Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2004
- Abraham Lincoln - I think it's fairly extensive and well-written. Sarge Baldy 04:15, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment.Someone went in and obviously messed with it. Which can I say, is COMPLETELY JUVENILE. I think you'd have to be a real loser to delete someone's hard work with this crap. I love Wikipedia and wish people would just respect it.66.171.221.36
- Support. Lincoln was one of America's greatest Presidents, one of its best orators and had a very interesting life.--Kross 01:02, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Hutton Inquiry - thorough. informative. Kingturtle 07:01, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Very good article. Secretlondon
- Rudyard Kipling
- Needs TOC. Bmills 13:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- ToC provided, though I'm sure some would quibble with my choice of chapters and chapter descriptions. Jwrosenzweig 06:09, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Objection withdrawn: good work Jwrosenzweig. Bmills 12:04, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- ToC provided, though I'm sure some would quibble with my choice of chapters and chapter descriptions. Jwrosenzweig 06:09, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Needs TOC. Bmills 13:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture
U.S. Electoral College - thorough, well-written, covers both sides of debate. Minesweeper 09:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I object, on the grounds of accuracy. The article states, "The number of electors for the District of Columbia is equal to the number of senators and representatives for the least populous state (presently three)." However, DC need not necessarily have the same number of votes as the Bold textleast populous state; it could have fewer votes. Amendment XXIII states that DC may appoint "A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State." This does not bar DC from having fewer electors. And even more importantly, the article does not mention that the House of Representatives, when choosing a President, votes by state. Furthermore, it is necessary that, in my opinion, the original system and the present system could be contrasted. That the House of Representatives originally voted on the top five candidates, but now votes on the top three, could be noted. It could especially delve deeper into the Jefferson-Burr election- noting that they were of the same party, that they were Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates together, how the framers did not anticipate such partisanness, how the House took 36 ballots to find a winner, the influence the Federalists had in lengthening the process- and more importantly, what' exactly the flaw was in the original electoral college. -- Emsworth 21:11, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Fair enough.
I'll withdraw this until the article is more thorough and accurate.--Minesweeper 09:24, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)- Lord Emsworth, could you please edit the article as you see fit so we can get this terrific article onto the Featured Articles list? Kingturtle 17:37, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- This is not what I intended when I stated the objection, but I have amended the article to my liking nonetheless. I therefore declare that I do not retain any objection to the article. -- Emsworth 19:25, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Lord Emsworth, could you please edit the article as you see fit so we can get this terrific article onto the Featured Articles list? Kingturtle 17:37, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Fair enough.
- I support this nomination. I think it is extremely well-written. Very easy to understand. And thorough. Kingturtle 19:28, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I also support this nomination. It is an excellent example of a fair and balanced presentation of a controversial topic. Mcarling 20:17, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Emsworth writes: "Amendment XXIII states that DC may appoint "A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State." This does not bar DC from having fewer electors." With respect, this makes no sense. No state can have fewer than two Senators or fewer than one Representative. Therefore no state can have fewer than three members of the Electoral College. Therefore the District cannot have fewer than its present three members of the Electoral College. Adam 06:30, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I object, on the grounds of accuracy. The article states, "The number of electors for the District of Columbia is equal to the number of senators and representatives for the least populous state (presently three)." However, DC need not necessarily have the same number of votes as the Bold textleast populous state; it could have fewer votes. Amendment XXIII states that DC may appoint "A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State." This does not bar DC from having fewer electors. And even more importantly, the article does not mention that the House of Representatives, when choosing a President, votes by state. Furthermore, it is necessary that, in my opinion, the original system and the present system could be contrasted. That the House of Representatives originally voted on the top five candidates, but now votes on the top three, could be noted. It could especially delve deeper into the Jefferson-Burr election- noting that they were of the same party, that they were Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates together, how the framers did not anticipate such partisanness, how the House took 36 ballots to find a winner, the influence the Federalists had in lengthening the process- and more importantly, what' exactly the flaw was in the original electoral college. -- Emsworth 21:11, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Irish Houses of Parliament
- I object. Firstly, the article states "Irish peers had the constant right to elect a number of fellow Irish peers as representative peers to represent Ireland in the House of Lords, ironically introducing a degree of democratic election into the British House of Lords that has never existed since." This is absolutely incorrect, in my humble opinion. If elected representative peers form a democratic element, then such an element already existed, as Scotland elected representative peers. Also, such an element has indeed existed since, because under the House of Lords Act 1999, ninety hereditary peers are elected by their counterparts to sit in the House. Secondly, some of the pictures appear strewn across the page. -- Emsworth
- SUPPORT. Ignore the comments above. What extreme nitpicking! The sentence in question was out-of-date since '99 depending on how you want to play a game of semantics. BTW, I did modify it so that it leaves no room for ambiguity. Anyway, this entry is clearly the work of a professional historian specialized in Irish politics. Yet, the most brilliant achievement is combining the attention to detail of the historian with a style of prose/layout that is succinct, matter-of-fact, and encyclopedic on one hand, while engaging and accessible to all general readers on the other. The author, User:Jtdirl - a specialist in Irish political history, a professional encyclopedist, and a published author of journalism, history, and fiction - exhibited each of his prodigious qualifications when putting together this article. Users of Jtdirl's caliber will consider the site worthy of their efforts when they see this article posted on the main page featured articles. 172 19:06, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Firstly, I hardly appreciate the fact that my objections have been dismissed as "extreme nitpicking." I merely noted that the article was factually incorrect, and no matter how unimportant the falsehood seems, the article remains incorrect. Furthermore, I do not doubt Jtdirl's expertise, but suggesting that his expertise is somehow conveyed to the article would be committing the logical fallacy of honor by association. So, my first objection has still not been adressed: the article still reads "Irish peers had the constant right to elect a number of fellow Irish peers as representative peers to represent Ireland in the House of Lords, ironically introducing a degree of democratic election into the British House of Lords," incorrectly. Secondly, my objection to the strewn pictures remains. I maintain both objections. -- Emsworth 17:43, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
- This is not "honor by association." My comments were based entirely on the article, irrespective of the writer. I noted how this entry seems to make no trade off between style and substance. This came to my attention right away, as I have been chided for using technical terminology that - I've been told - renders some articles inaccessible to general readers. Then I noted that the author had the ability to strike such a balance - and I say this not on the basis of his background, but evidence of this that I've seen on Wiki. 172 05:04, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Objections withdraw due to the changes that have been made. -- Emsworth 13:31, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
- This is not "honor by association." My comments were based entirely on the article, irrespective of the writer. I noted how this entry seems to make no trade off between style and substance. This came to my attention right away, as I have been chided for using technical terminology that - I've been told - renders some articles inaccessible to general readers. Then I noted that the author had the ability to strike such a balance - and I say this not on the basis of his background, but evidence of this that I've seen on Wiki. 172 05:04, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Kaihsu 20:43, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
- I object. Firstly, the article states "Irish peers had the constant right to elect a number of fellow Irish peers as representative peers to represent Ireland in the House of Lords, ironically introducing a degree of democratic election into the British House of Lords that has never existed since." This is absolutely incorrect, in my humble opinion. If elected representative peers form a democratic element, then such an element already existed, as Scotland elected representative peers. Also, such an element has indeed existed since, because under the House of Lords Act 1999, ninety hereditary peers are elected by their counterparts to sit in the House. Secondly, some of the pictures appear strewn across the page. -- Emsworth
- English poetry - this article used to be a positive embarrassment, but user:Bmills has put a huge amount of work into it and it is now thoroughly informative, well organised, and a great read. seglea 17:13, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- C programming language - good intro, carefully written. Lots of the other Wikipedia sites have this article, showing it is an important one.169.207.85.97 12:02, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Seconded -- Stewart Adcock 07:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- All your base are belong to us - Clearly written article about prominent piece of internet culture. Kagredon 02:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Agree. Ilyanep 21:48, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Clear, simple and to-the-point. I like! Gaurav 02:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Agree. Jwrosenzweig 05:58, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Witty and droll in its NPOV! Wetman 22:01, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, I like it too, I offer my fifth (make it tequila, please ;) Sam Spade 06:45, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Origins of the American Civil War - very complete. nice layout 65.58.234.58 01:18, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the nomination. It's funny that I usually get a favorable response from the work on the 19th century West from a comparative historical bent (e.g., this entry and the German history series) - that is considering the political struggles in the U.S. route to modern capitalist democracy. But when I pay attention to the same complexities in societies that faced greater challenges - societies having to dismount a well-established agrarian society of the feudal, oligarchic, or bureaucratic forms - I get the oddest reactions. Just today, I hear a glib "show me a peasant who isn't impoverished" when briefly mentioning political unrest in Central America. Maybe I should just stick with the pre-WWI era. 172 19:06, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Peerage - Partial self-nomination: several others have contributed, but I have just rewritten some parts of the article. I think that it provides a good, comprehensive consideration of the Peerage. -- Emsworth 22:44, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Second. -- Kaihsu 20:20, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
- Although I've worked on this article some, I think Emsworth's thorough-going revision is excellent, and this'd be a good choice for featured article. john 09:59, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- The body of the article is ready. The introduction needs work. The language of the opening parahraph needs to clearly lay out the concepts and history in easy-to-understand descriptions. If it takes two or three paragraphs to do so, that is ok. I'd help out, but I am naive on the subject at hand. Kingturtle 20:14, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I have revised the introduction; please inform me if it is inadequate. -- Emsworth 21:51, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
- OK, I support it now. Kingturtle 22:17, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Parthenon - very informative; good pictures. -- Emsworth 13:17, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Kaihsu 23:04, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)
- Support. But please consider my comment on that article's talk page. Kingturtle 20:10, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- And see my reply to Kingturtle's comment. Adam 06:50, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- By the way I think archaeology is a sadly neglected field here. If it weren't so egotistical to nominate one's own articles, I would suggest Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Temple of Olympian Zeus, Temple of Hephaestus, Laocoon and his Sons, Lindos, Vergina and Winged Victory of Samothrace. Adam 06:50, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- And see my reply to Kingturtle's comment. Adam 06:50, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Donegal fiddle tradition - An excellent article, originally from Nupedia I believe, covering an unusual but interesting topic. Danny 01:10, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Kaihsu 15:43, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)
- Jet engine - Clear and complete. And now... accurate! A while ago, somebody nominated it, I objected and promised to nominate it when it was corrected. moink 21:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Support, fun to read. Gentgeen 00:39, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Frankfurt School - long over-due for featured articles 172 03:17, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Kaihsu 15:43, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)
- Support. Holy Toledo. Well done. Kingturtle 20:10, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Support. jengod 06:40, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Definately support. Seth Mahoney 20:27, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Support Wenteng 09:16, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Simon and Garfunkel
- Needs TOC. Bmills 14:05, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Support. It has a TOC. --zandperl 17:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I'm the one who added the TOC, afterall :) →Raul654 18:59, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Timestamp to get the process rolling again. DanKeshet 06:16, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Prose is very good. Could use a photo of the duo. Bevo 22:26, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture
Created FAC from original nomination here.
- Golden Gate Park - very expansive article about San Francisco's large urban park. My edits were wikifications, copyedits, clairifications, and disambiguations only. Gentgeen 02:19, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
(Page recreated from original nomination here)
A good example of how a number of editors working together can create a fine article on a minor but interesting topic. Bmills 11:42, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Seconded. Dandrake 21:33, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
Created FAC from original nomination here.
- Poetry of the United States - I like this and others have helped improve it. Bmills 11:07, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Very interesting! Second. --Delirium 10:33, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
Created FAC from original nomination here.
- Japan general election, 2003 - not sure if the writing is brilliant but the article is completely done now.
- H._P._Lovecraft, lots of information, nicely structured, overall great article Sarge Baldy 09:29, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
- added by Bmills 15:01, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)