Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:39, 21 February 2006

[[:|WP:AID
WP:IDRIVE
WP:TWID]]

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.

/Maintenance - AID upkeep.

Article Creation and Improvement Drive

Though this project is inactive, you can help with :
Irena Karpa (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 15 Dec 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF).

Introduction

To vote or nominate you have to be a registered user. Any and all articles may be nominated except:

Articles that are currently at featured status
Articles in edit wars
Stub articles; use the Collaboration of the week for those

If you wish to help with maintenance of Article Improvement Drive (updating vote counts and such), please see this page: /Maintenance.

{{User AID}} unfolds to

This user participated in the Article Creation and Improvement Drive.

How to nominate

Here is template for nominations:

===[[ARTICLE]] (1 vote, stays until [[DATE ONE WEEK LATER]])===
:''Nominated [[DATE]], [[YEAR]]; needs at least 3 votes by [[DATE ONE WEEK LATER]], [[YEAR]]''

; Support:
# (sign with four tildes)

; Comments:
* (put your reason for nomination, sign again)

----

Copy it and paste it to the bottom of the list of nominations on this page and fill it out. It is important to use UTC time; the current time and date now is 20:32, Sunday, December 15, 2024 (UTC). Under "comments" section put explanation of what work is needed. After submitting the new nomination, go to the nominated article and put {{AIDnom}} and {{to do}} on top of it.

How to vote

Sign with "# ~~~~" on the end of the list of the article you want to vote for and then update the vote count in the subhead. Opposing votes are not counted; see approval voting. You can vote for as many articles as you like. If the vote count equaled the "needs at least xx votes by", then add 3 to "needs at least xx votes" and add a week to date in vote count and "needs at least xx votes by" notice.

Example. You encounter this situation and decide to vote:

===[[History of the world]] (23 votes, stays until [[February 7]], [[2006]])===
:''Nominated [[December 8]], [[2005]]; needs at least 24 votes by [[February 7]], [[2006]]''

First you put "# ~~~~" on the end of the list of people who voted for that article and then change the votecount and date in following manner:

===[[History of the world]] (24 votes, stays until [[February 14]], [[2006]])===
:''Nominated [[December 8]], [[2005]]; needs at least 27 votes by [[February 14]], [[2006]]''

How the article is elected

Article with most votes on each Sunday in 18:00 GMT is elected as "The current Article Improvement Drive article". If two articles have same number of votes, the older nominee wins.

The next project article is to be selected on Sunday February 26, 2006. 18.00 GMT (Template:DAYSTOSUNDAY)

How an article is removed from the list

Articles need three votes per week to stay on the list. If current date (December 15 2024) exceeds "stays until" date of particular article, that article entry is removed from this page and moved to page for removed nominations.

Nominations

Contact lens (35 votes, stays until March 19, 2006)

Nominated December 27, 2005; needs at least 36 votes by March 19, 2006

Support

Comments

needs to be cleaned up and expanded --Fenice 08:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Contact lens wearers of the world unite -Stevecov 15:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As an eyedoctor, I'd like to expand the products and parameters to makes these more meanginful. Other please vote! Natebw 16:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked in a store that sells these. Willing to do some work. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Seigenthaler Sr. (37 votes, stays until March 9)

Nominated December 8, 2005; needs at least 39 votes by March 9, 2006

Support

Removed votes:

Bob124 00:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC) (removed by --Steven 00:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)) I removed this vote due to the fact this member did not make any contributions other then voting for this one nomination. This makes the member similar in status as a non-registered member[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]

Oppose per comments above. Media attention has made this article pretty good already. The only effect AIDing it will have is to direct more disproportionate public attention to it; it's just too lame an effort to do something like this so late on. Let's focus on making Wikipedia more useful, i.e. AID an important topic. BigBlueFish 14:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's important for Wikipedia to address this issue. Sure, you can say that Siegenthaler doesn't himself deserve a featured article, but it's definitely a better choice than Homer Simpson. --DMurphy 15:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're not debating whether to AID Homer Simpson. This is Seigenthaler versus the Cold War, contact lenses, frogs and more. I'd never heard of this guy before, and when I do he already has a much more detailed article than is proportional, even than some of the candidates on this page. Putting this article on the Article Improvement Drive is nonsense. BigBlueFish 18:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - My mistake, I didn't realise Homer had been nominated. That doesn't justify this nomination though. BigBlueFish 18:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think John has taken up enough of our time...Stevage 15:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I "oppose" this nomination as well. You might even say it's in violation of WP:POINT. The guy really isn't that notable, and giving him a featured article to show him up seems like a pretty sad idea. His article has already taken too much attention away from worthy topics. Sarge Baldy 11:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Let's make room for proper topics people actually come to an encyclopedia for. With so many important articles needing work, I think it's ridiculous to be AIDing this. It will be an entire week lost as far as I am concerned. We need to make room for oppose votes in this project. --DanielCD 23:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it you didn't read the section about "opposing votes are not counted"? At best you may discourage a few voters who might otherwise have jumped in... :-) — RJH 19:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yea, I'm quite aware of that, and that's the idea. Hence the "We need to make room for oppose votes in this project" comment. --DanielCD 20:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those who vote for an article are expected to contribute to it. Those who don't vote are free to ignore it. Hence, since only those who favor the article count in terms of the end result, I see little or no value in measuring the total opposition. :) — RJH 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps so. But it certainly makes me feel better. ;-P --DanielCD 00:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose: This article has alteady had sufficient attention.... I foresee hardly anybody making any substantive contributons to it this week if it goes AID.... Let's get to grips with some real articles of wide merit and stop wasting time!!
Wow Seeing stuff like this up for AID when so many other things are needing attention is just not cool. Why? --Shadow Puppet 07:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roma people (32 votes, stays until March 15)

Nominated December 29, 2005; needs at least 33 votes by March 15, 2006

Support

Removed invalid votes:

68.173.44.78 23:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC) (removed by --Fenice 09:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC) and Dijxtra)[reply]
On what possible basis are anon votes considered invalid? Marskell 09:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because only registered users can vote, it says so on top. This is supposed to reduce sockpuppetry which we have had a problem with in the past. I informed the user to consider voting again once he or she has registered. If the user does not regiser and vote again, I will still inform the user with a voter template and invite the user to contribute, in case the article wins. That is why these votes should not be completely removed.--Fenice 09:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the sentence sorry, but I must say it is poor, un-wiki policy. Anons can vote on AfD and RfA which are of greater import than AID. Of course, these will be scrutinized and often discounted but to bar anons from doing anything ought to require a very high bar. Marskell 10:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--> see talk--Fenice 10:11, 16 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

Great Leap Forward (28 votes, stays until March 8)

Nominated December 21, 2005; needs at least 30 votes by March 8, 2006

Support

Estrellador* 21:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
naryathegreat | (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stevecov 16:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fenice 08:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Carwil 07:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
McCart42 05:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
eclair4ev 3:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality^talk 04:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bkwillwm 16:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moonstone 20:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiacc • § 17:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paul James Cowie 09:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bhadani 12:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fresh 15:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
172 23:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FrancisTyers 22:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty2005 02:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unterdenlinden 2:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Mike H. That's hot 08:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
gren グレン ^? 10:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poppypetty 19:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 17:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Un sogno modesto 10:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gugganij 17:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
G 17:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lukobe 19:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Batmanand 23:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:J88st 11:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Far too short for such a momentous event in world history (supposedly the worst famine ever). -Estrellador* 21:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hope more professional people work on it, at least can read Chinese. I'm doing some research on it and find it's very complex. So many rubbish information disturb my work and reliable resources are quite different. According my research, it seems to be a conmbine of several comparativly small famines in different places rather than a big famine.

population change 1958 659,940,000 1959 672,070,000 1960 662,070,000 1961 658,590,000 1962 672,950,000 1963 691,720,000 http://www.cpirc.org.cn/tjsj/tjsj_cy_detail.asp?id=199

Ego, superego, and id (27 votes, stays until March 06)

Nominated 27 December, 2005; needs at least 30 votes by March 06, 2006)

Support

contribs) 21:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid Votes

72.129.16.20 17:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

important psychoanalytic topic
- In some ways the most important. Soo 02:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And in other ways, the least important. A terrible topic to read about if you want to learn much about the human mind or the science of psychology. On the other hand, a fantastic topic to read about to learn a wealth of knowledge on modern culture, symbolism, social and layperson understandings of psychology, and the history of the field of psychotherapy. So, I'm split on whether to vote and argue passionately for improving this topic, or abstain and argue passionately against spending any time on it at all. My sensibilities aside, pseudoscience does deserve its day too! So, I'll remain neutral. -Silence 09:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a lot of work. --Iten 06:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it only needed 9 votes?? Why now 12?? --DanielCD 03:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The number required increases over time. Should hopefully be explained at the top of the page. --bodnotbod 11:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh...duh...thanks. I should have looked (blush). --DanielCD 14:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Every article needs at least three votes per week to stay on.--Fenice 15:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is important because it is Sigmund Freuds 150th anniversary this year. His birthday is in May but we should start preparing articles concerning Psychoanalysis now, I think.--Fenice 09:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Obsolete as it may be, there is a lot of psychological literature that referrs to these concepts and uses them for comparison with modern theory. And anyone studying psychology or trying to understand it will have to plow through writings of the last fifty years, almost all of which have some reference to it. --DanielCD 14:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obsolete? Ever wonder why writings of the last fifty years, thats 5-0, still reference Freud? The only reasons people scoff his work is because they don't understand it or don't want to understand it. At least that has been my personal experience as a psych student. --JoeSmack
    - I'm not sure if you are reffering to id-ego per se or Freud in general. Your comment is a little vague. You say "reference Freud"; I wasn't talking about Freud in general. And we'll just say "obsolete, for lack of a better term". The psych has been shown to be a lot more complex than this, but the basic model has use. --DanielCD 16:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether Freud and his theories are obsolete, Freud is still the basis of much in psychology. Without him, I don't think psychology and psychoanalysis would have gone this far. Osbus 23:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That was exactly my point. --DanielCD 16:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with this. Psychology is founded on this concept, how can we ignore it? Thunderforge 22:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Obsolete'? Ha! Al001 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not modern psychology is based on these concepts and the debt, or lack of it, that we owe to Freud, these concepts are part of the general society now and used (and misused) often. Thus this article should get attention.
Needs a great amount of improvement. The content is not explained very well. vedant (talk • contribs) 21:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of the Roman Empire (31 votes, stays until March 19)

Nominated January 2, 2006; needs at least 33 votes by March 19, 2006

Support

Comments

Oy. Yet another Rome-related article in infinitely better shape than Rome itself gets nominated... -Silence 19:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you nominate Rome then? --Fenice 19:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rome actually has two foreign language featured articles: in German and Italian. Maybe a candidate for translation of the week/month?-Estrellador* 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rome is now nominated at Wikipedia:European Union collaboration.--Fenice 12:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Deffinetly can use help. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 04:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh.. this is not a history article. It is a historiography article. Big difference. The actual history is covered in other articles. This article covers the history of the history of the fall of rome. In that sense it is not in bad shape, Id like to hear how people think it can be improved. --Stbalbach 04:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Ok, added a link to Roman Empire, which contains the history of the Roman Empire. --Stbalbach 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you are missing the point. The decline of the Roman Empire should be an article unto itself, not a histiography. If possible, there should be a histiography in the 'Fall of the Roman Empire' article.TachyonP 07:05, 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 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.

Pop art (21 votes, stays until March 1)

Nominated January 4, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by March 1, 2006

Support

Comments

Very influential period in modernist art. Requires further expansion and explanation. There's plenty to write about. Levi allemany 16:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stub. Move to Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week. -Silence 07:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. It has not been marked as a stub by any other user. Considering the classification of stub is subjective, we should take this as our guide. 86.132.181.41 20:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Homer Simpson (22 votes, stays until March 3)

Nominated January 7, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by March 3, 2006

Support

Soo 01:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fallout boy 08:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NeoJustin 19:07, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
*drew 02:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nessuno834 14:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steven 22:09, 9 January 2006
-Localzuk (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Levine 05:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 11:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wtfimbored 12:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Juppiter 18:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Larsinio 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forever young 01:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bobo . 06:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanguard 13:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chriskelvie 22:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tvaughn05 _e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 02:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Toonmon2005 01:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Odd bloke 03:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

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]
- There's already a lot of recent editing activity on this article without it winning the vote [1] and, given the popularity of The Simpsons I think that's likely to remain the case. I'd be reluctant to support all-out community activity on such a flippant topic when there are so many important areas left wanting. --bodnotbod 11:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. This is about the most trivial topic on the AID page at the moment, and it is obvious that others need the work and attention much more. -Estrellador* 22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I don't know about "trivial" — Homer Simpson is, worldwide, one of the most popular fictional characters created in the last 20 years, whereas the leading vote-getter right now, Asteroid deflection strategies, is about a relatively obscure, and still theoretical, aspect of applied science. I wouldn't underestimate the ability of a front-page featured article on a very broadly popular topic like one of the world's most popular cartoon characters to draw new users into Wikipedia and to collaborative article-improvement in particular. And Homer Simpson is certainly an article that is a long, long way from Featured quality, but definitely improvable given the vast amount of verifiable information out there about him. Andrew Levine 02:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your primary mistake was not nominating The Simpsons itself. Focusing the community's efforts on Homer Simpson when we haven't even got a Featured The Simpsons article would be like trying to get Sancho Panza up to Featured quality before Don Quixote. Your secondary mistake was assuming that popularity and importance are synonymous. Just because a topic is widely-known doesn't mean that it should be a general-use encyclopedia's top priority. We currently have more information on Homer Simpson than we have on entire civilizations that have existed for thousands of years. Don't get me wrong, it's a great cartoon show, and an amusing fictional character, but try to keep a little perspective. -Silence 00:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I see absolutely no reason to focus the efforts of the entire Wikipedia on Homer Simpson. If exposure for this article is what you want, it should be done some other way than through AID... Homer Simpson facts are easy to find. AID should be a place for articles that require more depth on the subject. AIDing Homer Simpson would be the equivalent of asking a group of award-winning Calculus-level mathematicians to write a report on Basic Algebra. -DMurphy 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And wouldn't that result in a very good report? Or should people only attempt to explain things at the absolute cutting edge of what they can understand? Soo 14:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; Homer Simpson is by no means a worthless article subject, but we mustn't let pop culture distort efforts away from significantly more pressing topics. If nothing else it's far too specific. BigBlueFish 19:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you know these drives are based on popularity of the topic, rather than their "actual" worth. You can always choose not to bother working on the topics. I think I've only ever seen about a half-dozen pages get nominated on which I actually wanted to contribute. :) — RJH 15:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think AID is more to do with attracting interest towards articles that don't have as much attention as they should. Wikipedians posess a sufficient amount of discretion to give preference to an article in need above their favourite article; at least to some extent. Were I to nominate, say, United States of America which is obviously a very popular article, I think people would have enough sense never to vote it in, because the AID would not be as valuable as for other more neglected articles. That's why it's our responsibility not to give priority to articles like this until all the more consequential ones are better than it. BigBlueFish 16:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're over-generalizing a bit about the motivations for voting on these articles. I suspect there are many reasons, including the one you mention. Personally I usually only vote on the articles I know something about and/or would enjoy enhancing. It has very little to do with how I perceive the end-reader's interest. Is that a little selfish? Probably. *shrug* :-) — RJH 21:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nobody can stop you from voting a little selfishly; I don't really mind either. It only bothers me if the outcome is a waste of the drive's time. Remember that its purpose is to improve articles that need attention. It doesn't really matter how interesting or popular the article is - it can be either very much so or not at all - but that considering its relevance it needs improving. And in terms of what sort of articles Wikipedia needs to be good, Homer Simpson is not one of them. Consider how many people will use Wikipedia to research some detail about the Cold War or contact lenses before someone needs to find out something about Homer Simpson. BigBlueFish 16:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I can virtually guarantee you that most people talk about Homer Simpson a lot more than the cold war. :) — RJH 23:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin America (23 votes, stays until March 9)

Nominated January 13, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by March 9, 2006

Support

Duran^talk 22:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Havardj 25:32, 14 Janurary 2006 (UTC)
Fenice 21:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*drew 02:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiacc • § 17:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
≈ Ekevu ^talk_contrib 18:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Daanschr 19:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 03:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gflores ^Talk 09:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Revolución (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Neutrality^talk 01:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Estrellador* 17:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugur Basak 23:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poppypetty 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 22:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jhohenzollern 03:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vir 17:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpandX 17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TwilaStar 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpacemanAfrica 21:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carabinieri 05:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Needs priority cleanup and expansion. Duran 22:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Important topic that should have a good article.--Fenice 21:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Linguistic/sociopolitical definitions and distinctions regarding usage need to be properly and clearly sourced. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could be improved in so many ways. Gflores ^Talk 09:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran (21 votes, stays until March 11)

Nominated 14 January, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by March 11, 2006

Support

Wikiacc•§ 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fenice 19:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anthonyiamurri 05:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duran^talk 07:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
darkliight^talk 08:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Databot 07:33, 16 January 2006 (GMT)
Lukobe 01:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Revolución (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gflores ^Talk 20:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CG 19:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doug 14:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff3000 21:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Metta Bubble 03:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugur Basak 23:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Un sogno modesto 10:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vir 18:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lbbzman 21:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpacemanAfrica 21:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*drew 12:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Masoud 19:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The article will probably be cited frequently in the context of the country's nuclear programme. --Wikiacc • § 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very significant to current affairs.

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest (22 votes, stays until March 13)

Nominated 16 January, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by March 13, 2006

Support

Comments

Article about historic day; biggest and most co-ordinated global day of protests. Important part of articles about the Iraq war. Is not that far from featured status but needs work on presentation and layout of the article, removal of some of the stat's type information into tables and general work on spelling, punctuation, grama etc. Also review to ensure NPOV.--JK the unwise 12:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got my vote. Article could use some corrections as well as expansion in certain areas. Maybe make a few satilite articles. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments on its talk page. I think it is a lot farther from featured status than JK does, but agree that it is a worthy topic.

Ottoman Empire (21 votes, stays until March 14)

Nominated January 18, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by March 14, 2006

Support

Comments

It is a featured article in Japanese wikipedia. It has all chances to become featured here as well. User:Tommiks makes a formidable effort in a big number of articles about History of the Ottoman Empire, including this one. But he is overwhelmed with work and definitely needs a hand. Mukadderat 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what writing an encyclopedia is about. Quality, young grasshopper, is more important than quantity. Even if there isn't a boatload to "add", there's vast amounts to improve. Some of Wikipedia's worst articles are over a dozen pages long. -Silence 00:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just skimming the article, I see it needs a) restructuring and b) refocus. A broad subject like this functions best as an introduction, with most of the "meat" of the subject on more specialised pages. At the moment it is a bit of a mess. --Martin Wisse 10:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon (13 votes, stays until February 24)

Nominated January 20; needs at least 15 votes by February 24 2006

Support

Paul James Cowie 20:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Revolución (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiacc 20:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugur Basak 23:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Polaris75 13:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poppypetty 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Melaen 12:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vir 17:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Un sogno modesto 08:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpacemanAfrica 04:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duran 22:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Juppiter 05:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Insufficient coverage for one of the longest-lived and influential capitals of the ancient world. Paul James Cowie 20:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Paul. --Revolución (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Bureau of Investigation, (12 votes, stays until February 24)

Nominated January 20, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by February 24, 2006

Support

Comments

Still a very short (and in many parts not very good) article for one of the most relevant and famous institutions in the US.-Carabinieri 22:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shockingly incomplete. Barely beyond stub-level. -Silence 23:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human Genome Project (19 votes, stays until March 11, 2006)

Nominated January 21, 2006; needs at least 21 votes by March 11, 2006

Support

Comments

This article is decent, but it could be much more informative, and needs to be updated. The discussion page identifies a range of shortcomings; in particular, there is little about the cultural impact of the HGP and the criticism of it. It is also somewhat slanted toward the Celera side and doesn't focus much on the competition between the government research and the private research. In short, this is the kind of article that could benefit most from the variety of perspectives and added details AID can provide.--ragesoss 02:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is really important and yet it has no images. 100 % support Empty2005 02:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please also vote for Human genome on Science Collaboration of the Week! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a scientific advancement/acheivement this great, we can definitely give it some more work. It is also a topic most standard encyclopedias don't cover in depth, if they cover it at all, but something everyone should know. Osbus 23:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aztec (12 votes, stays until February 26)

Nominated January 22, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by February 26, 2006

Support

Comments

I think there is more that could be added.--User:Llamadog903 23:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a culture and a people that could be expanded upon. Paul James Cowie 10:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really could use a clean up and more info! Empty2005 05:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what info do you think it needs? there is so much to say, yet the article is currently being splited in sections because is too big. Suggestions are welcome :) Nanahuatzin 07:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terracotta Army (14 votes, stays until February 27)

Nominated January 22, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by February 27, 2006

Support

Heesung 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steven 22:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thunderforge 22:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugur Basak 00:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sstidman 15:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—Wikiacc • ∂ 23:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Polaris75 13:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality^talk 07:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpacemanAfrica 04:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirla | talk 17:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unterdenlinden 01:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Melaen 02:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The Terracotta Army is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and is one of the most important cultural finds ever. The article right now is messy and must be improved.--Heesung 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is an important find and one of the few connections we have to the time period and this topic needs to be covered. Thunderforge 22:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The particular sentence that made me realize this article needed help: "All of the soldiers were badly broken when the site was first discovered". That makes it sound like the archeologists damaged the soldiers during excavation. -- Sstidman 15:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weather (15 votes, stays until March 14)

Nominated January 24, 2006; needs at least 18 votes by March 14, 2006

Support

Comments

Fairly short for such a common topic. Should be expanded.--Donar Reiskoffer
A weak article that could and should be improved in almost every respect. Soo 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote 90% of this article, so while I don't agree that it's weak, I do think it needs to at least be expanded. However, before this is done I think there needs to be a thorough examination of the whole topic. The differences between Weather, Meteorology and Weather forecasting need to be defined; some sort of topic structure has to be invented. I created the portal as a thin attempt to do this, but I don't have the time or energy to do it all myself. Perhaps a weather project is in order rather than a single article improvement drive. nick 10:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree; indeed, more likely what has to happen is the whole concept has to be fleshed out with interconnected entries. But the main article needs some more meat, and it's a good candidate for collaboration. Doug 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.

GNU Free Documentation License (12 votes, stays until March 1)

Nominated January 25, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by March 1, 2006

Support

Comments

This is what makes the Wikipedia free. This is why this article should be a featured class article.
Todo: What it was written to do, the need to work in many continents, the threats it was trying to combat. What has happened to projects that used it? Has it been found, or reasonably accused of being, unenforceable. How has it's practicality been found in practice. Criticisms (but these are pretty well documented alread).

Tallahassee, Florida (12 votes, stays until March 3)

Nominated January 27, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by March 3, 2006

Support

Comments

Tallahassee is a capital city, and this article is way too short for a city of its importance. Tallahassee is growing, even though it is still has a small town community feeling. I think the article should grow with it, so when Tallahassee starts to rival Orlando, we will have the info to back it up. Krashlandon (e) 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, this town seems to have plenty of information already; it could use expansion, but so could just about every article on Wikipedia. Considering that articles like Rome and Babylon aren't much larger than Tallahassee, Florida (and, in fact, they're arguably in worse shape than the Tallahassee article is, especially Rome), I don't think this justifies an AID effort at this time. There are just way, way too many more important candidates in much worse condition. -Silence 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, the quality of this article should be comparable to the quality found in the Austin and Sacramento articles (the capitals of the two most populous US States)...or perhaps even more in-depth! So, that's my vote. Valentino 05:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. But you're losing the big picture as well: the qualify of the Austin and Sacramento articles is fifty times better than that of the Rome and Babylon articles. Bring a fairly important article that's at decent-quality up to high-quality is fine, but bringing a vitally important article that's at poor-quality up to high-quality is infinitely more important. You might as well say "We should AID the 'pinky' article because the 'thumb' article is so much better right now and they should be about equal.", to which I'd reply, "What about the 'hand' article, or the 'heart' one?!" -Silence 19:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunication (11 votes, stays until February 25)

Nominated January 28, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 25, 2006

Support

Comments

Essential article. Also one of the core topics for Wikipedia 1.0. Gflores ^Talk 02:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I'm blown away that such a core topic has such a light on treatment. A definite candidate for fleshing out. This one and a few of the daughter articles could also be brought into line with each other. Peace. Metta Bubble 13:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Tunisia (9 votes, stays until February 25)

Nominated January 28, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 25, 2006

Support

Darwinek 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
gren グレン ^? 10:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Havardj 12:33, 29 January (UTC)
—Wikiacc • ∂ 23:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vir 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpacemanAfrica 04:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*drew 12:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Juppiter 03:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Tunisia is small country but very rich in history. Carthage, Romans, Phoenicians, Numidians, Berbers and Arab tribes shaped Tunisia's history and this article is just a medium tiny article. It's sad. - Darwinek 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's more about Togo than Tunisia... needs more definitely. gren グレン ^? 10:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia (11 votes, stays until February 27)

Nominated January 30, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 27, 2006

Support

Comments

The U.S. state of West Virginia was recently the U.S. Collaboration of the Week and was greatly improved to the status of "Good Article". I believe that with some more hard work through the Article Improvement Drive, the West Virginia article will be given featured article status. --Caponer 18:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. I'd rather work on getting United States up to Featured Article status first; wouldn't you? Despite being an infinitely more important article and one of the most widely-linked-to-pages (115,788 pages link to United States, making it the 7th-most-widely-linked page and the most widely linked page on Wikipedia other than fair use and various Wikipedia-namespace pages) and widely-visited articles on all of Wikipedia, it's not even up to "Good Article" status yet and has countless deficiencies. In particular, since West Virginia has already recently received a lot of improvement and has risen in status, it's not really necessary to give it even more attention so soon. Rushed FAs are often too unstable. -Silence 19:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate it, and it shall receive my support. youngamerican (talk)

19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the U.S. page looks pretty good already. It just needs a bit of fine tuning, some in-line references instead of the external links, and a peer review. Has anybody actually tried taking it through for FA? — RJH 19:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic violence (10 votes, stays until March 2, 2006)

Nominated February 2, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 2, 2006

Support

Comments

Poorly organized, etc. Djbaniel 08:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An important subject that deserves quality treatment. Article is sloppy and poorly referenced and definitely needs attention. --DanielCD 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly organized, POV issues in difficult but important terrain over gender-based views of domestic violence. --Joe Decker 21:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German law (8 votes, stays until February 22 2006)

Nominated February 1, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 22, 2006

Support

Comments

This is an important topic with a subpar and incomplete article. We might be able to get a headstart from the de: article, if there is one. // paroxysm (n) 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one needs so much work. --SpacemanAfrica 04:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austria (10 votes, stays until March 3, 2006)

Nominated February 3, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 3, 2006

Support

Comments

For a country with such an interesting history and rich culture, it's a wonder why the article for the Republic of Austria isn't already at a featured article status. --Caponer 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark (19 votes, stays until March 26, 2006)

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 21 votes by March 26, 2006

Support

Comments

With all of the media coverage of violent outrage against the Kingdom of Denmark and the cartoons that caused the chaos, I think it would be appropriate to bring the main page of the country up to featured article status. Ignorant cartoons aside, it's a beautiful European democracy with a long and varying history. With a few edits and additions, it could be featured article within a week easily. --Caponer 02:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Agree stongly with above. youngamerican (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florence (9 votes, stays until March 5, 2006)

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 5, 2006

Support

Comments

A city full of history and culture, the article needs housecleaning. For instance, there's nothing about climate. The article could use better organization and general help. Florence is such an important part of Italian and Western history; I think it deserves much more attention.
Definitely general improvements to be made to this influential and popular city. It would also be good to a new article leading off this main article for the History of Florence, if not created already... Paul James Cowie 10:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Florence (11 votes, stays until March 12 2006)

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 12, 2006

Support

Comments

For one of the most influential city-states in Renaissance Italy, the coverage of Florence's long and interesting history is absolutely appalling. A great candidate for collaborative improvement. Paul James Cowie 11:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's what I'm talking about.Juppiter 21:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bucharest (10 votes, stays until March 5, 2006)

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 5, 2006

Support

Comments

Bucharest is about to become another major capital city within the European Union and like the above nominated cities, it only requires some minor improvements in order to become a featured article. --Caponer 21:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tectonic plate (13 votes, stays until March 5, 2006)

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by March 12, 2006

Support

Comments

Tectonic plates are a primary study in the field of geology. However, there is only a small article on them. The article could easily be a featured article.

Wall Street Crash (6 votes, stays until March 3)

Nominated February 10, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 3, 2006

Support

Mark J 22:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)(sign with four tildes)[reply]
Lbbzman 13:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vir 17:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Melaen 02:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lukobe 05:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel NZ 21:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Surely this is one of the most important events in the history of the 20th century. Yet the Wikipedia article on it is incredibly poor, nothing more than a stub really. I find this hard to believe, when the event affected people all over the world for decades. This is a disgrace. Mark J 22:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This could potentially be an extrememly interesting and comprhensive article. And, as already stated, is an extrememly important event with repect to its long-term effects etc. Daniel NZ 21:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neolithic religion (3 votes, stays until February 21)

Nominated February 7, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 21, 2006

Support

Comments

Self-nomination, I originally made it as a collection of the deities of the Neolithic, but I did a bad job at it, and the article really needs to be improved. Ghelae 15:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal computer (9 votes, stays until March 7)

Nominated 2006-02-07; needs at least 12 votes by March 7 2006

Support

Comments

This article is in very bad shape for one that most wikipedians know at least something about. I've done a little work on it, but it still reads too much like a PC enthusiast's guide and is poorly organized. Furthermore, the article was mentioned in Forbes last year as an example of factual errancy. The specific problem has since been fixed, but a lot of the other claims made by the article are suspect and could use some revising and fact-checking. -- uberpenguin 15:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with uberpenguin; the article fails to provide sufficient information and detail - The Apple II isn't mentioned properly, and deserves a good paragraph or two as the first "truly" personal computer. The History section is absolutely shocking, only a few paragraphs long, and not even mentioning Dell or the Apple Macintosh, for example.

I think a strong editorial decision would be needed to be true to the original concept of a personal computer, rather than it being a synonym for "IBM-compatible PC" (aka Intel compatible). - Samsara _contrib ^talk 13:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The history of the PC, like many other things, is a bit convoluted. The history section should probably talk about its earliest use a bit, a brief history of computer hobbiest kits, then focus on microcomputers that were actually marketed as PCs since the term has really come into common use with these latter devices. -- uberpenguin 03:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign aid (7 votes, stays until February 28)

Nominated 2006-02-07; needs at least 9 votes by February 28 2006

Support

Comments

Incredibly short for such an important issue in international relations, development and globalisation. Also, absolutely no treatment given to the political use of foreign aid, whether past or present, whereby a donor country seeks certain advantages within or behaviour from a recipient country..... Could be a very interesting article! Paul James Cowie 19:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is in need of serious maintenance. There is no serious definition. There are no arguments for or against which should not be the case because siences like economics are not exact siences. For example, how can you talk about Aggregate demand and long run aggregate supply without mentioning Keynsian and Neo-Classical models atleast exist. Similar situations exist within this article regarding the function of aid.
Essentially the arguments only describes a few types of aid. There is nothing about the eligability of HIPC countries. Sustainability is not fully considered. And so forth. It is an rather important article and argueably should get more attention than homer simpson... which doesnt seem to be the case.
The main reason it needs development is because there are a bunch of kinds of aid which are not even dealt with in wikipedia, such as military aid. The development aid page deals with the economic development aspects of aid (although that needs work too).

Naturopathic medicine (3 votes, stays until February 22, 2006)

Nominated February 8, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 22, 2006

Support

Comments

A very important topic in today's world. Naturopathic medicine has been on a steady incline in recent decades, as a result of modern medicine and its many questionable side effects. The article is in awful shape and in need of cleaning.

Proportional representation (6 votes, stays until March 1, 2006)

Nominated February 8, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 1, 2006

Support

Comments

Dry topic, but while articles on specific election systems (like Single Transferable Vote) have been brought up to featured status, this core idea underlying most discussions of voting systems remains an embarassment. I've removed a whack of original proposals for new voting systems already, but it could do with the loving caress of multiple editors determined to make it both comprehensive and accessible. The Tom 07:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gautama Buddha (6 votes, stays until March 1, 2006)

Nominated February 8, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 1, 2006

Support

Comments

The fact that Wikipedia lacks a sufficient article on such a significant person is disastrous. --Imperialles 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, this article is about a buddha. The article about THE Buddha is at Gautama Buddha
Ah yes, that was actually the article I intended to nominate. --Imperialles 12:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this article is already in pretty good shape, isn't it? I may vote for it later because it's such a significant and fascinating topic, but for now there are too many equally or more important topics that are in far worse condition. -Silence 22:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs alot more to it, especially since its the subject of a main figure in a Major World religion. The article on Jesus is at least twice as long, but the Buddha is also a very important subject in a one of the largest modern world religions. (PlasticMan 06:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The article on Jesus is longer, but significantly lower in quality and comprehensiveness, especially if one considers the entire Jesus series of articles vs. the Buddha series of articles. -Silence 23:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the whole Christianity and Buddhism messes are much less messy than the Hinduism mess. Why didn't my nomination of Shiva get any votes? And would Krishna (not Wikipedia's proudest article) not receive similar neglect? Anyway, I don't see why this article so desperately needs to be improved: sure, it's important, and yes, it is relatively short, but it's of a very high quality. elvenscout742 00:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on all counts. -Silence 05:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thessaloniki (6 votes, stays until March 5, 2006)

Nominated February 12, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 5, 2006

Support

Comments

The content of the article itself is in good article condition and it is quite close to featured article status. However, Thessaloniki's article is in need of a trim and clean-up overall and the possible addition of information in sections that are lacking. Thessaloniki is Greece's second largest city, it is a major port on the Aegean Sea, and the capital of the EU region of Macedonia. A lot of its Jewish past is also missing from the article. --Caponer 04:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also an early home of Christianity and the recipient of two letters of the apostle Paul. - Aerobird 16:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran and weapons of mass destruction (2 votes, stays until February 19, 2006)

Nominated February 12, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by February 19, 2006

Support

Comments

Somewhat disorganized and weak article on an important topic of current concern in international affairs; often appears on the Main Page. --Neutrality^talk 04:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd draw attention to the fact that Iran is nominated above and would personally focus on that article first. Lbbzman 15:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian American (5 votes, stays until February 28, 2006)

Nominated February 14, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 28, 2006

Support

Lukobe 05:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*drew 12:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hodori11 15:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
jrleighton 11:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
—Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 16:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A bit sprawling and disorganized, unsourced, etc. --Lukobe 05:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs more thought in its purpose (I wrote the blurb about Asia redefinition and the rest on the articles talk page)--jrleighton 11:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Not voting for this right now. This article seems to be the highest-quality "America Ethnicity" page on Wikipedia, in significantly better shape than African American, and vastly better shape than European American. Personally, I'd much rather work on getting a more general article, like Asian, up to shape. I'll vote for this one when there aren't quite so many entire cultures, spanning global regions and thousands of years of history, that have articles which are in terrible shape; painstakingly ethnically subdividing a single country (along rather arbitrary lines, it seems at times; many Europeans have more in common with some Asians than those Asians have with other Asians!), a recent phenomenon, is slightly lower on the to-do list than that. -Silence 23:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Penguin (4 votes, stays until March 1, 2006)

Nominated February 14, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 1, 2006

Support

Comments

Article needs to be cleaned up. There is much more that can be added to the article that the AID should be able to help it with. I believe this article can easily become FA with a little bit of help from here. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peanuts (5 votes, stays until March 1, 2006)

Nominated February 15, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 1, 2006

Support

Comments

One of, if not the, most important comic strips of all time. Krazy Kat is an FA and it would be great for Peanuts to be too. Lukobe 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wholehearted support. - Aerobird 02:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A true symbol of Americana.

Open source (3 votes, stays until February 25)

Nominated February 15, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 25, 2006

Support

Comments

Important concept that started the linux revolution and is the foundation of what wikipedia is built upon. The article needs to be cleaned up and should be no less than FA quality. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Davidpk212 09:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

50000 Quaoar (2 votes, stays until February 22, 2006)

Nominated February 15, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 29, 2006

Support

Comments

This most interesting object has an absolutely pathetically-short article; if "two paragraphs or less" wasn't in the definition of a stub, I'd call this sucker a stub for sure. Needs lots of TLC but this article has a chance to become a gem. - Aerobird 04:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperspace (science fiction) (4 votes, stays until February 30)

Nominated 16 February 2006; needs at least 6 votes by 30 February 2006

Support

Comments

NEEDS cleaning up. I have been attempting to do so for several months without success. Davidpk212 19:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carpal tunnel syndrome (5 votes, stays until March 3)

Nominated 17 February 2006; needs at least 6 votes by 3 March 2006

Support

Comments

This is an important issue that people come to an encyclopedia and expect to find information on. However, this article is very poorly written and an embarrassment to Wikipedia (IMHO). It is poorly referenced, makes questionable assertions, and even edges on giving medical advice at some points. We need this to be an article that readers will leave with a feeling Wikipedia has given them some solid information, but alas: it is a mess. References are especially needed; those that are there are cited in-text and are incomplete. --DanielCD 00:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, because this is the disorder Wikipedia is most likely to cause in its editors. Joyous | Talk 00:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An additional note: this article has been cited in the Houston Chronicle. --DanielCD 01:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Quebec City (2 votes, stays until February 23)

Nominated February 16, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by February 23, 2006

Support

Comments

I've exhausted internet sources on the subject. Much of the article was directly translated from the french version and reads somewhat awkwardly. Could be a featured article but I need more stuff. I need all of you. Juppiter 03:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egypt (5 votes, stays until March 3)

Nominated February 17, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 3, 2006

Support

Removed votes

199.111.225.199 05:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There could be few articles more deserving or needing an Article Improvement Drive from the Wikipedia community. And this for one of the most important topics from the ancient world. (Take a look yourself - it's appalling!) This SHOULD be a Featured Article, comprehensively referenced and scientifically-written, and yet it seems to attract all manner of marginal ideas and poor quality contributions. Paul James Cowie 07:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Important Question: I've asked this question hundreds of times over the last few months on Wikipedia, and have never gotten a satisfactory, authoritative, or consistent answer on the matter: when it's not used at the start of a sentence or article title, do we properly call it "ancient Egypt", or "Ancient Egypt"? Which is it? Most (though certainly not all) of the ancient Rome articles treat ancient as an ordinary adjective, rather than part of a proper noun describing a time period, but most of the Ancient Egypt articles use the capitalized form (though plenty also use "ancient Egypt"). So which is it?! -Silence 19:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A very important and fascinating ancient civilisation. -Pedro 13:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marseille (6 votes, stays until March 10)

Nominated February 17, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 10, 2006

Support

Comments

I saw this: During the Roman times, it was called Massilia. In 1934 Alexander I of Yugoslavia arrived at the port to meet with the French foreign minister Louis Barthou., and realized this important French city was sadly lacking in article content. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 19:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mais oui, absolument

Allez l'OM !!! Poppypetty 05:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Rainforest (8 votes, stays until March 11)

Nominated February 18; needs at least 9 votes by March 11, 2006

Support

Comments

Largest rainforest in the world gets something barely beyond a stub. Every section is lacking and entire sections are missing, what about the tribes and peoples who live there? How about some examples of the incredible biodiversity? I'm sure entire articles could be written about logging and deforestation in the Amazon rainforest yet we barely have a paragraph. The Trans-Amazonian highway, which isn't even mentioned also has an article in need of some attention. - Hahnchen 01:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Improving articles like this will help Wikipedia gain respect as a learning tool in schools Juppiter 03:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is it? This article needs badly to be imporved. #PDXblazers 05:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mussel (3 votes, stays until March 4)

Nominated February 18; needs at least 6 votes by March 4, 2006

Support

Comments

Another core subject article any encyclopedia should have a solid article on. This article is bare bones and is missing key information. Also the referencing should be improved. It's just sloppy and very little, if any, useful information can be extracted from it. People will read this and leave Wikipedia thinking this is a junk heap. Let's clean this up. --DanielCD 01:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insect (6 votes, stays until March 13)

Nominated February 18; needs at least 9 votes by March 13, 2006

Support

Comments

Eighty percent of the world's described species are insects. People in some countries depend on them as their main source of protein.

This article is essentially one step away from featured status. It contains great text, beautiful and illustrative photos, a well-selected array of internal and external links. All it needs is footnote citations; the references would also have to be found. It recently failed to get Good Article status for this reason. Although it is so close to success, it surprisingly does not have an active community driving it forward. This would be an easy FA bounty for a small pack of committed individuals. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 19:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great AID candidate. Has good content to work with, but also has lots of shortcomings, strange layout choices, and coverage gaps. Some expansion and editing will be a boon, and this topic is much more significant than the current AID, frog, so there are no worries about importance. -Silence 05:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are some formatting issues with it; mainly the images, and section size. Content-wise I find it very good, and it may be completed before it can become AID. --liquidGhoul 09:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that attitude! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 16:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need some good focused rearrangement - a good candidate if I ever saw one. BigBlueFish 16:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Child Support Agency (1 vote, stays until February 26 2006)

Nominated February 19, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by February 26, 2006

Support

MartinRe 00:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Expanded the article myself as best I could on Feb 9, did my best with footnotes and citations, but could really use some help with expanding sections and creating new ones as the amount of referenced material is quite large, and my prose writing skills aren't the best! Also, lots of stats available, but not easy to translate into english! MartinRe 00:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2003 UB313 (4 votes, stays until February 28, 2006)

Nominated February 18, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 28, 2006

Support

Comments

Was previously nominated for FA but just missed the cut. Let's push it over the top. - Aerobird 04:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using this article to create the Portuguese one pt:2003_UB313, it has many unneeded technical aspects that do nothing for the article and do not inform the reader about the object. I would like more info that could be gattered about the object: its atmosphere, its composition, its moon, temperatures, seasons, etc etc... it will be really hard cause there's maybe nothing more :S -Pedro 02:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This wierd name is of the so called 10th planet. Just in case you don't know. ---Pedro 13:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rome (13 votes, stays until March 26, 2006)

Nominated February 19, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by March 26, 2006

Support

Comments

This article is in terrible shape. As of one of the most important and influential cities in the world, this article needs a major overhaul and expansion. Take a look for yourself to see the poor shape the article is in; absolutely deserves much more attention.
It think even more deservedly is History of Rome (meaning the city). I made a stub of it, but it is still needing much work.
Strongest possible support. One of the two or three most important cities in the history of the world, and it's lower-quality than our Dumb & Dumber article. See also my bitching in Talk:Rome. I'd have nominated it myself, but I wanted to wait until there weren't too many great articles for it to compete with, but I guess it can't wait forever. -Silence 16:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rome, History of Rome and Ancient Rome were AID candidates. None of them won, all of them were removed for lack of votes. --Dijxtra 17:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Ancient Rome won, about a month ago. (Though the amount of attention it received in that week wasn't especially inspiring; very few editors got involved.) But Rome is, and has been, in much, much worse state than Ancient Rome was. -Silence 18:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been to this beautiful city in 1997 and 2004 and adore it. It should be a wikimasterpiece. Juppiter 07:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of El Salvador (3 votes, stays until March 5, 2006)

Nominated February 19, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 5, 2006

Support

Harris0
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 00:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dannycas 17:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

War On Drugs (1 vote, stays until March 5, 2006)

Nominated February 19, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 5, 2006

Support

Harris0--I don't know if there is a rule against nominating two different articles...if so take this down. This article definitely needs to be expanded though.

@@ Line 1,467: / Line 1,467: @@
 # [[User:Dannycas|Dannycas]] 17:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 ; Comments:
+===[[War On Drugs]] (1 vote, stays until [[March 5]], [[2006]])===
+:''Nominated [[February 19]], [[2006]]; needs at least 6 votes by [[March 5]], [[2006]]''
+; Support:
+# [[User:Harris0|Harris0]]--I don't know if there is a rule against nominating two different articles...if so take this down.  This article definitely needs to be expanded though.

Collaborations
Articles
Articles for improvement
Science and technology
Birds Dinosaurs Palaeontology (new)
Miscellaneous
Inactive collaborations Latin music (new)
v t e