Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People's Republic of China[edit]

- fully templated and contains extensive info. --Jiang 06:19, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

    • Second. -- Kaihsu 18:21, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
    • Support. Wenteng 09:16, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Me three. Bth 21:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. nickname (talk) 2005-07-05 18:28:07 (UTC)

Bioinformatics[edit]

    • A very good summary, neither short on information nor delving into too much detail. Looks nice, too! Gaurav 13:32, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I weakly object. This is a good article, particularly in staying at an appropriate level, and refering to more detailed other articles. However, it's pretty disorganized, at least needing well-thought-out section headings. The selection of topics seems a bit haphazard, though this may just be an effect of the organization. There's also some claims I'm uncomfortable, some of which are non-trivial to fix, e.g. homology is clearly an important concept in bioinformatics, but it overly dominates this article. Zashaw 05:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I have made some changes, to add structure that hopefully addresses some of Zashaw's concerns. Support. --Lexor|Talk 03:27, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I retract my objection. (Sorry for not checking sooner.) The article's on my list of things to have a look at, but I think it's already worthy of being a featured article, and your edits helped it a lot. Zashaw 22:05, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Carl Sagan[edit]

I've polished it up a little, it seems fairly comprehensive and well-written to me. Note that I've done some earlier work on this article as well.—Eloquence 18:26, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Although, it might be wise to mention that he was a noted author earlier in the article, probably the intro. -- Stewart Adcock 21:50, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article. Luis Dantas 02:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It appears that consensus has already been established, but I'll add my vote anyway. Good overview, nice flow. There's room for expansion, but the conciseness is beneficial. A model article on many levels. Fredrik 10:38, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Voynich Manuscript[edit]

I and several others have worked on this one: it's been recently overhauled by Jorge Stolfi, and it strikes me that it's shaping up nicely. Smerdis of Tlön 17:01, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Added to Featured articles. Gentgeen 00:52, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Java programming language[edit]

I think this article covers the language very well and explains a lot. User:Sasha Slutsker 12:03 AM EST, 21 Mar 2004

  • Uh-huh. This seems pretty good. Ludraman | Talk 22:58, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, although it would probably benefit from more explanation in the control structures section. Stewart Adcock 02:25, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article. However, I oppose the addition of more programming details (just for the record = ). Full explanation on talk page.

Enclave[edit]

Thanks to the reference desk, this article was brought to my attention -- it's an interesting and comprehensive discussion of an idea I didn't even know there was a word for, and I think it's a good example of how we can treat a unique concept very simply and engagingly. Jwrosenzweig 18:40, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Full of interesting trivia. Smerdis of Tlön 20:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very interesting and deep article on a concept that could easily have been overlooked. Ambivalenthysteria 06:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, for the same reasons above. llywrch 17:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A bit of history would be nice, though. whkoh [talk][[]] 08:22, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an article that could have easily been nothing more than another wiktionary-ish definition. Stewart Adcock 02:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Gentgeen 14:41, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. jengod 00:13, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the first articles I fell in love with (among my misc. "online resources"), before I realized WP as a whole was so marvelous. +sj+ 21:54, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Added to History section. jengod 21:35, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Buddhism[edit]

I've added more pictures, so now all the unresolved objections have been resolved I think it can go back to here. Ludraman | Talk 23:32, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One of the best Wikipedia articles I have seen. Very comprehensive, and NPOV (which is something extremely important in religious articles) Ludraman 19:14, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Not opposed, I like the article, but I think it would benefit from at least a couple of images. Bkonrad 21:07, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Images exist now. Kingturtle 18:50, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I second that, and I haven't even looked at the article. Buddhism (particularly for outsiders) is recognized particularly by its many images of Buddha. Sam Spade 01:51, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    I'm not disagreeing with ye, but it has a picture of the Buddha, what other pictures would you have? Ludraman | Talk 10:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
More? ;) Sam Spade 19:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Done! Ludraman | Talk 23:32, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Good work, :D Sam Spade 17:42, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Indeed a very comprehensive and balanced article, better than many books on the market. Luis Dantas 02:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Reluctant. While it looks comprehensive I still find it a bit rough, and patchy. Most of the grossly pov stuff was been weeded out recently, but it could do with some work. I think we should wait. mahābāla 12:55, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks really good, if somewhat too extensive and maybe too academic on details. A good NPOV writing. Revth 06:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • YEA. Because of its emphasis on psychology and philosophy, this religious article has proved to be as unbiased as a religious article could be. Usedbook 20:16, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • This article is not yet ready. I support this now.Kingturtle 19:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It is good enough. We may all have little niggles, but its a large article already, with a lot of attention going into it. 20040302 21:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Space elevator[edit]

Might need a picture or two, but covers the topic well. - Fredrik 01:43, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Object. Lead section way too short. That section needs to act as a concise encyclopedia article in its own right. --mav 07:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I expanded it a bit myself. Better? Fredrik 09:09, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Full support - very comprehensive, well-researched and well-written. A masterful example of how a highly technical and nerdy topic can be explained in a way that people without scientific backgrounds can be made to both understand and be interested in the subject. Great work! --mav 21:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


I'll add my support to this one, although if someone could get permission to get a picture for use, it'd be all the better. There've been enough proposals done for the space elevator, at least *one* of the design images should be in the public domain.  :) UPDATE: I just emailed Liftport to ask for permission to use one of their conceptual drawings or renderings. UPDATE: We got permission. I posted some to the article.  :) Rei
Beautiful :) Fredrik 23:54, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please describe external links - add short descriptions to each link so that it's clear where they are leading.—Eloquence 17:23, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Jalnet2 00:53, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (should include links to a few more launching/skyhook techniques) +sj+ 15:45, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • Support. Jeff8765 22:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting article Stewart Adcock 02:33, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Gandalf61 10:44, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. excellent article. Alex.tan 14:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Time to get started. Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A very interesting and well-written article. Ex1le 01:53, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Paul Morphy[edit]

Created fac from original nomination here.

Biographical article on the Bobby Fischer of the 19th century! (Well, sort of...this one was polite and had no controversial or racist opinions). Mostly, I want to know if its a good encyclopedia article, and if you enjoyed reading it. Need it seconded! ChessPlayer 15:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Support (second) Kingturtle 05:03, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Perl 23:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lego[edit]

Created fac from original nomination here.

  • LEGO - detailed, great pictures.—Eloquence 07:40, Feb 26, 2004
    • Support. -- Kaihsu 18:18, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
    • I support as well. moink 22:21, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Meticulous stuff. -- Bth 21:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Fun! Kingturtle 04:45, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Beer[edit]

Extensive and extremly informative. →Raul654 19:27, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object - it needs a good lead section that can act as a concise article in its own right (news style). This would also make it possible to have this item on the Featured article part of the Main Page. --mav 02:36, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I stronly disagree with both Mav's assertion and his reasons. I don't see any reason we couldn't put beer on the main page, and (more importantly) I don't think we should censor featured articles candidates based on whether they can be featured on the main page or not. →Raul654 21:57, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • Qualifying for listing on the Main Page is not my major point. My point is in regards to organizing information so that it is most useful to readers. Some readers want a concise article on the topic - not just a definition. Expanding the lead section into a miniature article (a concise article) makes the entire Wikipedia article more useful. --mav
  • Support. Well written, lots of info, and it does too have a good intro section. Couldn't fit more than two senetences on the Main Page anyway. --zandperl 01:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. In my view, the more concise the intro, the better. -- Stewart Adcock 21:36, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • That is reader unfriendly. Some people don't want to read a long article to get the basics. Best to summarize the major points and then give readers a choice. See news style. --mav
    • I detest the news style. It means that you have to read everything twice - once in an over-concise form and once in an over-verbose form. It is much better to write an article and then provide a short summary at the top so the reader (a) knows it covers the right topic (b) gets hooked. Besides, wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, not a news source. Just my 2 cents. Stewart Adcock 22:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • The lead section should be a summary that grabs people. That summary should address the major and most important points in an article. Since those points are so important, they bear repeating and being expanded upon later in the article. This helps solidify the major and most important concepts to the reader. Other readers could just opt to read the lead section to get the basics. In short, Wikipedia news style gives readers a choice about how much detail they are willing to read through to get the information they need. It is highly useful. This set-up also lets Wikipedia be a concise and general encyclopedia along with being an interconnected set of specialized encyclopedias. Such specialized encyclopedias normally require special background knowledge to understand articles. But a good lead section should be understandable by just about anybody. --mav
        • I have beefed up the introduction with an additional two sentences. I think that should do it. →Raul654 09:31, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
            • Thanks - that is enough for me to withdraw my objection. The lead section can be expanded more later. -- mav
  • Added Japan section and offer my support. Revth 06:32, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well written and informative, alothough the U.S. section is disproportionately large compared to the others. DryGrain 17:09, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Carlsbad Caverns National Park[edit]

Nominated by Bevo 03:08, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. After reading the article I still have no idea where it is located. -- Kaihsu 18:17, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
    • Several days ago I added a small state map of NM that highlights the approximate location. Bevo 02:35, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I have to say that when I read it there was no location information. (See history of that page) -- Kaihsu 08:30, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)
    • Objection withdrawn, but not a vote in support. -- Kaihsu 11:39, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)
    • standard Natl Park LocMap now in place - Bevo 22:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I really think a map with a dot (ideally on a topographical map, since this is about a geographical feature) showing the exact location is called for, not just highlighting the county. Other questions remain unanswered: What are the altitudes of the highest/lowest points? If it's "one of the largest" cave complexes, what are its competitors? What fraction of it is publicly accessible? (Aren't there any bats living in the public areas? There usually are in the caves I've visited before...but the article says that their "darkened homes are only visible to scientific researchers".) Steven G. Johnson 07:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • "map with a dot" now instantiated - Bevo 22:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • bat material rewritten by Kingturtle. (see below)
  • Approve. "Southeastern New Mexico" is a very good description of its location (there are hardly any people in this region, so you can't miss it if you simply drive! Just follow the other cars and you will get there. It's not like California, where there are millions of competing stories). Ancheta Wis 02:23, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Approve. I just gave it a nice edit. I did, however, remove much of the Mexican Freetail Bat details. That should be its own article....maybe someday a FEATURE article? :) Kingturtle 19:43, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Not an objection, but I would like to see a national park table (see Yellowstone National Park). Come to think of it, complying to relevant WikiProjects may be a good criteria for being a featured article. --mav 11:30, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, a table like the one in Yellowstone National Park would make a great addition to the article. In fact, I'm not ready to withdraw this one from nomination, but that Yellowstone article is a much better article overall than this one, at this time. I suppose one side-effect of this nomination process is to get ideas on how an article can be approved, even if it never makes it to the FA list. - Bevo 19:02, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Please make one - I see from the rules above that a basic criteria for being featured is conformance to relevant WikiProjects. --mav
    • I added a LocMap that I created from the template image at Image:Map of USA.png. It would be nice now to get it and the stats into a table format like Yellowstone National Park. - Bevo 20:27, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Added stats to LocMap table Plus some touch up to section headings and links. - Bevo 16:29, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support as it is, a very enjoyable article. I would however love to see some more photographs, especially of the bats at dusk, and the cave paintings (if these are still distinct). fabiform | talk 01:43, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Created FAC from original nomination here.

Eextremely detailed and well written. Very balanced. →Raul654 23:42, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Revth 05:20, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Saw this the other day and thought of nominating it myself. jengod 23:26, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Mikkalai 08:07, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - the perfect example of what a featured article should be like. Ludraman 09:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Added by Raul654 on 21:01, 13 March 2004

I wrote/shot most of this and would like to know what still needs to be done to make this article shine. If it is already there, then I would be OK with this becoming a featured article as-is. But I mainly want feedback. --mav 11:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Second. Davodd 07:11, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent job! Just two minor nitpicks: the "Area" in the infobox conflict with the km2 given in the text (since 1 ha = 0.01 km2, the digits should agree), and are the "acres" international or U.S. survey acres? Finally, could the brightness on the "Firehole River" picture be upped a little bit except for the sky? Lupo 08:25, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Those are US acres AFAIK. Table fixed. I don't know how to fix the brightness of the land without washing out the sky. I took that photo on an overcast day so there isn't much that can be done. Thanks for the feedback! :) --mav
      • I've lightened up the land and left the sky as is, and also heightened the colours slightly. It's nothing terribly dramatic; if you don't like it, feel free to revert. :) -- Hadal 08:16, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Gee thanks! :) Looks nice. --mav
  • Support. Kingturtle 05:00, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Hadal 08:16, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great write-up and wonderful pictures – the best of both worlds. fabiform | talk 04:23, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Kwekubo 00:45, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Poetry - partial self-nomination as a lot of people have worked on this article. I think it's a good overview of a complex subject and lots of useful links at the end. Bmills 14:39, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It might be a little link-heavy, but main articles have to be, in many respects. I do certainly like the way the text is laid out, and think it a very fine overview. Support. Jwrosenzweig 17:45, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Added -- Toby Bartels 21:45, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC).