Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of discussions about articles that were promoted to featured status. This archive covers articles discussed in May 2004. Warning: discussions are incompletely organized in reverse chronological order.

Contents 1 May 2004 1.1 Portuguese language 1.2 Linus Pauling 1.3 The Beatles 1.4 Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson 1.5 Pufferfish 1.6 Marshall, Texas 1.7 British East India Company 1.8 Dmitri Shostakovich 1.9 Eureka Stockade 1.10 Olympic Flame 1.11 VW Type 2 1.12 Geology of the Bryce Canyon area 1.13 Speech synthesis 1.14 Belgium 1.15 Vowel 1.16 Acetaminophen 1.17 War elephant 1.18 London Underground 1.19 Kashrut 1.20 Jim Thorpe 1.21 President of Ireland 1.22 Submarine 1.23 Crash test dummy 1.24 Weather lore 1.25 European Union (discussion ends 8 May to allow feature – if passed – on Main Page on 9 May) 1.26 Triangle 1.27 Sid McMath 1.28 Heavy metal umlaut

[edit] May 2004

[edit] Portuguese language

Self-nomination. Mostly done by Portuguese and Brazilians, soo it maybe need some corrections. It is possible to cut the article to become shorter. -Pedro 15:13, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

• Support. An excellent article. Superbly written, excellent use of tables and illustrations, clearly laid out. One could almost learn Portugese from this :) (I would not recommend cutting it - it is always better to have too much information than too little, and that's what TOCs are for.) Denni 19:22, 2004 May 22 (UTC)
• Object, for now. I really wish there were a lot more sound files: ideally one for each example, and some longer clips so I could hear the difference between a Portugese accent and a Brasilian one (and the others, if possible). And either a long clip of, or an exlink to a long clip of, someone considered to be a really great speaker of the language (whatever the equivalent of a Martin Luther King or a Winston Churchill speech would be). Few wikipedia articles really call for much in the way of sound, but this one does. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:31, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
• I'll add Instituto Camoes sounds, using external links. With all main dialects, including African. Wait a sec. -Pedro 22:46, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
  • It's done! -Pedro 23:43, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Support! -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:06, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I have made several minor corrections to the article, such as grammar and wording, after learning about it's nomination. I have added no new information to the article. It is a superbly written atricle. The fact that it was written by people whose first language is not English makes it all the more impressive. -JCarriker 01:01, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - though I would like a bit more about the historical phonology of the language, and it needs to be gone over carefully for minor spelling mistakes. Smerdis of Tlön 14:48, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Are you talking about the transformation of Spoken Latin into Portuguese? Or the language during the expansion into Brazil and Africa and comparing to nowadays (creation of the Brazilian and African dialects,etc...)? -Pedro 15:08, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I've added info about the evolution of Portuguese. See: From Latin to Portuguese.-Pedro 00:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
    • That's the sort of information I wanted. After French, the changes in the Portuguese phonology are the next most thorough from Vulgar Latin. I'm still a bit vague on when the sound written s becomes /S/ in pronunciation, though. Smerdis of Tlön 20:20, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
      • that's a modern transformation, I believe. Brazilian (except Rio), African (except younger people), Central Portugal dialects and Portuguese creoles, dont present that characteristic. I really dont know why we do that sound... The answer is possibly in Lisbon or Coimbra. arabic influence? I'll investigate.--Pedro 23:40, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
        • I couldnt find nothing. But that is not important, because it is a regional variation, ending "-s" are written as "s" and not as "sh". I pronunce ending "-s" has /j/ -e.g. The classes: "as aulas" (sound: aj aulaS) or /S/ -e.g. the houses: "as casas" (sound: aS casaS) ( and rarely /z/ - e.g. but is: "mas é" (maz E), has you can see it varies a lot, even in a single person/dialect, but that is not very noticed by the speakers, because all these sounds are very similar and they deppend if followed by a vowel or consonant, but the tendency is to pronunce it as "sh" (/S/) because of Standard Portuguese. I've added some info in sounds about the complexity of the Portuguese sounds.--Pedro 10:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. jengod 22:07, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Linus Pauling

What can I say, I liked it. Gentgeen 13:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

• Needs a longer lead section. Fredrik 13:50, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I expanded the intro (my first edit to the page). Gentgeen 20:53, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
• I've read it now and it seems fairly comprehensive. I did a few minor edits along the way. One thing that confuses me is the part about his education where it is said that he was "becoming one of the founders of the new science of quantum chemistry" at OAC and was later "becoming one of the first scientists in the field of quantum chemistry" when in Europe. Ideally one of these should be removed, but I'm not sure which. I also got the feeling that I wasn't reading "brilliant prose" in some other parts of the article – some paragraphs not being as fluently constructed as they could be – but I won't object on that ground. Neutral. Fredrik 22:02, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Question: where in Wikipedia might this fact go? James Watson got Pauling's book as a present from Francis Crick, during their search for the structure of DNA Ancheta Wis 09:59, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatles

Self-nomination, but I haven't made any major contribs to the article, just copyedited once or twice. The article's prose is brilliant, and it's non-controversial (unless we're somewhere in the Bible Belt in the 60s). Johnleemk 11:30, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

• Support. A good article about an important musical phenomenon -- Cabalamat 17:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A lovingly crafted article. Occasional minor grammatical errors should not bar this from feature status. Denni 19:52, 2004 May 22 (UTC)
• Neutral. I think this really needs to be broken up into sections. Kingturtle 20:03, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. It is a good article but it triggers a Page size warning (making it 16 U.S. pages long at 12 point font) - not everybody wants such detail. Some sections could be summarized to a few to several good-sized paragraphs with detail moved to daughter artilces such as Beatles discography, The Beatles' influence, the many Beatle album articles and also a timeline (which doesn't seem to exist yet). Perhaps an easier way to do that would be to create a History of The Beatles article and leave a 5-10KB summary of the history (just the most important stuff) at The Beatles. Some sections like 'After the breakup' seem to be a bit disjointed with many single-sentence paragraphs that read more like a timeline than prose (lots of sentences and paragraphs start with "On" or "In" - oftentimes right after each other). --mav 06:19, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Done. At least, I split it off. History now is about one or two pages, with the rest offloaded at History of the Beatles. Johnleemk 08:16, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks better, but the length was only part of the problem. There still are many sentences starting with "On" and "In" and most, if not all, of the sentences at The Beatles are directly copied to History of the Beatles - that's going to be a bit annoying to people who read both the summary and the detailed history article. To fix that, the current history section could be condensed with exact dates stripped, longer sentences shortened, and smaller paragraphs merged. Some sectioning is also in order. I would do all that myself right now but I'm sure somebody else is editing that article I also need to go to bed. --mav
      • Better now? Johnleemk 09:42, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
        • Wow - that was fast. Great improvement and I now add my full support. --mav
• Support. Very nice. James F. (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support for the most part. "The Beatles were the most influential music group of the rock era." -That's not NPOV. User:MKultra
• Oppose. Too much POV and proclaiming the Beatles as the greatest thing to ever happen to the world. Not enough mention of controversies and the common opinion that they were overrated by the white media to overshadow the many black acts that were charting at the time. Reads more like a fan page, and no mention of the common knowledge that they cheated their way to stardom by paying teens to go into record stores and request their albums, forcing record stores to order more Beatles albums in making them #1 because of shipment numbers. Street walker 08:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Sure.Good point.It's actually a world conspiracy.They payed a billion teenagers to buy their albums.You're good , you know.Maybe this would interest you The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

[edit] Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson

Brilliant prose, good content. Is there anything else to say? Johnleemk 08:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

• Support. James F. (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
• Very nice. Support. --mav 06:24, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pufferfish

Excellent overview of the biological and sociological aspects of this rather fun fish. :) jengod 21:31, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. (Disclaimer: I wrote a big chunk of that article). I think the content is good, but I am willing to add more information if needed. Don't know about grammar, since that is not my strong point. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:15, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
• Interesting reading. Support. ☞spencer195 00:24, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article: good intro, great pictures, clear writing, good references, detailed, and fascinating. Securiger 05:59, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great pictures, includes the info I wanted to know about the fish. MGM 21:58, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Added a bit more informations. Revth 08:22, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Good pictures --- Cabalamat 17:17, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
• Some suggestions: The 'Consumption' and 'Fugu poisoning' sections should eventually be summarized into a 'Human use' section and the detail spun off into its own article. Those sections also seem to be a bit long and could either use some more images to break it up or some minor sectioning. --mav 06:31, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Marshall, Texas

This article has come a long, long way from its Rambot beginnings. Would that most of our major cities had something this detailed and well-written. - Hephaestos|§ 03:15, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

• Support. The article is very thorough and has an excellent section on the city's history. Acegikmo1 03:42, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I did contribute much of the information to the article and would be happy to answer any questions any one has of the it.- JCarriker 19:18, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Support I learned a lot about the place by reading through this article.theresa knott 15:50, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lots of research and work went into a very detailed article about "Hometown USA". Kar98 16:30, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Yes! I love the idea that we should feature a wider array of articles, including unexpected ones like this one. Very well-written and a great candidate to be featured. Moncrief 18:29, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support (although I do wish there was a map showing its location in the state). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:07, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
  • If you can make the map, I will be happy to provide the information; such as the city limits shape and location within the county. -JCarriker 01:38, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Shows how Rambot entries can be usefully expanded -- Cabalamat 17:16, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I dream of more city articles resembling this one. Kingturtle 20:13, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Nice article - it makes me want to clean-up Sacramento, California (where I live). --mav 06:39, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A brilliant example of what Wikipedia should be. Meelar 18:26, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] British East India Company

Self nomination. I was involved in expanding the History section considerably. I have tried to add everything that is credibly known about the company's long and influential history. Many users have also done some great copy-editing. Hope the article has shaped up well. If you have any objections/suggestions for additions, please go ahead/let me know about them. - Chancemill 07:06, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Moving this back up to without objections. :) jengod 00:53, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent; well-written and very thorough looks at the Company's ups and downs, its influences and key players. I would, however, hope for another picture or two, perhaps illustrating some of their work, good and bad (famine, etc.). --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:31, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • I too feel that the article would be so much more complete with a few balancing images. unfortunately, I am unable to find any more relevant images in the public domain. Any help in this will be greatly appreciated. Chancemill 14:00, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, with minor reservations. The article's content is excellent, but I think it could use some copyediting. I made one pass over it, but it still has a strong tendency towards run-on sentences and overuse and misuse of commas. A pitcure of a trading post or of a sailing ship would be nice next to the intro paragraph. --Andrew 15:29, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Object for now- it needs some work. I've left some questions on the talk page. Markalexander100 03:18, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I went through your questions. Great job again. 172 19:55, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The East India Company played a MAJOR role in some 150 years of India's history and this article is pretty good. -- Kishore
• Support. Sundar 06:04, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Have recieved a lot of good suggestions for refining this article in the past few days. I am working on these changes right now. Will indicate it here, when I am done. Chancemill 13:43, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Markalexander100's questions addressed. Great progress made in copyediting. 172 19:55, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
• I guess, the article is pretty much okay now. Mark's questions have been pretty much addressed. Thanks all for great content addition and copy-editing. Chancemill 15:41, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I think it's kind of marvelous. jengod 01:08, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dmitri Shostakovich

Self-nomination. Fresh eyes and constructive criticism would be almost as welcome as support. ;) Markalexander100 02:50, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

• Solid article, but I can't really judge, given my lack of musical knowledge. One thing I didn't precisely get: why were the Soviet officials so opposed to formalism? I read the article on Russian formalism, but it didn't really address it. Yours, Meelar 18:55, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I've added a bit to the Russian formalism article to clarify. Markalexander100 03:31, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. The musical terms are clearly explained, and it's a very interesting piece. Meelar 18:31, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written and interesting. I found nothing to complain about. Isomorphic 06:08, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Eureka Stockade

I think this is a valuable and well-written Australian history article. I nom'd this a long time ago, and it was shot down for reasons I can't quite recall. :) Another user just went through it with a "scalpel and a chainsaw" and it also now has pictures. jengod 20:49, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

• I am that "other user", and I support this nomination. Not only was the article a compelling story to begin with, but it tells of a seminal event in Australia's history. Denni 02:49, 2004 May 11 (UTC)
• support. great article. maybe the image of ballarat could be trimmed a little, though, it's too wide with respect to its height, so it doesn't look like much. clarkk 08:09, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
  • swapped pix, better now i think :) jengod 22:50, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Ambivalenthysteria 14:12, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
• Another sentence in the lead section would top this article off. --mav
• Done. And a fine sentence too, I must say! Denni 05:24, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

[edit] Olympic Flame

Self nomination (although I'm not the only editor). I know the article could use another picture (I would like on of the fire burning in the stadium), but all the pictures I could find are copyrighted. Jeronimo 20:14, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Nice article. Fredrik 22:56, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Fits the upcoming Olympics perfectly. - MGM 07:05, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --Andrew 19:46, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, though we should try to get pics of the upcoming relay. - jredmond 18:25, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Would be nice to have it featured before the actual game begins. Revth 09:05, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Well made. Ex1le 05:44, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VW Type 2

This is a semi-self nomination. I first played with this article soon after discovering the joys of Wikipedia since it was written by someone whose primary language was other than English. Went away for awhile, came back...voila! Lots of facts, figures and photos that weren't there before although the English reverted somewhat. I've hopefully fixed that problem. If anyone wishes to polish this farther, please be my guest. Someone put a lot of time and research into this. - Lucky 6.9 17:00, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

The lead section needs to be expanded. --mav 23:40, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

• No problem...done. In fact, user gregb started to do just that. I also expanded the early history a bit while I was in there. - Lucky 6.9 01:38, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A comprehensive, well written article. 999 17:05, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support - nice article. Some more photos in the first part of the article would be nice though. --mav 21:21, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
• Neither support nor oppose from me, sorry. However, I this article should definitely have a lead photo -- perhaps move one of the model photos from below to the first paragraph, and refer to "see photo above" later in the article. — Adam Conover † 06:15, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Found a beaut of a fair use photo. Hope this is satisfactory. - Lucky 6.9 06:20, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Geology of the Bryce Canyon area

Self nom. I've been working on this article and on expanding Bryce Canyon National Park for the last week. I can't think of any major thing that the article still needs, so I'm posting it here to see if others can give me some ideas on what still needs to be done. I've already exhausted two fairly complete treatments of the subject and can't find much more on the Internet. --mav 09:51, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Having read the two articles I certainly feel like I've read a complete, interesting account but I don't the topic area well so can't definitively say that the topic is done. If I had to nitpick I would say it has a larger proportion of red links than most featured articles which is something we try to avoid. So it's a "yes, feature, but interested in more comments" from me. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes - stubs are needed for those red links. I will work on that after my final next week. --mav 19:12, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Somebody beat me to making a stub for Colorado Plateau so I expanded it into a good-sized article. I'll work on Grand Staircase, Cretacous Seaway, uncomformity, and Clarence Dutton over the next several days. --mav

Support - I have been in Bryce Canyon in 1997. I stood there at Inspiration Point in awe of the hoodoos, those marvels of Nature. Now you have explained them to me. A job, well done JoJan 20:15, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! :) --mav

(not a vote) This is a nice article, but I have some things that I'd like to see addressed before I support this. First, I find the article hard to fully understand for a non-native-English speaking non-geologist (like myself). I suppose it is very difficult if not impossible to improve this; at least most terms are already properly linked. Second, not all images have captions - it would make them clearer. Third, I'd like some photo's added, preferebly a close up of some hoodoos (I'd upload my own pictures if I had a scanner), or else one of the pictures from the Bryce Canyon National Park article. Finally, what I miss in the text is a reason why these extraordinary formations only happened here (well, also in Cedar Breaks NM) and not elsewhere? If you could explain that, that would be great. Jeronimo 21:26, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Jeronimo, they're not all that uncommon. Drumheller, Alberta has a small but attractive collection, and there is an extensive field of them, several kilometres long, along the Milk River in southern Alberta's Writing on Stone Provincial Park. They're commonly found in badland areas where sandstone underlays harder rock. Denni 05:29, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

Good points, I'll try to work on some of those in the next few days. However, you should understand that this is a daughter article of Bryce Canyon National Park (which has a long geology section) and therefore is a bit more technical than a top level article would be. Sadly there is no way to have captions without having div hacks unless the thumb tag is used. But those images are at their full size already. --mav

Captions added. Working on a panorama image of Bryce Amphitheater. --mav

I've been irritated by that caption limitation on other articles. Is it possible to work around it by making a false "thumbnail" which is in fact the same size? Agreed that is reasonable for this daughter to be more technical. I think it is ok to even say "this is a more technical article; see XXX for a broader overview". We do this at Ramsey's theorem, for example. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to create the expectation that clicking the image will yeild a larger version of that image, so I just hacked some captions using divs. The lead section already takes care of the non-technical readers (who will have probably already read the longer summary at Bryce Canyon National Park first). So I don't see a need to have ugly warnings at the top of the page. --mav

I appreciate the desire to avoid ugliness and I am very nearly ready to support this article, but there is something about the lead section that is not quite right for me. Specifically, the second sentence does not parse easily. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Yikes! The div-hacks make the entire article a mess in my browser (Mozilla FireFox/Red Hat). Thanks for trying, but I'd rather have the article without the image captions then. Jeronimo 09:43, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Removed. We really need a wiki way to add captions without creating thumbnails. ---mav

Erik fixed my ugly hack. Captions are back. --mav

I added two images to the article: One is a panorama of part of the "canyon" and the other is a close-up of some Hoodoos. Sadly most of my Bryce Canyon photos (and all my Zion National Park photos!) were lost due to a corrupt memory card. I still plan to fill out some more stubs and research why this place is so unique. --mav

Support. Ancheta Wis 09:23, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Speech synthesis

Self-nomination. This is the first article I worked on for Wikipedia, and I think it has become a fairly complete and accessible overview of the history and technology of speech synthesis. The only area that needs work I think is the history section glosses over most of the recent history of speech synthesis, but in all honesty, the history of speech synthesis is pretty boring: someone comes up with a new technique that improves intelligibility or naturalness and computers have gotten more powerful, and therefore TTS systems have gotten better and better. That's really about it. There is a picture, and there are lots of external links that have samples of the speech synthesis, so the multimedia factor I think is high, especially for such a technical topic. Nohat 16:47, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

• Support. GrazingshipIV 17:37, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Excellent! Support Denni 23:26, 2004 May 9 (UTC)
• Support. Satori 02:39, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Very Good. Needs some work on GUI (Wikipedia's style) for standartinzation issues. Pedro 12:07, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I'm a long-time user of tts and indebted to the authors for this excellent article. 209.121.67.247 04:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belgium

Partial self-nom and Support. This former featured article had failed to be re-featured for the following reasons:

• Ugly pictures
• Bad English
• Too many lists and short paragraphs
• Lengthy history section

The reasons can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belgium/archive2. It has been since reviewed by JoJan, Tony, and Nichalp. Some comments can be found in Wikipedia:Peer review/Belgium. I have put a lot of work into this article to make it comprehensive and well balanced with respect to the Belgian communities. I think some equilibrium has now been reached. I hope you will have fun reading it. Vb 11:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• If I hadn't edited it, my vote might count: it would be a 'yes'. One point:
  • It is a very complicated governmental system, and I hope that it's described as simply as possible; we need to understand this attempt to mollify the squabbling Dutch/French-speaking communities. (I wonder why it's been so much easier for the Swiss? And other European countries have similar communities: 20% of Finns are Swedish-speakers. Would brief comparisons be useful (maybe not)?) Tony 05:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply. The Swiss system is not that simple either. It is also much older. The Belgian federal system is only 30 years old and is still evolving. I think comparing with similar federal systems is a very difficult task which should require its own article. The answer to the question why this system is so complicated could be the following: One of the problems is the (legitimate?) frustration felt by the Flemings because the French segment of the population was dominant and arrogant during the first 150 years of the country. The problem is also due to different interpretations of the Belgian splitting. Is it due to some ethnic, cultural, economic or linguistic variety? The answers to this kind of questions is usually different in Flanders, in Wallonia, or in Brussels and leads to distinct interpretations of the Belgian federal structure. Vb 07:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Also, I guess, the 60/40 split makes both factions powerful players, so long-term assymetry would be untenable. But there's hope: the recent Franco-German love-in, within the EU, bodes well for Belgian harmony. Tony 08:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Support-Its for the most part a very good article and I believe it deserves FA status. My only issue is the Culture section. The writing's flow is broken up with several short paragraphs. Falphin 19:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• I would like to support, but I would prefer the first map to be removed. Its too complicated to be there. User:Nichalp/sg 18:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed but I can't find a good map to replace it. What would you suggest? Falphin 19:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll try and draw my own map tomorrow, are there any online resources I can base it on? (copyrighted maps will do) User:Nichalp/sg 04:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes it is true one could make a simpler map. I however personally think it is not that easy to make it better. You'll find many historical maps of the region at this time on the site: http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/lowcountries/haxbelgium.html One of the difficulty you're going to meet is that it is difficult to establish the exact border at an exact time. Those borders were not very stable depending on the alliances and wars with the neighbouring states. It is also difficult to know how to count the 17 provinces. Have a look at the article Seventeen Provinces and its discussion page for details about the controversy. I think what should appear clearly on the map is the following:
        • The internal borders in order to show that there is no border corresponding to the current Belgo-Netherlandish border
        • A clear different color for the bishopric of Liege which does not belong to the 17 provinces
      • About the culture section. I have seen Falphin is taking care of Culture of the Netherlands. I think the Netherlandish culture is also quite difficult to describe in a few paragraphs. In my opinion this is because both cultures are quite rich. It is therefore difficult to merge paragraphs on music and literature or on food and sports or folk festivals. However if you should see a way to improve the flow without reducing the containt of this section please don't hesitate to copyedit. Vb 09:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good to me. Ambi 07:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object – 1. The politics section needs a summary 2. 16th and 17th century in the lead should be spelled out. 3. The =Communities and regions= paragraphs on the governments should be sumamrised into prose. 4. Text such as " these figures must be interpreted cautiously,.."; " Nevertheless, in recent years, concern..." need to be copyedited. 5. Text in parenthesis needs to be merged with the text to maintain the flow. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I am very sorry Nicholas but I am not able to do the change you request. Not because I don't want to but because I don't feel they are required. 1. I don't see how to summarize this section. 2. I did it to make you a favor even if don't understand why you ask for this or why you didn't do that yourself (that's so easy); 3. I oppose to this change. This poltical system is so complex that it really required such a tabular presentation in the French article, this is even presented as an array. I think the version here reads much easier. 4. I am not fluent enough in English to understand why these sentences could be copyedited in a positive way; 5. I have checked all parentheses in the text and I don't think I am able to improve the formulation. I am not disturbed by the parentheses and any alternative wording I can imagine is worst than the present version. I have seen how you did that for eigenvalues etc... I am not able to do this as well as you can. Vb 21:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

    I don't believe its too difficult to summarise the politics. Speak on general instances, not specifics. You'll have to turn that section onto prose and I don't see why you're opposing the change. I see a great scope to summarise the section. I'm sorry but I'll be only free to copyedit the article over the weekend. I'm too busy during the week. I'll try and summarise on Sat/Sun. I know I promised a map, but I can't find the time to make one. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The structure of the section politics is in my opinion very standard. This is very similar to South Sfrica or Australia.
  • I know the section "communities and regions" is special. This is also a very specific system which is difficult to understand for strangers. The structure as it is now is due to Tony and I think it has reach an optimum in its concise and precise presentation. I really think this section should not be turned into prose. This would diminish the value of the section. Vb 10:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. One of the best articles on Wikipedia.Logophile 07:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Suppport, although the positioning of the images in the History section really needs to be changed - they force the entire section beneath the infobox.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I know. I agree with you. Ask =Nichalp «Talk»= why he did it like that. He seems to be dogmatic on this point. And basically I don't mind. Vb 17:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • That's more of a browser bug perhaps? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see how it could be, as it occurs in at least two different browsers (IE and FF) and with and without text justification. It's happening because the image won't align against the infobox (which would look horrible anyway) and forces itself and the text beneath it.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Object Generally a very fine article, but several quibbles. First, the history section is constrained. Some mention of confessional politics needs to be made, given its importance to the development of the country's identity. Second, the importance of language politics is insufficiently covered given the degree to which it informs national (and local) political debates. If these could be amended, or if reasons for their exclusion could be provided, I would change to support since overall the article looks very good. Dottore So 12:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: I will be copyediting the article on 2005-11-13 =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vowel

Smerdis of Tlön nominated this article below as a series (including various related articles like table of vowels, list of vowels, and the pages on individual vowels they link to). The nomination was opposed on the basis that article series are not valid nominations for featured articles, but there seemed to be agreement that the article was sufficient on its own, so I am re-nominating it by itself. Full disclosure: I (re-)wrote a good deal of this article. Most of the other points of opposition have been addressed, and the article now includes a picture. Nohat 22:44, 2004 May 8 (UTC)

• Support the article (not the series). (Good rewrite.) -- Kaihsu 22:50, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
• Ditto - support the article, not the series. →Raul654 02:13, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Support (as below) --Andrew 20:00, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Support Denni 23:25, 2004 May 9 (UTC)
• Support. Markalexander100 09:25, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
• Sùppœrt. Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Acetaminophen

Self-nomination. Well written, good structure, gives history, including some topical stuff about the scare a while back, and deals with toxicity. A couple pictures, too. Ksheka 22:24, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. RedWolf 05:29, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Support!
  JFW | T@lk 09:59, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
• support Alex.tan 18:43, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support - very interesting! Arwel 00:36, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
• Objection withdrawn. I now support. Oppose for now -- Some 70% of the history section deals with the cyanide tampering, which is minor incident in the history of a major pharmaceutical. Questions I feel should be answered: who discovered its pharmaceutical properties, what firms initially mass-produced it under what trade names when, etc.Shimmin 17:16, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Some history added. I can't find the names of the first trade names, but I think everything else is covered. Please reconsider. Ksheka 12:35, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • I added quite a bit to the history section, and some external links and a reference. I think I covered all these issues. Please reconsider. Ksheka 12:58, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] War elephant

Self nomination. I like it and i hope you too, because i think it would look beautiful on the Main Page. Lacks a picture, though. Muriel 09:36, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Pictures supplied. It would be nice to have some information on other military uses of elephants (particularly explaining the picture of an elephant used as a beast of burden in World War I). --Andrew 18:07, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- Kaihsu 21:39, 2004 May 8 (UTC)\
• Support, neat article about an interesting topic. Lisiate 20:46, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Looks very neat. Revth 09:07, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Quirky yet informative article. MGM 14:50, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] London Underground

A comprehensive, interesting and well-written article, in my opinion. Stewart Adcock 22:51, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

• support. Pedro 01:12, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
• support - full of detail, excellent writing, character. --Andrew 19:04, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- Kaihsu 21:45, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
• Support. --Zigger 01:51, 2004 May 9 (UTC)
• Brilliant writing, fascinating, useful. Meelar 03:26, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
• support, although still room for improvement VampWillow 10:21, 2004 May 9 (UTC)
• Support. I love the tube, and this article is just very comprehensive and accessible (unlike the tube itself :-)
  JFW | T@lk 11:27, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support Dmn 23:24, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support Gandalf61 15:07, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Support MGM 11:03, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, certainly. It's an excellent article that I've referred to many a time. Ambivalenthysteria 14:14, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support RedWolf 18:56, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Support --Boothy443 07:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kashrut

Very comprehensive. An interesting read, and I found just the piece of information I was looking for. Could have had a few pictures, though. arj 20:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

• Support, but I think pictures would be good too. How about a picture of some kosher food item in which the magic symbol is visible? (Better than my first idea, which was an animal being slaughtered in the kosher way) --Andrew 21:24, May 7, 2004 (UTC) (picture supplied; a better picture might help --Andrew 20:03, May 9, 2004 (UTC))
• Support. A rabbi friend of mine tried explaining this to me. This article actually did a better job in some cases. One minor quibble, easily corrected: This same rabbi explained the rationale behind not mixing meat with milk, which I don't recall seeing here. He said that it was improper to cook an animal in the same nutrient that its mother once gave it. So much for my wife's chicken-fried steak and country gravy being kosher. :^) - Lucky 6.9 00:09, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Just did some copyedit.
  JFW | T@lk 10:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. jengod 20:32, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Thorpe

Self nomination. I nominated this article earlier, but this was objected by Kingturtle (for POV reasons). I attempted to solve the problem, but did not receive any feedback from Kingturtle regarding my attempt, hence the re-submission. Jeronimo 11:44 4 May 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Good stuff. - Lucky 6.9 06:11, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
• (Just a note: the previous submission also had three supporters besides the objection from Kingturtle, from users jengod, jredmond and TheEvilLibrarian. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations#Jim Thorpe) Jeronimo 10:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] President of Ireland

Nice, comprehensive article. I made only one very minor edit so this isn't really a self nomination. LUDRAMAN | T 03:11, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Object - Add some pictures, perhaps of an Irish president or two; a shot of Áras an Uachtaráin, perhaps... maybe even a brief historical note about the exercise of one or two of the Presidential powers.... I will remove my objection, however, once some pics lighten up the article, which is indeed nicely done.--LordSuryaofShropshire 15:40, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
• (Support) Agree with LordSuryaofShropshire. Needs photos! Other than that, looks superb. Zoney 17:03, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • The photos of the individual presidents are on the individual presidents' pages (makes sense?). A shot of the Áras wouldn't be a bad idea, however. Anyone fancy a trip to Dublin with their camera? :-) LUDRAMAN | T 19:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Neutral: I am neutral now with the addition of the one picture at top. I won't take initiative to move this to the 'without objection' section since I don't know if Zoney is with or against at this point. --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:05, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm with - I won't object! Zoney 11:19, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Not an objection, but I think single quotation marks need to be changed to double quotation marks. Also, the sentence "Since the 1990s under President Robinson, but in particular since the Good Friday Agreement the current president, Mary McAleese, who is herself the first President of Ireland from Northern Ireland, regularly visits the six counties" strikes me as unclear. Is it that, since the 1990's under President Robinson, Mary McAleese visits the six counties? - That is what seems to be implied; perhaps the sentence could be corrected up by someone who is confident of its meaning. -- Emsworth 01:01, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've pretty much cleared up that sentence (IMO). Zoney 01:24, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
• Heartily support. I have learnt a lot from reading this. -- Kaihsu 13:42, 2004 May 5 (UTC)
• As one of the early workers on this page (and someone who left wikipedia for quite a while) I have to graduklate people on their work on it. I have made two minor tweaks, but think it is a good article that hopefully will help people know more about a largely unknown office. FearÉIREANN 16:50, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support (I've made a single minor edit on the page, if that counts against nowadays) James F. (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Submarine

An interesting article, and thorough; good pictures. The history includes even some of the more obscure precursors. Not a self-nomination, although I might try to improve it. --Andrew 22:20, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

• I agree. Support with expanded reference to the Nautilus and the role of Admiral Hyman Rickover in its creation, especially since its fiftieth anniversary was just this past January. There was an interesting article about Nautilus in last year's Farmer's Almanac. I no longer have the magazine, though. Anyone else? - Lucky 6.9 00:23, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
• Suggest using subheadings in history section, and suggest series on submarine articles. Support - MGM 09:46, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
• A picture showing the scale of modern submarines would be good...you can't tell size from the photo (even better would be silhouettes showing the relative scales of modern and older subs, with a scale bar and maybe a tiny human figure for reference). Is that too much to ask? (At least note the scale, i.e. the length of the sub, on the photo caption.) —Steven G. Johnson 05:16, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I had to rewrite the paragraph on hull shapes (it didn't even mention the word "teardrop"!). I also fixed formatting at the end, and added an extremely good picture which (as someone had requested above) should allow you to judge scale. →Raul654 15:50, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Crash test dummy

Self-nomination (make me feel like a real dummy). Worked hard on this one, a cheap pick-up in the stubs bin and look where it went! I also got to read Mary Roach's absolutely delightful book. Comments/criticisms welcome.Denni 07:16, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

• Stiff was excellent. -Litefantastic 11:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
• Looks like a lot of work went into this. Support MGM 14:20, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I agree with Markalexander100 (his comment on the article's talk page) that the headings are a bit exuberant. Also, wikilinks are used in a strange way - for example, the adjective fundamental is linked (well, was, I removed that) whereas Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is not. These minor issues should be easy to address. The article looks fairly comprehensive otherwise, so kudos for your work. Fredrik 15:03, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Headings de-exhubericated, additional internal/external links provided where relevant, and an additional copyedit to smooth/clarify carried out. Thank you for the useful comments. As of this point (3 weeks after request), I still have no response to copyright queries re. lead pic. I therefore reassert fair use (see image talk page for further information). Denni 22:11, 2004 May 3 (UTC)
    • Two more comments. First: "In 1971, the first Hybrid I was introduced by ARL" - we are introduced to the Hybrid, and the next two sections discuss the Hybrid III family. It appears that the Hybrids have set the standard, but there is no particular explanation for this. The introduction of the Hybrids should state how important they are and why. Second, the conclusion of the article is a bit too exuberant (again) and assertive. I suggest changing the "will happen" wording into "will probably happen". With those changed, I will support this article. Fredrik 09:43, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Support now. Fredrik 22:18, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
• Object, for the moment; the writing is awkward. Sentences tend to be long and cumbersome. This could be cleaed up with some careful copyediting - I did a little, but I tend to have the same problem. Otherwise, well-researched and interesting. --Andrew 15:06, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • While I have no objection to wording changes, I do choose each word and phrase I use with care. I believe it is necessary to communicate precisely what I mean. So one, for instance, I find one change in the "cadaver testing" section unacceptable, where the original compromise has been replaced with confuse. IMHO, the original is more accurate. Researchers were not "confused" by multiple injuries, but they were for very good reasons unable to separate the effects of prior injuries to those of current ones. I stand by my thesaurus.
    • It's possible to be just as precise and use shorter sentences. But yours is a personal style; while it's different from mine, it's fine (now that the few really awkward constructions are fixed). Good article; I'm happy to Support. --Andrew 15:49, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Having said that, my "Nice Job, Editor" award goes to those people who work on my articles, and I can't tell it's been done, or marvel at my turns of phrse which, when I check them out, are actually someone else's. So, Andrew, I say "Nice Job, Editor." Denni 15:28, 2004 May 5 (UTC)
  • I found the writing pleasant to read. Fredrik 15:16, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Weather lore

Self-nomination. Years of skywatching expertise, a stack of my own photos, and the magic of a coffee-fuelled all-nighter (it's been years since I did that) turned out an article I will hope help people plan their day. Comments/criticisms welcome. Denni 07:16, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

• Object - no lead section and odd format. --mav 08:27, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Am refactoring to create head. As far as format goes, given the nature of item-discussion writing, it of necessity cannot follow a typical article format. There must be a clear separation between each item-discussion unit, and the only thing I can think of is to reduce the amount of white space. However, this presents a problem in ensuring the graphics remain near the unit they are intended to illustrate. Suggestions welcome. Denni 22:42, 2004 May 3 (UTC)
    • Looks better - objection withdrawn. --mav
• Object for now. It is interesting and well-written and it has lots of interesting photographs, but it's overwikified (only wikify stuff that's important to the article) and it could use different sections than it has right now. Let me know once it's changed and I'll reconsider - Change to support, find changes (especially opening section) sufficient. MGM 14:24, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • There will be some minor section modifications. As it stands, the article has a head, a discussion about what constitutes weather and where it occurs, and true and false weather lore. (Thank you, eloquence.) I've also removed some wikification. Denni 01:01, 2004 May 4 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful pictures, fascinating content. --Andrew 02:34, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, for the same reasons as Andrew. ALargeElk 15:58, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support - a lovely piece of art! And interesting too! Zoney 01:26, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The pictures are near perfect. Smerdis of Tlön 03:41, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support - An excellent article JoJan 15:13, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
• support. Different, interesting and Great. Great pics. Pedro 01:28, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] European Union (discussion ends 8 May to allow feature – if passed – on Main Page on 9 May)

(Although I don't like the precedent it sets, if this does pass, I will feature it on May 9. →Raul654 19:16, May 5, 2004 (UTC))

10 New members on may 1st. This might be an excellent time to expand this article when it's more current then ever. [nominated by 217.211.239.31 a few hours ago, fabiform | talk 06:07, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)]

• Support, the article looks good. Besides I believe that the tomorrow's event will be of historic importance. Neutral, I don't know enough about the subject to give a vote. Object because there is a separate article on the expansion Enlargement_of_the_European_Union Andries 08:52, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • That's a good reason not to put them both on the front page on the same day. It's not a good reason not to list them both on Wikipedia:Featured_articles. Markalexander100 22:31, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- Kaihsu 19:22, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely for May 1st! What an event! I'd also add Enlargement_of_the_European_Union but only if its good enough. European Union article is probably more important (what are the 10 new members joining?) Zoney 00:48, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Digressing a little—the Enlargement article won't qualify for featured status till it does better in covering controversy, particularly the problem of the two parts of Cyprus and the veto power of one part over the other's entry. Dandrake 19:30, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Hmm...the European Union#The role of the European Community within the Union section might still be problematic. It was totally wrong before, and I tried to improve, but I'm not sure what I put was right either. At any rate, I think the article needs a good look over by someone more knowledgeable about this stuff than me. john 06:34, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I rewrote some of that section too - also moving it to where it is in context (i.e. after the pillars of which it is one, have been explained). Should suffice for now! Zoney 22:15, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support overwhemingly, Dmn 19:29, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Is it possible to make an exception and for this article to be promoted today? TIME IS RUNNING OUT Historie Pete 15:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I am also in favor of making an exception. Andries 20:03, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • No, please don't make an exception. Europe Day is 9 May; that is a good time to feature this. At the moment, work on Enlargement of the European Union and try to get it featured on 1 May. -- Kaihsu
  • No exceptions - this will stay here until (at least) May 2, assuming no one objects in the mean time. →Raul654 22:05, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • No exception! There is plenty of time to improve the article to 9 May 2005. /Tuomas 14:04, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
• Objection, to the section Legal_history_and_governing_treaties. I think that the section is not well-formatted: some lines include sentences, others mere phrases, and still others paragraphs. For example, one might wonder, what are the Merger Treaty, the Single European Act, etc.? I suggest that the entire section be reformatted into the form of complete sentences in paragraphs, with a brief explanation of the various Acts or Treaties, instead of being a part-timeline. -- Emsworth 01:59, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Dealt with gracefully by Zoney. Now just have to deal with European Union#The role of the European Community within the Union -- Kaihsu 15:42, 2004 May 5 (UTC)
    • I think European Union#The role of the European Community within the Union is now OK. Markalexander100 05:28, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I've expanded Treaties section, paragraphs and info on the treaties. Quite good if I do say so myself. There's one or two oneliners that can't/shouldn't really be expanded - where new countries joined, etc.! I didn't want to tack those onto the paras either - by and large each deals with a major treaty. Zoney 15:45, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support! I'll see what I can do to make it shine on May 9.✏ Sverdrup 19:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support! Elizabeth A 16:06, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Very well-written, thorough, and topical. Moncrief 20:28, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great article. Pedro 01:17, 8 May 2004 (UTC)~

[edit] Triangle

This is a wonderful article. I learned far more than I expected existed about triangles, and the diagrams are simply perfect. I wouldn't be surprised by 'too technical' objections, however. - Plutor 14:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

• This article does a good job with the mathematics alone, but there's IMO more to say. It does not say anything about the history of the mathematics involved. And aren't there other areas where triangles have a use - for example, do they have a meaning in art or architecture? Not really an objection, but there might be room for improvement here. Fredrik 15:26, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support, the only thing that I still miss is some remarks about its importance in e.g. geodesy/land measurement and physics (e.g. vector calculation). Neutral. I would like to read a bit more about the history (mathematical progress) of the subject. I am not in favor of a long treatise on the history though. Can be fixed quickly, I think and hope. Object, because the article doesn't deal with the history of the subject at all. . Andries 20:31, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Triangles were done in Book 1 of Euclid's Elements. That is more or less the complete history and I've added to the article. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The only possible objection I ahve with this is that it may bore some people. -Litefantastic 00:32, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
• Should it be renamed to Triangle (geometry) ? - Bevo 19:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
  • No. Although the word triangle has other meanings, all of them are derived from the geometric figure. Therefore, the geometric figure belongs at triangle and other meanings belong elsewhere. →Raul654 20:45, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Good article. →Raul654 20:45, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Very impressive. How about extending the article on the most perfect solid, the tetrahedron, as your next project? Denni 21:23, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

[edit] Sid McMath

The writing was so good I almost thought it was a copyvio, but found nothing. A really interesting article on a fascinating figure who's relatively obscure. Meelar 16:21, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Meelar 16:21, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Andrew 22:20, May 3, 2004 (UTC); excellent article. Might be nice if it could be sectioned without harm to the text, but it's fine as is.
• Neutral. Subheds would help with readability. jengod 22:26, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've added them. This is really good writing. As a previous poster said, it flows together so well that it's hard to tell where to partition. Meelar 00:19, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
• against. Chauvinism. Unimportant person. Never eard of him before. Qualityful, but not interesting. I think. Pedro 01:25, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't really think that your complaint is substantive - just because you haven't heard of him (and neither had I, for the record) doesn't disqualify it from being a featured article. It's my opinion that anything that is encyclopedic should be eligible to be a featured article. →Raul654 01:47, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • changed to Support. It is unappelling The subject) to me, but can be great to others. Major quality: good writing.Pedro 01:26, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy metal umlaut

I really enjoyed this one. Cow 00:05, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

• Support. My first thought was "what a silly article!" But no, it gives a reasonable discussion of a real trend. I'll still call it "quirky". But some quirky features is a good thing. --Andrew 02:50, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- Kaihsu 08:21, 2004 May 7 (UTC)
• Support. This is a well written article (also, I always wondered what the deal was with those umlauts.) Uranographer 09:00, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. This was nominated back in March. What happened then? Markalexander100 10:08, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Didn't need to know any of this, but feel better for having learned about it. Quirky doesn't quite convey the effect. Good to have a lighter toned piece now and then ww 14:47, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Unique about wikipedia--Britannica would never have this article. :) jengod 19:56, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Support completely. I like to see this sort of article nominated - a bit unusual, a bit pop cultural. Great job. Moncrief 20:26, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Süppört! I stumbled on this article early in my Wikipedia experience and was impressed at how detailed and well-researched an otherwise obscure subject can be. - Lucky 6.9 00:15, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Every encyclopedia should include the occasional article which, when stumbled upon, provokes a reader to exclaim "Gadzööks!" Denni 00:36, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
• Support! It's actually a nice surprise to see this article nominated. After the first time I saw it I remembered about The Onion article and added it to the text. MikeCapone 04:00, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Such an interesting article - a good example of information which is well worth knowing but would never be in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Dmn
• Hey! I nominated this once before, and no one took it seriously. Oh well, it's still a good article, and I enthusiastically support. Isomorphic 20:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)