Jump to content

Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Harris0 (talk | contribs)
114 edits
`
Line 609: Line 609:
* Agreed. Very short article for such a significant period. [[User:Havardj]]
* Agreed. Very short article for such a significant period. [[User:Havardj]]
* We have a featured article on [[Palladian architecture]] that we could summarize into a section of this article. --[[User:Fenice|Fenice]] 18:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
* We have a featured article on [[Palladian architecture]] that we could summarize into a section of this article. --[[User:Fenice|Fenice]] 18:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

===[[Roswell UFO Incident]] (1 vote, stays until [[January 19]])===
:''Nominated [[January 12]], [[2006]]; needs at least 3 votes by [[January 19]], [[2006]]''

; Support:
# [[User:Harris0|Harris0]] 23:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

; Comments:
It needs it. I was interested in getting an unbiased account of the topic and it just wasn't available. [[User:Harris0|Harris0]] 23:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)



<!--Template for new nominations (copy & paste):
<!--Template for new nominations (copy & paste):

Revision as of 23:50, 12 January 2006

Shortcut

The Article Improvement Drive is a weekly collaboration to improve non-stub articles to featured article status. (For stub articles or topics with no articles, see Collaborations of the week.)

/History - For past winners.
/Removed - For removed nominations.



Articles to be improved can be nominated by registered users in the "nominations" section below, with an explanation of what work is needed. Any and all articles may be nominated except:

Each Sunday, the article with the most support votes is chosen. Opposing votes are not counted; see approval voting. You can vote for as many articles as you like. Articles need three votes per week to stay on the list.

Collaborations
Articles
Science and technology
Miscellaneous

Nominations

The next project article is to be selected on Sunday January 8, 2006. 18.00 GMT

Please add new nominations at the bottom of the page.

Also, please do us all a favour: When you vote, update the vote count in the subhead at the same time. If you're feeling generous, check to see if you've put it over the "stays until" margin and update that line too, if needed.

melissa joiner (100 votes, stays until January 15)

Nominated January 8)==

History of the world (27 votes, stays until February 14)

Nominated December 8, 2005; needs at least 27 votes by February 14, 2006
Support
  1. Daanschr 13:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tarret 23:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PepperIT 11:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Singkong2005 11:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ---- Astrokey44|talk 11:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Scoo 14:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dan M 23:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. RCSB 15:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Fenice 22:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cuivienen 03:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mac Davis 12:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Wackymacs 20:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Hahaandy1 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Noneloud 05:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. WS 14:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Mark J 09:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. CG 16:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. darkliight 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. TestPilot 05:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Anonunit 07:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Antoshi 05:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Silence 07:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Eixo 10:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Waltwe 12:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Link9er 13:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Seingo 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. ~MDD4696 22:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article lacks a central idea. The headline texts are pointless. I'm trying to rewrite on my own, but i don't like to delete texts that are no better then mine. My idea is to give atention to the present debate among sociologists and historians on why Europe had the industrial revolution and colonized the world. Also i like to have more focus on the history of important civilization advances. That is why i created headlines like: hunter-gatherers, agriculture, state, city and trade. I like to add religion, capitalism, industrialism, democracy versus other kinds of governments. A lot to debate about.--Daanschr 13:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article turns out to be the last 0.0001% of the history of the world... :) ---- — RJH 22:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argh, I can see another Fernand Braudel coming along ;) Scoo 14:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is very bad. I'm not surprised that it can't be found on Google. It reads like a children's encylcopedia of the 1970's. It isn't representative of modern scholarly opinion. See Talk:History of the World ('Rise of Europe'). RCSB 15:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen plenty worse, especially on wikipedia. Rather than grouse, why not fix it? :) — RJH 19:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried to improve but another editor immediately overran my work. A second editor supported him and since at the time we were the only three participating in the discussion, I was forced to concede that world history is not an important subject - otherwise it surely would have attracted a wider participation. The nomination here is very welcome. RCSB 07:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voting for this one because I care more about the world than about Thomas Edison. <-- preceding unsigned comment by Silence as identified by --Fenice 08:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC) <-- preceding signed comment by Fenice as identified by Fenice, just to be confusing. -Silence 20:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curse you, Thomas Edison! I guess this will have to wait another week. - Cuivienen 04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid deflection strategies (19 votes, stays until February 1)

Nominated December 16, 2005; needs at least 21 votes by February 1, 2006
Support
  1. Fangz 10:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DerHerrMigo 22:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moonstone 18:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fenice 19:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. User:AlMac|(talk) 06:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Aumakua 07:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mac Davis ญƛ. 12:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Silence 04:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Rayc 04:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Steven 23:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Empty2005 09:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. CG 16:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Ben 7423 03:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. TestPilot 05:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Duff 13:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Cyde Weys votetalk 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Mikkerpikker 06:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. x1987x 22:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. VegaDark 08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Very important topic, with big media resonance. Solid, uncontroversial, and interesting topic, with lots of information available on it and strong connections to many other articles. Reorganise, expand, and add a few images, and it could be wonderful. --Fangz 10:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really needs some polishing-up, though. Also needed: more WP-links going to the page and/or a more intuitive name (how about 'Asteroid deflection'?). Nobody types in 'asteroid deflection strategies'! DerHerrMigo 22:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article looks to me like it is a mild improvement over a stub, with some basics there about the problem, but not a lot about possible solutions. We live in a world today, where we have the scientific know how to figure out this stuff, but we do not have the political will to resolve it. To many politicians this topic is a Science Fiction Joke.
  • If it wins, we're going to need to do some crackpot and anti-science fiction damage control.
  • The fate of humankind could rest on this becoming Featured. (Well, probably not. But it's an interesting topic anyway.) -Silence 04:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely seems like a good topic to expand upon; I love reading and writing things in this area -Duff 13:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is gonna be awesome. It totally set off my "science fiction" alarm bells - which is a good thing, by the way. --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


John Seigenthaler Sr. (15 votes, stays until January 12, 2006)

Nominated December 8, 2005; needs at least 15 votes by January 12, 2006
Support
  1. Let's redeem Wikipedia by turning this into a Featured Article! Kaldari 15:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 15:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ed 17:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Gflores Talk 20:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Larsinio 22:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newguineafan 01:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 04:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Pepsidrinka 15:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Dvyost 17:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

 — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 20:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. zenohockey 05:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutralitytalk 01:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. American Patriot 1776 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Bob124 22:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • It'll make him happy since he complained about Wikipedia (and had a right to!) — Wackymacs 15:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err... I doubt that fixing this article will redeem wikipedia in the eyes of the critics. Although it may mollify J.S. slightly. :) — RJH 22:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sick of Wikipedia being attacked...I hope an Article Improvement Drive helps!! -Newguineafan 01:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Half of me says "this is a great idea! what an amusing and clever way to show the reason Wikipedia is a project with so much potential despite its brief setbacks!", and half of me says "this is a terrible idea! it shows a profound pro-Wiki bias that we would go to such efforts to cover our own tracks and put a higher priority on "atoning" and making ourselves look good than on focusing on articles on truly major and vitally important topics that are much more neglected than this article currently is!" So, I'm on the fence on this one.
  • Overall, my thought is: anyone who cares enough about Wikipedia's public image should feel free to work on improving this article, but it shouldn't be one of the weekly article improvement drives; there are too many other topics that are hundreds of times more important for us to spend time on, and in any case going to such lengths for Wikipedia's public image could easily backfire by bringing even more attention to what is really a pretty trivial event that the media blew far out of proportion. In 10 years, it will barely be worthy of a section, much less a distinct article; which is not to say that having coverage of it now is a bad thing, just that it's not something for the Article Improvement Drive.
  • There are entire civilizations and spans of millennia, people and ideas that have changed the history of mankind forever, fundamental scientific and mathematical principles that require good coverage to gain any understanding of our very universe and of existence itself, all with articles so poor that if they appeared in any printed work that work would be laughed off the market forever and become useful only as a party gag. There are thousands of such topics for us to worry about, and we go for this article just because some vandal happened to play around with it? What a victory for vandalism that would be! "Man, let's keep this up and see if we can start another news controversy and gain even more influence over Wikipedia's inner workings..." It's just not worth all this trouble. We're an encyclopedia, not a self-image-obsessed media whore, remember?
  • On the other hand, it is a neat idea. So, I say go for it on an individual level; just don't make it some big community quest using the AID. -Silence 08:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do feel sympathetic to what you are saying, however, at this particular moment in time Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community have egg on their face. If we can work together to redeem Wikipedia in the eyes of the public (even in a rather shallow and media-centric way) that may have a more beneficial long-term effect than working on any other particular article, no matter how fundamentally important it is. If no one takes Wikipedia seriously anyway, what good will it do to have a great article on History of the World? Kaldari 22:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is exactly why this collaboration is a terrible idea. Wikipedia will never be able to be taken seriously if it focuses on its self-image more than on its content. Plus, in fact, the current article on John Seigenthaler Sr. is already very good! Bringing it up to Featured Article quality is completely unnecessary, and amounts to a media stunt ("Hey! Look, media! That article that started this controversy is really good now! See? We really are awesome! ... Be our friends?"). Nothing more, nothing less. Wikipedia should strive to improve its good image by improving the actual content of its vitally-imporatnt articles, not by bowing to the demands of media muckrakers. That's where we are truly in danger of losing our credibility: in the thousands of articles on Wikipedia that are far worse than they should be considering the importance of the subject matter. Wikipedia is already far too fixated on its self-image as-is, leading to a great degradation in actual article quality; more of our Featured Articles look very pretty, but glaring flaws and silly errors are inevitable in just about all of them. Our encyclopedia content should be, now and forever, our number-one concern and focus in "Article Improvement Drive"—we are an encyclopedia, not a public relations firm. -Silence 07:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's thinking like that that causes the horrible hair-styling of politicians today. Content/ideas isn't everything. Image is important for reputation, which counts for something if you want anyone to listen to you or try out your encyclopedia. Otherwise you just end up with those who are wise enough to realize that image isn't everything, which isn't a lot of people. --Schwael 15:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um? You don't think politicians are superficial enough? You think they're too concerned with truly important issues and with doing a good job, and not enough with just appealing to the media with cheap publicity stunts and "hairstyles"? You're an extremely strange person. Unusually for me, that's not entirely a compliment in this case. I'd rather have an extremely unpopular encyclopedia that's amazingly useful and has lots of great content, than a hugely popular encyclopedia with minimal content and usefulness. Popularity is a means, not an end, and in this case actually working on the enyclopedia itself and its countless neglected vital topics is much more important than sucking up to the media. To continue your metaphor: getting a haircut's all well and good, and a shave probably wouldn't hurt either, but considering that Wikipedia has lung cancer, AIDS, syphillus, and leprosy right now, I think we should handle the major surgery issues first, and worry about the rest down the line (or do it on outside of the "Article Improvement Drive" field, which is specifically designed to improve important Wikipedia articles for the sake of Wikipedia's content, not just for the sake of its appearance). -Silence 21:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still, media is one of Wikipedia's major recruitment venues. Blows to our image such as the Seigenthaler case might drive away knowledgeable would-be-editors. Anyway, this article is already excellent, and should not take the AID spot from an article that needs it desperately. --Imperialles 15:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation (13 votes, stays until January 17, 2006)

Nominated December 14, 2005; needs at least 15 votes by January 17, 2006
Support
  1. Ashibaka tock 06:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. cohesion★talk 03:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Fenice 12:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Csbodine 17:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Melaen 18:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Luis Dantas 18:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Solar 13:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Lumiere 03:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Triona 09:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. DaGizza Chat 00:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NeoJustin 02:36 January 4, 2006 (UTC)
  12. Kaldari 21:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Metta Bubble 04:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is an extensive and important topic, it looks like the core bit is well-written but some of it is an ad-hoc mess. This would make a nice featured article with just a little work. Ashibaka tock 06:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Sofia (16 votes, stays until January 29, 2006)

Nominated December 18, 2005; needs at least 18 votes by January 29, 2006
Support
  1. File:Bulgaria flag large.png → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 14:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -Estrellador* 18:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Soul assassin 10:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wackymacs 12:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Nightstallion ✉ 15:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Witty lama 06:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NeoJustin 03:11, December 29, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Fenice 08:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. *drew 02:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Veseo 19:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Vanka5 23:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Nk 12:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Soo 01:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Ryubread 16:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 07:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Neva 18:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Neva[reply]
Comments

Architecture of Africa (14 votes, stays until January 22, 2006)

Nominated December 18, 2005; needs at least 15 votes by January 22, 2006
Support
  1. --Revolución (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -Silence 13:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -Moonstone 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Ezeu 15:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dvyost 17:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. *drew 09:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Warofdreams talk 02:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Fenice 08:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Vanguard 16:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Rampart 06:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Urthogie 18:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yellowmellow45 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Iotha 20:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • What it needs infinitely more than images is text. Right now, the entire article only discusses three or four countries (Zimbabwe in particular), all of them very briefly. There's so little raw information in this article that there isn't any room for more than one or two images more, as the article currently stands. What it needs most is expansion, expansion, expansion. -Silence 16:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frog (11 votes, stays until January 17)

Nominated December 20, 2005; needs at least 12 votes by January 17, 2006
Support
  1. liquidGhoul 13:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moonstone 18:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CloudNine 15:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fenice 08:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutralitytalk 01:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. JoJan 09:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Billlion 10:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James S. 23:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Nessuno834 01:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Joyous | Talk 20:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Iotha 20:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A frog article is a necessity in an encyclopaedia, and this is such a horrible article. I have cleaned it up considerably, but the article needs both considerable expansion and more cleaning. --liquidGhoul 13:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Compare this to Cold War. It's not that bad in comparison, and in terms of encyclopedic value, the latter is probably more important. --BigBlueFish 22:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most people know what a frog is and don't need to know anything in depth about them. It is probably most useful to biologists and people searching for trivia. The Cold War was one of the most influential issues in current affairs for a good half-century, with major impacts on the shape of current politics, making it useful to a wide range of social sciences such as history and sociology. BigBlueFish 16:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most people know what the Cold War is, and don't need to go further in deatail about it. Studying the frog is usually one of the first things anyone would do in biology. It has, for centuries, been the tool to interest people into biology, or science for that matter. It is one of the most influential animals on current science. It was an experiment on a frog that led to the invention of the battery. Without which, the Cold War would never have occured. You can't say that without the Cold War, frogs would never have occured. Importance is subjective. --liquidGhoul 11:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing counterargument, but I'm afraid that Bigbluefish's argument is much more convincing than the your rebuttal. The fact that the battery was invented as a result of an experiment on a frog in no way denotes that the battery wouldn't have been invented if not for frogs; it's extremely unlikely that the nonexistence (or different qualities) of frogs would have influenced the Cold War significantly more than that of any other family of lifeforms on earth would have.
It's similarly fallacious to suggest that just because something apparently helped cause an event to happen, that the cause is more important than the effect; although it's even more true in this case, where it requires a tenuous and rather silly stretch of the imagination indeed to link the two, it also applies to many other cases, such as Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria being the "cause" for World War I, and yet not being a fraction as important as the war itself. He's more a bit of amusing historical trivia than a huge factor in human history. It's also the case, as with frogs, that it's impossible to demonstrate (and extraordinarily unlikely) that the war wouldn't have happened if not for Ferdinand; he just happened to be in the right place at the right time to be used as an arbitrary justification for something that had a vast number of more significant causal connections leading up to it. More important to humankind than learning about frogs is learning about what social, military, economic, and technological trends really led up to (and maintained) the Cold War, just as it's more important to understand WW1's deeply-rooted causes than to study every aspect of Franz Ferdinand's life.
It's also true that the Cold War has had a more profound impact on humanity today (and this encyclopedia is written for humans, sorry to say) than frogs have, and that there are infinitely fewer similar occurrences to the Cold War in the history of the universe than there are similar species to frogs—we could just as easily work on an article about toads or crocodiles or rabbits, for that matter, but you won't find many world-spanning decades-long military struggles in human history; the Gallic Wars and Crusades don't quite cut it compared to the superpowers, I'm afraid.
I'll also have to agree that the frog article is in better shape than the Cold War article, at least in terms of its main article. In terms of total information available on Wikipedia, certainly the Cold War has had more attention focused on it, as seen by its many sub-articles. However, the Cold War article itself is in pretty poor shape, consisting almost entirely of giant, bloated, trivial lists, while spending only four brief paragraphs on the actual history of the war; fixing that will be a much larger task than the simple matter of expansion and reorganization that the frog article demands.
It's also certainly true that more people in the world know about frogs in a fair amount of detail already than know about the Cold War in a fair amount of detail, and even more true that it's much more important for human beings to know more than just the barest basics on the Cold War for the sake of the future survival of mankind ("those who don't remember their mistakes...") than for human beings to know all the fun facts and trivia about froggies. Which is not to say that the frog article isn't important; it's very important. But, from a human perspective at least, existing, as we do, at the dawn of the 21st century, comparing frogs to the Cold War is like comparing soft drink or crab (or the house mouse, if you prefer another animal with scientific significance) to World War II; they're all obviously important topics, and soda may be almost as ubiquitous as WW2 references, but let's be realistic, here. :) -Silence 21:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles are pretty important, and we should do both. But you are wrong in one point (apart from: the frog did not kick off the Cold War like Ferdinand's assassination started off WWI, this analogy is funny but faulty). The other thing is: it is not the frog that is so important but rather the lack of frogs. And the disappearance of toads. This is what makes this article as important for the future of mankind as the Cold War.--Fenice 22:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed with you at the end of my above comment that both are very important, and I also already pointed out that the frog/Ferdinand analogy is inexact (where I said "although it's even more true in this case, where it requires a tenuous and rather silly stretch of the imagination indeed to link the two, it also applies to many other cases,"), though the reason it's inexact is because Franz Ferdinand is much more relevant to WWI than frogs are to the Cold War, so the analogy's curved in favor of the opposition, not in my own favor, and thus is doubly effective when it nonetheless shows that even someone much more clearly causally connected like Franz Ferdinand is still much less important than the thing his death supposedly "caused".
And, I will persist in contesting that the disappearance of frogs is still not quite as important for mankind as remembering not to make the same mistakes of the Cold War; though it's certainly important, there are dozens of other vitally-important animal species that are much nearer to extinction and must have information spread on them, and forgetting about frogs probably doesn't have the potential to wipe out as much life on the planet as a thermonuclear war anytime soon.
I'm not the one who brought up the frog/cold war comparison, and I don't oppose people voting for frog just because it's less important than the cold war; most article topics are less important than the cold war, it's nothing to be ashamed of. But saying that the subject of frogs is more important than (or as important as) the subject of Cold War to humankind is simply ridiculous; there's a reason Wikipedia:List of featured articles English Wikipedia should have has "Cold War" listed as one of the most vital topics in the entire encyclopedia, while frog utterly fails to make the list, even though a number of other organism articles are listed (some of which should probably be trimmed off as well). -Silence 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I just wasn't taking this discussion seriously, that's why I made the silly argument. It is utterly stupid to not vote for something based upon subjective importance. Look at some of the past winners, you will find that frog has higher importance than many of them: Vincent van Gough, Discovery Channel, Mario, Beer and Mariah Carey!!! There has been no extant organism com up for AID, and since frog is one of the first things studied in biology, why not have it the first article make it through AID? The entire history of AID is basically history, popular culture and technology. This is attracting a certain demographic to Wikipedia, when we should be trying to attract everyone. Secondly, the use of the decreasing frog population is not just for the reason that they are endangered (like many other animals). It is also a meter for the health of an environment. Environmental destruction is a very real issue at the moment, and since frogs are a gauge commonly used, it makes them a very important subject. Thirdly, that list you gave was for things relevant to English speakers that may not be relevant to other languages. If you look at the real list of articles all languages should have you will find frog at the top of the animal list (granted it is alphabetical). --liquidGhoul 01:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget to improve Tadpole at the same time. In my family the young frog has been a gateway to the encyclopedia for generations. We need the youngsters to get a positive impression from both these articles to help them realize the potential of Wikipedia as a resource. —James S. 23:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Leap Forward (11 votes, stays until 18 January)

Nominated December 21, 2005; needs at least 12 votes by 18 January, 2006
Support
  1. Estrellador* 21:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. naryathegreat | (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Stevecov 16:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fenice 08:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carwil 07:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. McCart42 05:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. eclair4ev 3:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutralitytalk 04:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Bkwillwm 16:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Moonstone 20:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Contact lens (17 votes, stays until February 5, 2006)

Nominated December 27, 2005; needs at least 18 votes by February 5, 2006
Support
  1. Fenice 08:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Stevecov 15:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Melaen 18:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Waltwe 22:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. NeoJustin 03:10, December 29, 2005 (UTC)
  6. AED 07:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Natebw 10:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cuivienen 03:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Rafael Sepulveda 08:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kingpomba 09:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Onco_p53 08:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WS 14:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Mgm|(talk) 13:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ike9898 14:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Duff 12:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Gflores Talk 07:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Joyous | Talk 16:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Ego, superego, and id (9 votes, stays until January 23)

Nominated 27 December, 2005; needs at least 12 votes by January 23, 2006)
Support
  1. Melaen 19:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 19:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rampart 20:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutralitytalk 01:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TachyonP 09:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Iten 06:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Soo 02:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DanielCD --DanielCD 03:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Herostratus 22:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Veterinary medicine (6 votes, stays until January 17, 2006)

Nominated December 28, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by January 17, 2006
Support
  1. Tuf-Kat 05:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AED 07:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mac Davis ญƛ. 12:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutralitytalk 01:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TachyonP 16:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Waltwe 18:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Roma people (14 votes, stays until February 1, 2006)

Nominated December 29, 2005; needs at least 15 votes by February 1, 2006
Support
  1. Dijxtra 11:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 12:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Waltwe 22:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wackymacs 20:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cuivienen 04:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 01:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Stevecov 03:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Khoikhoi 06:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. TachyonP 09:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NeoJustin 02:34 January 4, 2006 (UTC)
  11. Tombseye 08:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Carwil 23:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Silence 08:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Article in really poor condition, needs copyediting, needs a lot of work on citing sources as topic is controversial. There are (probably) no Roma nationals on Wikipedia so this article would benefit from collaboration of people skilled in googleing info out. Let's help Roma people get good and NPOVed encyclopedia entry. --Dijxtra 11:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'll do what I can to work on it and add references and academic sources before I no longer have time to play around at wikipedia any more. Hopefully everyone won't want to kill me afterwards. Tombseye 08:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been tinkering with it; mainly cleaning up style and removing unverifiable factoids. I took out the copyedit tag as well; please put it back if you feel it is still merited. Guinnog

Time management (3 votes, stays until January 16, 2006)

Nominated January 2, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 16, 2006
Support
  1. Fenice 12:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Pamri • Talk 08:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. User:Jtneill - Talk 10:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is an important business topic. Wikipedia is still very week on management topics and social sciences in general. This is a hole in our coverage that could be filled.--Fenice 08:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of the Roman Empire (6 votes, stays until January 23)

Nominated January 2, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by January 23, 2006
Support
  1. Powera 18:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. TachyonP 23:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC): No description of the barbarians or their attacks; doesn't even mention Atilla the Hun. This article should definitely be expanded.[reply]
  3. ZeWrestler Talk 04:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fenice 07:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Reo On 15:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. NeoJustin 02:32 January 4, 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • Yes, it's like historicity of Jesus in that sense: it's analysis, not description. Roman Empire and History of Rome and similar articles already cover the fall. Of course, that could very well be one big thing to change in this AID process, if people think it's merited: adding actual info on the fall itself, rather than just modern analysis of it. -Silence 05:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an avid user of Wikipedia, I was trying to get information on the fall of Rome. Wikipedia rerouted me to this article. Therefore, either this article should be changed in order to encompass the barbarians and the historical content on the fall of Rome, or he or she should be sent to the proper articles. I primarily agree with the former on the premise that I, as a layman on the topic of the Roman demise, was sent to a historiographic article by typing "fall of Rome". This does not make sense.TachyonP 05:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im not sure that is possible without taking a POV. To write a history narrative called "Fall of the Roman Empire" is going to be inherently POV because by championing some causes and theories (such as the barbarians), you will exclude others (unless you plan to incorporate all of the 200+ theories into the article). That's why the article simply lists all the theories without getting into the history. The idea that Rome "fell" is and always has been a matter of debate and controversy. So im not sure how you plan to write a history article about it, thats much different than what we current have, that wouldnt be original research or POV. It sounds like you want to know about how the barbarians caused rome to fall - well, that is just one POV. Some people think it had nothing to do with barbarians. The theories are endless, as our current article discusses. --Stbalbach 07:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you say is logical. However, the fall of Rome is still an important historical topic. The current article is not large nor informative enought. This article should therefore include the barbarinas et al and represent it as one POV, then afterwards describe internal inflation, corruption, etc. as another POV, and work from there. But the main point is that I, or anyone else for that matter, did not get much information about the fall of Rome.TachyonP 07:54 3 January, 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm well summarizing for the reader the major theories and authors is pretty valuable and informative. I think we are saying the same thing on that level, but you want to write an original history narrative; but to remain NPOV youll have to equally incorporate all the many theories and authors into that narrative, a nearly impossible task. The end result will be of questionable value, pushing some POV's over others, missing some important elements while stressing others out of proportion. --Stbalbach 16:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impossible is a strong word. I believe that the article you suggest is perfectly plausible. The current article only encompasses six major POVs. A couple of short paragraphs on each would be infinitely better that the current article.

Button (3 votes, stays until January 17, 2006)

Nominated January 3, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 17, 2006
Support
  1. Hahnchen 01:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mgm|(talk) 13:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steven 23:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

American rock (3 votes, stays until January 17, 2006)

Nominated January 3, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 17, 2006
Support
  1. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Havardj 6:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. RJH 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Cold War (10 votes, stays until January 31)

Nominated January 3, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by January 31, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 21:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dijxtra 16:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BigBlueFish 17:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fenice 17:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutralitytalk 03:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Iten 06:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ragesoss 12:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Durantalk 13:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thoth92 10:15, 8 January 2006 (EST)
  10. WS 13:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Insufficiently tight for such a key unifying concept in recent history.... The overall periodisation needs revision I believe (the last sub-period is very large compared to the first two...) and linking to other key articles needs improving. Imagery is sadly lacking. Paul James Cowie 21:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was shocked to find this article on Wikipedia, considering its importance in recent history. Needs a serious cleanup. --BigBlueFish 17:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When making this comment I wasn't aware that it had been replaced by a series of personal essays by an anonymous user, which have since been replaced (nor did Iten, below, presumably, since the comment was made about an hour before it was reverted). I still support the inclusion of it in the AID though, it could still be considerably tightened, and is a topic which would be well worth featuring. BigBlueFish 16:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the nominator realizes this, but the overall periodization isn't even supposed to be covered in detail in the general Cold War entry. The history of the Cold War is covered in the article series -- in Cold War (1947-1953), Cold War (1953-1962), Cold War (1962-1991). The expectations for article stated above seem unfairly high, given how the article series is structured. 172 08:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The aim of AID is to turn it into a WP:FA featured quality article. The demands for that really are high, you are right 172. Of course the subarticles need to be taken into consideration. I think this article is already pretty close to being featured quality. We will try to polish it up to present it at WP:FAC.--Fenice 08:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original nominator does realise that the overall periodisation isn't meant to be covered in the general Cold War entry. My point (perhaps unclearly made) is that the periodisation is faulty.... The last sub-period covers fully 30 years, whereas the others are far more finely-grained. And, of course, I am hoping that attention given to the general article will also have a "knock-on" effect for the sub-articles! Paul James Cowie 10:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article rerally needs to be increased. The Cold War has tken up most of the lifetime of the majority of the population. It is a huge event in world history, and its aticle must reflect that.

Pop art (10 votes, stays until February 8)

Nominated January 4, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 8, 2006


Support
  1. Levi allemany 16:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 17:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wackymacs 07:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul James Cowie 14:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Slow Motion, Quick Thinking 21:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gflores Talk 07:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sparkit 19:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. User:Havardj 21:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WesleyPinkham 08:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hahnchen 10:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • No, we shouldn't. Would you argue that David Nielsen or Psychedelia or Nicky Bryne or American West Indies are not stubs just because they haven't yet been labeled as such? Which articles are marked as "stubs" is arbitrary, inconsistent, and depends entirely on the whims of random users; many users who create and work on "stubs" don't even bother to ever use stub tags, as they're really not that helpful, are very complicated to organize in many cases, and create the false assumption (which you have succumbed to) that anything not clearly labeled as a stub isn't a stub, or, even worse, that anything not clearly labeled a stub doesn't need a heck of a lot of expansion to meet Wikipedia standards. Nothing in the AID requirements says that articles marked with a "stub" tag aren't allowed to be submitted, it says that articles that actually are stubs aren't allowed to be submitted. Please read Wikipedia:Stub: an article that consists entirely of two very short paragraphs followed by three lists is most certainly a stub.
  • Since you (wrongly) feel this is so important, I will add a stub tag to it (even though numerous articles currently submitted at "CotW" are not labeled such), and then you can move this to CotW, where it can receive the attention it needs. Common sense ("the article's incredibly short and lacking in any but the barest information, so it's a stub") takes precedence over bureaucracy ("but it isn't clearly labeled 'stub' on the page!"), I'm afraid. -Silence 23:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also that thousands of articles that are indeed labeled as stubs are much more complete, in-depth and lengthy than this article. Even just sticking to art-related stubs, I can find many equally complete, and even vastly more complete, stubs-labeled-as-stubs in mere minutes: body art, anamorphism, A Girl Asleep (Vermeer), contrapposto, fiber art, death mask, French art of the 19th century, paint marker, national personification, oil pastel, postmodern art, pyrography, posterization, Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, etc. -Silence 23:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, this is a stub. Usually stubs drop out after being listed one week. This one seems to be very popular though, and will probably develop beyond a stub while it is listed here. --Fenice 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of art article that are marked as stubs are no longer stubs, and many art articles that are stubs are not marked as stubs. IMO some of the articles listed above could have their stub tag removed. Sparkit 19:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Texcoco (1 vote, stays until January 11, 2006)

Nominated January 4, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by January 11, 2006
Support
  1. Fxer 22:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Human sacrifice in Aztec culture (5 votes, stays until January 19, 2006)

Nominated January 5, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 19, 2006
Support
  1. Fxer 02:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. TestPilot 06:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ZeWrestler Talk 03:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jmabel | Talk 02:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. User:Havardj 21:18, 10 January (UTC)
Comments
  • A large part of Aztec culture, one of the most striking aspects of the civilization to this day. Article has few wikilinks, is completely unreferenced, and a cursory glance shows lots of incorrect info!

Qin Shi Huang (3 votes, stays until January 19)

Nominated January 5, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 19, 2006
Support
  1. elvenscout742 23:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 07:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moonstone 21:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Article is simply not of the quality that would be expected of an impartial encyclopedia article on the man who was essentially founder of the oldest and greatest civiliztion on earth. Not especially extensive or well-written, and puts an unusual emphasis on "Qin Shi Huang in fiction". elvenscout742 23:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness (3 votes, stays until January 19)

Nominated January 5, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 19, 2006
Support
  1. Jtneill - Talk 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --MONGO 04:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Eoghanacht talk 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • Wilderness is a vital and globally-relevant concept for the 21st century, yet this is an impoverished article in need of attention. - Jtneill - Talk 02:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree, just in the U.S., there are almost 700 wildernesses within just U.S. Government lands. Surely on a worldwide scale, there must be 10 times that many, even if not designated as such, they probably meet the criteria.--MONGO 04:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • QUESTION: I guess I am in favor of the wilderness article, but when you really think about it. Wilderness is a such an expansive topic, I think it needs to be decided wants needs to be covered. CuBiXcRaYfIsH 05:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the entire article needs a rewrite, explaining the loss of habitat, the conservation movement, how it has progressed and that areas that were still pristine were converted from a former status to a highly protected wilderness zone, where no improvements will be made ever. I'm not familiar with the designations outside the U.S., and since this deals with all areas that can be wilderness, it would be nice to get everyone involved.--MONGO 06:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs work, something just does not seem to be encyclopediatic about it. Also needs clarification in terms of the common idea of wilderness, and the legal concept (particularly in terms of related articles nature reserve, wilderness area, and other IUCN categories). — Eoghanacht talk 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Simpson (8 votes, stays until January 28)

Nominated January 7, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by January 28, 2006
Support
  1. Soo 01:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 03:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fallout boy 08:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. NeoJustin 19:07, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  5. *drew 02:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nessuno834 14:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Steven 22:09, 9 January 2006
Comment
  1. Lots of facts but no overarching structure. Could easily reach Featured status with work, but there's lots to be done. Soo 01:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan Workers Party (4 votes, stays until January 21)

Nominated January 7, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 21, 2006
Support
  1. FrancisTyers 03:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Durantalk 15:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Iotha 20:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  1. Cons: A lot of uncited information, speculation, POV, not particularly useful structure. Pros: Could easily be improved with a little work.


Marketplace (3 votes, stays until January 25)

Nominated January 11, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 25, 2006
Support
  1. Durantalk 00:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dijxtra 08:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cuivienen 21:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  1. Cons: Markets have been around for a very long time. I was surprised that this article was mostly bare. Could use some work and expanding.

Classicism (3 votes, stays until January 25)

Nominated January 11, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by January 25, 2006
Support
  1. In dire need. Renata 05:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. User:Havardj 8:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Fenice 18:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Roswell UFO Incident (1 vote, stays until January 19)

Nominated January 12, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by January 19, 2006
Support
  1. Harris0 23:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

It needs it. I was interested in getting an unbiased account of the topic and it just wasn't available. Harris0 23:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Templates

  • {{Aid-summary}}, for a summary of the project article on the Community Portal
  • {{AIDnom}}, please place this notice on the page of nominated article
  • {{IDRIVEcur}}, a notice for current collaborations
  • {{subst:AIDvoter}}, a notice for people who voted for this week's winning article.
  • {{IDRIVEtopic}}, a banner to announce the current topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Collaboration_and_Improvement_Drive&oldid=34952681"