks. Sangak 18:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
OK, I'm just having a bit of fun to make you sweat a little! These are minor faults, & easily remedied (tip: the Delete key may come in handy).
I suggest you use this version—unless there's a compelling reason to use the version in the article (eg you prefer it, it was quoted in English in the film, ...).
Good luck! -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
Self nom. Article significantly expanded, cited and several sections rewritten. See also: Wikipedia:Peer review/Uranium/archive1. This is my first FAC in a long time and the subject matter demanded a huge amount of work, so please bear with me as I try to fix any remaining issues. -- mav 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks - Ctbolt 01:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
This is a self-nom, I've been massaging this article for some time. It has been peer-reviewed and has passed GA. (It has also been assessed as 'A' by the Military History project.) I hope that it is good enough for FA now, but I am happy to make any changes that it needs to get there. I am very proud of this work. JRP 05:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
This article is about a rather obscure event to which little research has been dedicated. As a result, the article relies largely on the reconstruction done by Jonathan Frankel in The Damascus Affair: "Ritual Murder," Politics, and the Jews in 1840 based on primary sources. It is a good article now, and it had a peer review most of the comments on which seems to have been implemented. I believe that the article meets all the featured article criteria and deserves a promotion. Beit Or 19:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply