Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:02, 21 April 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 Collaboration 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 [[MONTH DAY]], [[YEAR]]; needs at least 4 votes by [[DATE ONE WEEK LATER]], [[YEAR]]''

; Support:
# (sign with four tildes)

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

----

Copy and paste the template 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 21:04, 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}} at the top of the article and put both {{AIDnom}} and {{to do}} on the top of the article's talk page.

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 4 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 vote count and date in following manner:

===[[History of the world]] (24 votes, stays until [[February 14]], [[2006]])===
:''Nominated [[December 8]], [[2005]]; needs at least 28 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 April 23, 2006. 18.00 GMT (Template:DAYSTOSUNDAY)

How an article is removed from the list

Articles need four 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

Denmark (59 votes, stays until June 11)

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 63 votes by June 11, 2006

Support

Removed votes

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]
- Yeah Denmark is generally not really that represented on Wiki, there's no portal for instance. --Snailwalker | talk 17:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Denmark, and subjects related to Denmark, are quite well covered. Let's rather concentrate our forces on countries with a more poor coverage - any country /region in the less developed part of the world.Bertilvidet 11:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you have mistaken this for the collaboration of the week? ;-) Being better developed, Denmark is much closer to FA status. So it seems like a good choice to me. Besides it's been in the news a lot lately, so people will hopefully be more interested. But if you wanted to nominate another country, you could probably get some support. — RJH 18:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Misguided comment. CotW is for stubs, and AID is for larger articles. That is the sole distinction. Neither has anything to do with focusing only on articles that are already nearly Featured-quality; help is given to articles based on how much of a need for help there is (which relates to both the article's current quality and its current importance), not just based on how close to being an FA it is; if it's that close to being an FA, it belongs on Peer Review, not AID. -Silence 04:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well we can debate the nuances of the language, but I must respectfully point out that you contradicted yourself in stating that an article close to being an FA belongs in Peer Review, not here. :-) — RJH 19:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a goal for Wikipedia 1.0 that every country in the world should have a featured article. Since Denmark is closer to FA than other countries it would make sense to choose it. --Maitch 18:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say we should start improving the articles that are not close to FA. RexNL 00:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct "stays until" date for this nomination: April 16 or 23? Since it's so close to winning, it would be a shame for it to expire this week if it doesn't have to. -Scottwiki 01:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tectonic plate (38 votes, stays until April 30)

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 41 votes by April 30, 2006

Support

Removed Votes

216.56.60.211 by Steven on 01:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Silence 23:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (confused with page for plate tectonics)[reply]
Steven 02:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC) (per above, I rather support a merge)[reply]

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.

I have recently completed studies on Tectonic Plates, and it is center to the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift. I agree, let's get this article fixed up.

This should be an easy fix, once you get a bunch of people looking at it. J. Finkelstein 20:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plate tectonics is already a featured article. Perhaps tectonic plate should simply be merged into (and redirect to) plate tectonics. -Scottwiki 01:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support such a merge. The two subjects are too closely-linked, and the number of votes here demonstrates very well how many people this subtle distinction can mislead into thinking that there's no comprehensive article on the subject. However, I do not strongly support the merge, because if this article was expanded another page or two it would be a worthy daughter article of plate tectonics. Until then, though, it is kind of stubesque. -Silence 04:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tectonic movement is a fascinating and large subject, it would be easy to enlarge wiki's tiny article on them into a full feature. Skaterblo 14:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned just above, it already is. Plate tectonics is a featured article.

Ancient Egypt (41 votes, stays until May 12)

Nominated February 17, 2006; needs at least 44 votes by May 12, 2006

Support

Paul James Cowie 07:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lukobe 08:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steven 23:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Pedro 13:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spawn Man 01:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mido 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hippalus 14:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
siafu 15:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Revolución hablar ver 17:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mkaycomputer 16:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vir 19:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugur Basak 00:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jazriel 12:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phileas 05:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PDXblazers 06:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sicilianmandolin 14:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Passdoubt | Talk 08:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Psiphim6 13:59, 27 March 2006
User:Nicholassayshi 14:44, 29 March 2006
Iggle
Gflor e s^Talk 22:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Underneath-it-All 15:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lakinekaki 18:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Jklin 02:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Silence 04:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Connection 23:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Tom 13:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Argon233 ^T C U _{_@ ¶ ∠} 22:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RexNL 12:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SunDog 17:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forthright 13:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 14:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--HolyRomanEmperor 15:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew m plamondon 02:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tutmøsis · (Msg Me) 18:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ante Perkovic 05:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thefourdotelipsis 08:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francisco Valverde 17:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
chemica 03:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed votes

I've removed an anon vote by 69.120.246.50 --Mido 06:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
M.Karpov 19:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 22:19, 18 April 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]

From what I have been able to find (Googled site:.edu "ancient Egypt"), "ancient Egypt" is the correct form (or at least most common among scholars), though "Ancient Egypt" seems to be common as well. ♠ SG →Talk 16:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'ancient Egypt' is the preferred form, IMHO. Colonel Tom 13:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very important and fascinating ancient civilisation. -Pedro 13:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Important before tourism high season. ;) --Connection 23:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rome (43 votes, stays until May 21)

Nominated February 19, 2006; needs at least 44 votes by May 21, 2006

Support

Un sogno modesto 07:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hippalus 08:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
mimmo46 11:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wackymacs 10:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attilios 15:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bill 14:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Silence 16:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WS 17:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alessio Damato 20:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 00:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Juppiter 07:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dannycas 17:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lightdarkness^(talk) 07:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
youngamerican (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jdcooper 12:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PDXblazers 02:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doug 01:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sicilianmandolin 02:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duran 21:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RexNL 23:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ka34 10:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BigBlueFish 10:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HaM 18:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—Eternal Equinox | talk 15:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugur Basak 00:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James 19:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AED 07:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hyphen5 12:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Chino 05:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Rory096 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maurreen 20:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Covington 22:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Underneath-it-All 15:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Marco polo 13:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Argon233 ^T C U _{_@ ¶ ∠} 23:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CalJW 23:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC) I'm working on the Rome subcategories at the moment so it would be nice to see this improve too.[reply]
iceman 13:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rikimaru 09:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JosephRJustice 21:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thefourdotelipsis 08:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amalas 20:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
badpazzword 20:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed votes

Removed anon vote by 64.254.230.34 - Jazriel 08:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed anon vote by 69.120.246.50 - Jazriel 08:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Absolutely. This article is in dire need of attention. Sicilianmandolin 02:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd seen the complaints in past votes about Rome itself not getting nominated, and I agree, this article would benefit enormously from an AID. BigBlueFish 10:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the fact that I'll be visiting Rome this upcoming summer, I believe working on it would be a major treat. I definitely offer a super Sunday support to this AID nomination. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even I could improve that article and I've never been! --James 19:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information from the German article would be an excellent basis for improving this article. RexNL 00:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recycling (32 votes, stays until May 7)

Nominated February 26, 2006; needs at least 36 votes by May 7, 2006

Support

Removed votes

• The Giant Puffin • 12:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC) on Steven by 00:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC), no link to user.[reply]

Comments

Silence says this article needs to be expanded more than paper recycling. I say lets fix 'em both. PDXblazers 07:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a fantastic idea. No reason we can't work on paper recycling too if this gets nominated, as a major sub-article also in need of work. -Silence 07:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be nice to go into greater depth about the types, methods, and complications. And, at the expense of stirring things up (and Wikipedia doesn't always stir well), maybe a little on "controversy"? Some have suggested (not that I would cite Penn and Teller's Bullshit! as an authoritative source) that recycling everything but aluminum (and maybe glass) costs more than it saves and pollutes more than it prevents. At any rate, this could be an absolutely first-class article if we gave it a little wikipedia love. Kajerm 08:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Controversy' sounds like a good idea. A non US-centric approach would also benefit this article; there are many different approaches taken globally. Colonel Tom 13:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Macedonia (27 votes, stays until May 4)

Nominated March 2, 2006; needs at least 35 votes by May 4, 2006

Support

Caponer 17:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vlatko 13:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bitola 19:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bomac
Macedonia 21:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
youngamerican (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ruff 12:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugur Basak 00:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Komitata 15:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*drew 15:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maria 20:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
High Elf 21:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--HolyRomanEmperor 13:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oscabat 21:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MyLifeIsought 13:15, 04 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Misos 18:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
estavisti 17:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dr.alf 02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— SasaStefanovic • 22:38 13-04-2006

Gorast 03:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mir Harven 12:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sombrero 12:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for this; apropos, see note below. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neoneo13 21:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ante Perkovic 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thefourdotelipsis 08:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Votes

RaptorCore 12:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 22:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (only 1 contribution)[reply]
Gogo 15:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 22:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (only 1 contribution)[reply]
Cyberboki 23:47, 01 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 22:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (only 1 contribution)[reply]
User:Trimond 23:08,8 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 22:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (only 2 contributions, both are voting)[reply]

Comments

Note: As a result of ongoing lengthy discussions and recent edit warring regarding (namely) the article lead, the article has been protected from editing; to help resolve this issue, a poll is currently underway (with an expiry of 30 April 2006) to determine the precise lead for this article. (Please weigh in!) Before this time (pending resolution) and given discussions, though, a request should be made to unprotect the article. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia makes an excellent candidate for the Article Improvement Drive because it is very close to reaching featured article status in both content and layout. I feel as if we should always be focusing on articles that only require minor adjustments and additions in the AID instead of those that need complete and total reworking, and this is one that will only require a week to make the small adjustments required. Macedonia deserves a spotlight since it poised to become a member state of the European Union and is a state that we will be hearing much more about in the news in the years to come. Its location adjacent to Albania and Kosovo will also make it a player in the upcoming debate over Kosovo's independence movement. I just feel it will be a fabulous choice and I hope you will think so, too. --Caponer 17:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia deserves the best treatment it can get. Now, I'm sick & tired of idiotic FYROM-like concessions to the Greek chauvinism. No mentally sane person thinks that contemporary Macedonians are ethnically the same as Alexander's Greek Macedonians. Glad to see this pseudo-controvers is being settled in a rational way.Mir Harven 12:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The personal feelings of individuals should not be allowed to interfere with good and true information. People are entitled to feel sick and tired about the Macedonian issue and its standing at the UN. But being 'sick and tired' is not a resonable basis for passing editorial judgment on ROM/FRYOM or for being racially derogatory against a nation (in this case, against the Greeks) just because they respect the UN's interim resolution governing the appelation 'FYROM'. Politis 17:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics (45 votes, stays until June 1)

Nominated March 9, 2006; needs at least 48 votes by June 1, 2006

Support

Removed votes

Removed anon vote by 24.20.158.96 - Jazriel 08:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
150.250.84.214 18:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
150.250.43.239 22:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

According to Wikipedia:Most visited articles this is #5 among Wikipedia's most visited pages, yet it isn't a featured article, nor is it an FA in any of the other 81 language versions of Wikipedia where it appears. As of this writing the talk page has been quiet for a month. It's already at good article status. Good organization, great image use. Needs a better introduction and citations. Suffers from single sentence paragraphs. This is really a cornerstone of any encyclopedia. Let's prioritize it. Durova 15:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, very close to being a featured article - and is one of the most important pages of any encyclopedia CloudNine 14:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This must be an FA. Soo 11:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly suggest any intended improvements to Mathematics are first proposed on its talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. There is a historical controversy behind just about every sentence of this article, and large parts of the article are fragile compromise statements which have emerged out of long discussion. Gandalf61 10:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I second this comment. --Salix alba (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I second it also. Further, the reasons for nominating this article for AID no longer apply: it no longer suffers has many single sentence paragraphs, the introduction has been improved, and there are more citations. In fact, I think it shoudl be nominated for a featured article. Tompw 20:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italy (24 votes, stays until May 3)

Nominated March 15, 2006; needs at least 28 votes by May 3, 2006

Support

Sicilianmandolin 11:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PDXblazers 03:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 23:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Un sogno modesto 01:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Salvo (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scottwiki 02:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Rory096 02:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gennaro Prota 00:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rikimaru 12:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 03:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CloudNine 13:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GhePeU 11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maurreen 08:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiragazzo 02:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Note: Editor's only contributions are to vote and comment here.[reply]
Cvene64 08:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tatonzolo 10:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
iceman 13:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chol X 03:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JR98664 03:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neoneo13 21:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JosephRJustice 21:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JustUser 22:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
badpazzword 20:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed votes

Comments

This article is in desperate need of AID. Italy has been one of the most important and influential countries in the world and there's so much more that can be written about her than this, and as one of the most referenced country articles in Wikipedia, I don't see why there shouldn't be. Sicilianmandolin 11:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Country articles hold some of Wikipedia's greatest potential as a legitimate research tool. Important country articles should be among Wikipedia's best. PDXblazers 03:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely support this. Un sogno modesto 01:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If / when work starts on this article, please leave me a message! I can help with translations between Italian and English for any sources and interwiki references. _└^VodkaJazz/_talk^┐ 23:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a vivid country as Italy deserves a better article than it currently has now. Italy has a distinct culture with beautiful cities and landscapes, and with a bella language to boot:D Wikiragazzo
Just thought I should mention, if this does suceed it may also be worth spending a little time on Military of Italy, which considering the size and influence of their army, its really in rather sad condition. Some of the sub-articles are too bad but it needs improvement. Falphin 22:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis and Clark Expedition (21 votes, stays until April 29)

Nominated March 18, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by April 29, 2006

Support

--Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is pathetic, we should be much better than this. --Rory096 01:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that needs help, badly -- Tawker 04:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does need work done to it. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 04:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the list of expedition members, and I've since kept an eye on this one for vandalism for a long time, but never had the oomph to really tackle it as it should be tackled; I'd definitely help in a community effort. — Catherine\^talk 04:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. This is an article that is of high importance, so it should be of high quality. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Truly in terrible shape. PDXblazers 03:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 19:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lightdarkness^(talk) 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*drew 15:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joyous | Talk 00:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sarge Baldy 01:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ClarkBHM 02:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is really not so great. User:Trevdawg
RomeoVoid 22:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 14:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--G Clark | Talk 16:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC) (no relation)[reply]
JosephRJustice 21:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gracielita 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. Where to begin... ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 21:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Very poor article on one of the most notable events in history. Very short lead, one footnote and some further reading. Needs major expansion also. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that a large chunk of the article is simply a list of expidition members. This definitely needs a lot of work. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 14:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban Missile Crisis (19 votes, stays until May 2)

Nominated March 21, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by May 2, 2006

Support

Removed Votes

Charles Max Gross 9:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 22:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)(only 1 contribution)[reply]
User: crappypanda 12:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 22:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)(No such user)[reply]

Comments

This has shaped the U.S. relationship with Cubia for the last 50 years, lets make it a article we can be proud of. Charles Max Gross 9:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Deserving to be upgraded to Featured Article status, as the event in which all the world arguably came closest to annihilation through human agency. Paul James Cowie 09:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban relations with the US have been strained ever since this as well as the Bay of Pigs, not to mention that it heated up the Cold War. Djwings 14:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely important article. The fate of every life-form on Earth was at risk of nuclear annihilation because of this event. Everyone should be clearly and understandably informed about how major this was and realize how grateful the human race is for not being in a World War 3. Ka34 14:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tree (16 votes, stays until April 29)

Nominated March 25, 2006; needs at least 20 votes by April 29, 2006

Support

Comments

This is mainly just a list of different trees. The topic is so common, the article could be improved in many ways. Such a basic topic should be of a much better standard.
- Yes, I agree. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More on evolution and physiology is needed. I'd also like to see expansion of cultural connections to trees.Daniel Collins 15:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution and physiology aspects are tricky; there's very little that is actually unique to trees without also applying to shrubs. Such info would be better placed at woody plant (an article in even greater need of expansion!). Cultural aspects yes, though with the length of the tree page and the potential size of this aspect (huge), I'd say this would be better treated in a page of its own (or maybe better done by expanding and re-titling the existing Trees in mythology page). - MPF 09:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, trees are scattered throughout the plant kingdom (you could even say that all flowering plants are decended from trees). I thinki it would be good to expand on the evolutionary aspects. For example how the conifers developed from the tree ferns, how the flowering plants developed from conifers, magnolia should get special mention as I think these were the first flowering plants and are also a tree (or is it shrub). --Salix alba (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H.R. 4437 (16 votes, stays until April 23)

Nominated March 26, 2006; needs at least 20 votes by May 1, 2006

Support

Scottwiki 22:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 04:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Passdoubt | Talk 08:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jonas Liljeström 13:38, Monday March 27, 2006 (UTC)
Accurizer 19:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mkaycomputer 23:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kimun 18:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kaldari 01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine1989 00:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Osbus 14:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lakinekaki 18:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Katrianya 22:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NorseOdin 06:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Tom 13:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CaliforniaKid 08:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Socom49 12:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Wikipedia has paid surprisingly little attention to a bill that has inspired protests by hundreds of thousands of people. -Scottwiki 22:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased that this nomination has quickly gained support. While waiting to see whether this eventually becomes the Article Improvement Drive article, I hope that more Wikipedians will contribute edits to this important and fast-changing topic. -Scottwiki 06:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs to be able to be a reference to anyone who is interested in this debate. The protests are all over the media in the States, but short clips of info aren't enough to enlighten people about the fundamental reason for the opposition NorseOdin 06:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is currently at a state where it can inform well. It could be resectioned, however, and I think there's scope for a lot of the debate to be encapsulated on this page as well. There is more content to be added, basically. It would be grand to have this FA.

Epic of Gilgamesh (24 votes, stays until May 15)

Nominated March 27, 2006; needs at least 28 votes by May 15, 2006

Support

Removed Votes

1. Lstep 14:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 22:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)(only 1 contribution)[reply]

Comments

The oldest surviving story in existence, a work of epic poetry nearly unparalleled in importance and influence in human history, and its article is barely more than a stub?! (And the article on its central character, Gilgamesh, is in even worse shape.) Compare this to the much, much more expansive articles on similarly important works like Iliad, The Book of One Thousand and One Nights, and Bible; it's embarrassing and a disservice to Wikipedia readers. So much work can, and needs, be done. -Silence 21:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to echo these sentiments and observations.... Andrew George's latest, definitive edition of Gilgamesh did not even appear in the Further Reading! (I plan to rectify this!) Paul James Cowie 13:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although not bad, the article should be better: immmortality is not so easily written off. Mir Harven 12:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English language (17 votes, stays until May 4)

Nominated March 30, 2006; needs at least 20 votes by May 4, 2006

Support

BorgQueen 01:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tarret 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Silence 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lukobe 01:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 05:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CloudNine 17:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
darkliight^talk 00:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CG 05:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Khoikhoi 02:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 05:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already a good article, but if AID'ing this can push it to FA status why not. VegaDark 07:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
St jimmy 10:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will need a lot of work, it's in really bad shape. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 18:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sicilianmandolin 03:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
illuminatiscott 21:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JosephRJustice 22:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This article was nominated for FA by an anon user in last November and failed. Undoubtedly this is a very basic topic, ~~especially so in our English Wikipedia.~~ It would be appropriate to have it as a FA. --BorgQueen 01:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be voted for because this is the English Wikipedia, it should be voted for because English is an important modern language. -Silence 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you have your point. If we reverse the logic used, non-Anglo Saxon topics should be paid less attention in the English Wikipedia? I've striken the first step toward such dangerous rationalization :-D --BorgQueen 06:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally, I see no problem with the original rationale. Surely each Wikipedia should have a top-quality article about its own language. There's nothing wrong with that. - dcljr (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, every Wikipedia should have a great article on its own language—and on every other language. Cultural bias is to be resisted, not encouraged; uneven coverage is certainly tolerable in the short run (since the only alternatives are stifling article growth or adding filler to articles noone's interested in working on yet), but in the long run, all Wikipedias should deal with all topics based on their general notability, not based on their relevance to the encyclopedia itself (which would be self-referential). To explain, suppose Encyclopedia Britannica produced versions of its entire text in English, Spanish, Arabic, and Russian next year. Would it be a good idea for them to spend more time on their English article in the English translation, their Spanish article in the Spanish translation, their Arabic article in the Arabic translation, and their Russian article in the Russian translation? Of course not, because that would lead to inconsistencies; if something's noteworthy in one language, it should be noteworthy in all, and if it's not noteworthy in other languages, it shouldn't be noteworthy in the one. If the English language was not one of the most noteworthy modern languages in existence at this time (for example, if it was only as noteworthy as the Ateso language, Pangasinan language, or Yi language), I probably wouldn't support this nomination: the fact that a certain language is the one spoken by the encyclopedia's writers just means that the language will be highly subject to cultural bias and will probably get undue attention where much more significant languages are being neglected (like Punjabi language, which is the the 10th-most-widely-spoken language in the world, yet has an article that's barely more than a stub), which will make nominating it for AID nothing but worsening the encyclopedia's evenness of coverage yet more. The reason that is not the case here is because English happens to be highly noteworthy completely regardless of the fact that we speak it (though obviously that's part of the reason it was nominated, and Punjabi was not). So in this case, a little more work is actually a good idea to bring this up to standards (and hopefully get the article featured), entirely on the basic of the topic, not of its editors' natural biases. -Silence 21:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - "all Wikipedias should deal with all topics based on their general notability" Hmm. Well, there goes exploding whale... Anyway, which is the more "biased" view: supporting a language for AID because it's the language of the wiki or because it's "an important modern language"? Seems to me the latter carries more political baggage than the former. You even go so far as to seemingly denigrate Ateso, Pangasinan and Yi as somehow not "noteworthy"! Wow... (Yi is so non-noteworthy it has its own Wikipedia.) Sorry, but your argument appears to be completely self-contradictory. In any case, you'll notice I haven't actually voted on this nomination, only commented on it. "Zero-sum" editing projects like this make me uneasy. - dcljr (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Declaration of Independence (14 votes, stays until April 29)

Nominated April 1, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by April 29, 2006

Support

Removed invalid votes

N. Dunn 01:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

This article is one of the articles on wikipedia that needs to be featured. Period, the end. Mkaycomputer 18:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Because its about the states? dr.alf 02:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, because the mere fact that the document was issued completely changed the course of world history. Not only did it create the United States, (and who knows what the world would be like today without the US, you could argue it would be better or worse, but it would no doubt be way different), but the United States was also the first colony to successfully break away from its parent country. Along with Magna Carta and Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen (which would also make good AID candidates), it is one of the most important documents ever created, because they broke through barriers and allowed other countries to adopt their models. This has nothing to do with cultural bias, it is just that damn important. PDXblazers 04:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to already be well constructed and detailed. I think I need a more compelling and articulated argument than "Period, the end" to sway me to vote for this article, however. (PDXblazers, you certainly met both of my above criteria, but I don't fully concur with your arguments. Just my opinion.) Colonel Tom 14:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sacco and Vanzetti (9 votes, stays until April 23)

Nominated April 2, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by April 23, 2006

Support

Comments

For a trial this important, the article needs a lot of work. The lead, for example, made me blush. -Osbus 17:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons & Dragons (16 votes, stays until May 8)

Nominated April 3, 2006; needs at least 20 votes by May 8, 2006

Support

Removed Invalid Votes

129.21.113.162 23:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC) <-- Thank you for your interest. Unfortunately, the rules state that one must be a registered user to vote. If you could register and re-vote, that would be great. (^'-')^ Covington[reply]

Comments

Great start for a game that was the precursor to many video- and role-playing games in use today. A very popular game in its own right. Needs 1) general cleanup, 2) fix criticism - organize, reference, and add a section about criticism within the DnD community i.e. "powergaming", and 3) breaking down (or not, please discuss). With a more work, we can make this a featured article. Covington 08:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<sings> "Gary Gygax was my mentor, now I could teach him tricks; I've an armour class of over +10 and a mental age of 6" - kidding, of course. The article's not bad, but it would be nice to see it as a featured article. Colonel Tom 13:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna (entertainer) (11 votes, stays until April 24)

Nominated April 3, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by April 24, 2006

Support

Comments

The article is a mess. For an artist with the profile of Madonna, her article should be a featured article but the state its currently in it has no chance. The article requires a big clean up, ideally a re-write imo. Information needs to be prioritiseds and processed appropriately. New sections need creating for her acting career for example. Parts of the article currently resemble fan sites with hotchpotched additions being made. From what I can gather on the talk page, there seems to a team of people reverting most edits made. Rimmers 17:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't insult vandals or bad written articles Rimmers and if you don't know Madonna's article was a former featured article. --hottie 17:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out an article is poorly written or is a mess is not an insult - its a statement of opinion. And although the article may have previously been a featured article, it needs a lot of working doing to it now. Clearly you agree with that - otherwise you wouldn't have been editing the article for the last 4 hours! Rimmers 17:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what can de done to save this article. I've worked on it, but it seems hopeless. The "problem" is that Madonna is a major artist, a mega-artist, with a very strong fanbase on the Internet. This leads to the page coming off as a fan page rather than an encyclopedia page. I'd like to see the page improved, but I have a feeling that may be a futile wish. Andrew Parodi 06:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I think the fact that, not too long ago, two anon editors were having a (rather heated) argument on the talk page over whether Madonna or Mariah Carey is the better singer is indicative of the problem. As Andrew said, top-selling contemporary artists such as Madonna have a lot of fans, and inevitably some of them will end up editing Wikipedia. Now I'm definitely not saying that all of the fans who edit articles such as this are bad editors (I'm sure it's a minority) or that they mean to violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but the good faith contributions of some of them actually end up hindering the article rather than helping it. I was surprised to discover that this used to be a featured article - it's certainly nowhere near featured quality at the moment, and that's a pity, as there's a lot that could be written about her (by this I don't mean stuff like "Madonna sang "Take a Bow" at the American Music Awards"). Extraordinary Machine 16:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a huge mess. What could be an essential and fantastic resource on Madonna and her life and career and descended into a bubblegum-snapping fan page, with more attention going to opening-week sales of her albums and discussion-page battles of her 'title' as "Queen of Pop" than important aspects of her career such as her gain and loss of Maverick Records and her place in the context of pop culture.PatrickJ83 04:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with comments made so far. I think the main problem with the structure is that it uses album titles as its headers which restricts any wider discussion of her career, and encourages things like sales figures and chart positions, which are important, but there is so much more that could and should be said about this performer. Suggest it should follow a chronological "career" section as per Mariah Carey & Kylie Minogue. Would also benefit from a section about her iconic status or cultural influence (see Kylie Minogue "Image and celebrity status" section) and more depth about her musical style (see Mariah Carey "Artistry") The article is poorly referenced. Her film career is only briefly discussed, and important issues such as the "rise and fall" of Maverick records is covered in one brief, out of place sentence. The largest omission is in what people have said about her and how she has been perceived. She is arguably the most discussed woman on the planet of the last 25 years - certainly one of the most discussed celebrities of all time, but there is very little about what has been said about her. Rossrs 23:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Mason University (4 votes, stays until April 20)

Nominated April 6, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 20, 2006

Support

Bpiereck 05:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DividedByNegativeZero 07:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DocMason 13:40, 11 April 2006 (EST)
SWTrilman 18:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Votes

SeanG 04:36, 8 April 2006 (EST) by Steven on 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (No such user)[reply]
JTiahrt 15:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (No other contributions)[reply]
Jarbitrato 17:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (No other contributions)[reply]

Comments

With the recent success of the University in the NCAA championship, the page has gone through multiple edits. It has plenty of information to be a great article on a topic that has come to national prominence - if only momentarily. It suffers from some lack of organization and mixed voice, style and grammar.

Gagauzia (32 votes, stays until June 8)

Nominated April 6, 2006; needs at least 36 votes by June 8, 2006

Support

Luka Jačov 17:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--estavisti 23:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clay 04:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ςerbiana ♫ 19:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--GTubio 09:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--millosh (talk (sr:)) 10:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MatriX 17:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedyGonsales 16:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Filip (§) 17:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Milena 00:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PANONIAN (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Emijrp 16:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Djordjes (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--VKokielov 20:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— SasaStefanovic • 22:47 13-04-2006

--Sufitul 23:58 13 April 2006 (UTC)

--Hurricane Angel 18:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Elephantus 22:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Jovanvb 22:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 13:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Gangleri · Th · T 21:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- FrancisTyers 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Branislav Jovanovic 14:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avala 18:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred-Chess 19:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC) yea sure.[reply]

→ Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 19:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Injinera 19:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pockey 21:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--xJaM 13:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Misos 22:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--DCLXVI 18:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Needs expansion

Cardiff (9 votes, stays until April 27)

Nominated April 6, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by April 27, 2006

Support

Comments

Needs expansion, more detail, references and more images - Could easily become a featured article with the right amount of content. — Wackymacs 20:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will make a to do list on the talk page. Joe D (t) 00:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave a token vote for my home city, but following the principle of "starting at the top" being discussed at the moment in the nomination for Jesus, I wonder whether Wales might be a better candidate for the AID? HAM File:Icons-flag-wales.png 10:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fat (10 votes, stays until April 20)

Nominated March 30, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by April 20, 2006

Support

Comments

Note: This topic originally appeared on the COTW, but was deemed too long to qualify as a stub. It has been moved here.

New York City (12 votes, stays until May 6)

Nominated April 8, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by May 6, 2006

Support

Comments

The largest city in the English-speaking world.But in French Wikipedia and German Wikipedia it's more particular than in English Wikipedia.In French and German Wikipedia New York City is featured article, but in English Wikipedia it's not.Is it possble?We MUST improve it!
- Agreed --Manwe 08:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greatest city ever - needs to be the Greatest article ever! --Descent

Belgrade (47 votes, stays until July 8)

Nominated April 8, 2006; needs at least 52 votes by July 8, 2006

Support

estavisti 18:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Luka Jačov 18:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Avala 18:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pockey 18:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JustUser 18:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ςerbiana ♫ 20:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Goran.Smith2 21:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lakinekaki 21:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Filip (§) 21:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Foant 21:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arag0rn 22:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obradović Goran (ta^lk 22:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PANONIAN (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discombobulator 23:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— SasaStefanovic • 23:52 8-04-2006

Vitriden 01:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dr.alf 02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana 03:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--RockyMM 11:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Djordje D. Bozovic 12:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--CCCC 14:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Sabate 19:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Lord Eru 20:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--VKokielov 02:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Momirt 07:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NeroN_BG 09:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milena 11:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Djordjes (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Kris12 (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilianmandolin 01:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—Eternal Equinox | talk 20:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Bora Nesic 03:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Velimir85 17:05, 12 April 2006 (CET)

--Manwe 20:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven 00:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 01:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Manojlo 13:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 14:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Djus 16:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Srdjan Vesic 17:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--HolyRomanEmperor 15:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Krytan 19:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Jovanvb 21:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Dijan 21:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Edesimuh 06:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam ^(T/C) 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Votes

Bojkic 20:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 00:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DesperateSerbwife 13:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 21:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (not an actual user)[reply]

Comments

Could easily reach featured status, just needs one last heave

30 votes in 2.5 days! The other nominees are desperate to know the secret of Belgrade's success! :-) -Scottwiki 02:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, yes... that was a rather quick... uh, petition? I don't know, but good work. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Patriotism and large number of Wikipedians from Belgrade :)--RockyMM 22:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is kind of scary, I have never seen an article get 35 votes in 4 days! I'll pitch in too help I guess. --Steven 00:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope I can help somehow! Milena 00:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course you can, everyone can help :) Wow, it looks like Belgrade is really going to win this thing, I'm so happy, I love Belgrade! --serbiana - talk 01:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - 36 votes - we made it!!! --serbiana - talk 02:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you wonder why this nomination gets such a large amount of votes: someone sent a message to all native Serbian-speaking Wikipedians, asking them to support this nomination. RexNL 01:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask people to support Belgrade, I merely brought it to their attention that they could vote for Belgrade if they so wished. Nothing untoward in that. ;)--estavisti 14:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that mean I can send a message to every American and get an American-related article through AID every week? Lets hope this doesn't turn into a culture war. Mkaycomputer 20:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats right, the message was "You may wish to vote for Belgrade at the Article Improvement Drive page". --serbiana - talk 19:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Shakespeare (28 votes, stays until June 3)

Nominated April 8, 2006; needs at least 32 votes by June 3, 2006

Support

Removed Votes

EdmondDantes 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 23:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (No such users)[reply]

Comments

Arguably the most important author in the history of the English-speaking world. This must be FA, and with a little work and reorganization, I think we can get it there. PDXblazers 18:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This article is close and with a little work would be there.--Alabamaboy 17:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is so close... please help! The Singing Badger 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So near and yet so far... the Style section is what's letting this article down. It fails to give a sense of what makes Shakespeare Shakespeare, instead giving us some rather irrelevant info about the medieval morality plays. I just hope that putting this article on the AID encourages some perceptive user to include something about the hallmarks of Shakespearean style – we really don't need anything more on the subject of his homosexuality/Catholicism/being Francis Bacon. HAM File:Icons-flag-wales.png 10:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I think I can help with the style section, but it may take some time. I can bring in a more technical analysis of Shakespeare's style including things like meter, syllabic count, and various other things which have to do with "quantification". I just finished a third year course in university which centers on examining Shakespeare's works from a variety of ways (historical, thematic, psychological with an emphasis on critical reading. If any of you think I should go forward with this, I'd really like to hear it. Or perhaps anything else me or anyone else can help to make the Shakespeare section even better. EdmonDantes 01:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! If you feel that your knowledge can contribute positively to the article, definitely do it. Just don't surprised when your writing gets "edited mercilessly" by others. ;) — Fotinakis^(talk) 19:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please go for it. The info about morality plays and all was merely intended to be a starting point providing initial context for a large section on his style but nothing has happened to the section in months. The irritating thing about the article is that the "trendy" sections on religion and sexuality get the most edits (and have to be kept from growing too large) while the more substantive sections wither away from lack of editorial imput. So pleas, edit away! --Alabamaboy 11:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is of a limited scope: not bad in gossip and trivia, but sadly lacking in what is most important in Shakespeare: the creation of dynamic & "larger than life" personalities, essentially modern treatment of all the life's central themes: jealousy, sex, ambition, will-to-power, parental love, ....Mir Harven 12:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darfur conflict (9 votes, stays until April 30)

Nominated April 9, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by April 30, 2006

Support

Removed vote

68.82.229.196 03:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cadaver05 21:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 23:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (no other contributions)[reply]

Comments

This is one of the most significant events in the world today, and a topic worthy of featured article status. Yet, among other deficiencies, the chronological updates are growing thinner as time passes. (Compare the 2004 entries with late 2005 and 2006 entries. Moreover, note that there is an entry for February 2006, but not for January or March.) This is such a large and important topic that I believe that we need a community effort to improve it and keep it up-to-date.

I removed the vote by 68.82.229.196 because to "vote or nominate you have to be a registered user."[1] I hope that 68.82.229.196 will log in as a registered user and re-vote. -Scottwiki 17:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toy (9 votes, stays until May 1)

Nominated April 10, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by May 1, 2006

Support

Comments

This article has been identified as a Core Topic by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team and is in just awful shape ({{Stub-Class}} in the assessment scale). It needs as much help as possible. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is also nominated for 1.0 COTF. --Rory096_(block) 18:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Perón (4 votes, stays until April 26)

Nominated April 12, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 26, 2006

Support

--Jersey Devil 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RomeoVoid 22:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the worst right-wing dictators in 20 century South America, pro-Nazi "politician". --Darwinek 00:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not technically a dictator, but persecuted oppositors... Mariano(t/c) 07:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Peron is arguably the most important person in Argentine political history, the largest and most dominant political party in Argentina adopts his name. Considering Peron's importance his article should be a featured article but instead at its current state it has plenty of POV and most certainly does not have enough information about Peron's three terms as President (only two sentences on his third term). This page definately deserves much more than this.--Jersey Devil 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

This article's discussion page contains elements that balance the heavily slanted POV of the article. It will take years to compare them and source them from the publisehd scholarly work about this historical period, as requested by many discussants. A medium university library has volumes spanning at least a linear dimension of 100ft-shelf. Anything less than an authoritative and thorough review risks to be offensive to the regime's victims. Jclerman 21:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, a mix of published scholarly work with current revisionist writtings could do the job. Mariano(t/c) 07:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus (15 votes, stays until May 11)

Nominated April 13, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by May 11, 2006

Support

Oppose

Rick Norwood 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

24.218.72.42 02:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

We're currently working on improving the historicity section, including the second paragraph of the introduction, which is related. We may need more about the viewpoints of the Apocalyptic Prophet Model a la Albert Schweitzer, the Jesus Seminar, and the cultural and historical background of Roman-Era Israel.

The chronology, Life and Teachings, and Pauline Christian views sections could also use some feedback.

Any other recommendations for improvement would also be useful.

The article is a good article, but failed to reach featured article status last December. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 09:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement drive should be for articles that are not getting sufficient attention. The Jesus article is getting more attention than is easily handled already. Rick Norwood 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is one of the most heavily-edited articles on Wikipedia; AID should be used efficiently to help give attention to neglected articles. If you need help from the community at large resolving a certain dispute, then just file an RfC, but Jesus clearly is already getting plenty of attention relative to its importance. However, keep in mind that this is a support-only vote; an "oppose" section won't be counted. -Silence 09:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were disputes back in February but now, not so much. If the article were still under dispute, I would not have nominated it for the AID. We are asking for additional attention with the goal of driving improvement of the article. After all, isn't driving improvement of an article the point of the Article Improvement Drive? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 10:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as I just said, we have to choose articles that receive insufficient attention, not ones that already get plenty of editing and improvement. Our objection has absolutely nothing to do with whether there are content disputes, it has to do with the fact that there are only 52 weeks in a year and there are waaaay too many articles that are even more important than Jesus, in much, much worse shape than Jesus, and receive infinitely less editorial attention than Jesus. So, while I don't object to its being nominated here, and may even contribute to the article a bit if it's AID is successful, I don't feel that it merits or requires AIDing at this point, even though I agree that it, like most articles, has a lot of deficiencies. -Silence 10:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are related articles that don't receive as much attention as the main Jesus article and may require more work. I may nominate them in the future, but I thought I'd start at the top. As for the non-related articles that need more attention, well, we can wait for our turn like all the other nominations in the queue. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 10:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't start at the top. Starting at the top would be starting with Christianity, the largest religion in the world and one of the most important ones in modern society, yet, unlike Bahá'í Faith and Hinduism (and formerly Buddhism), not a Featured Article (and receiving much less attention than Jesus regularly does). Heck, Christianity isn't even a "Good Article" yet, unlike the Judaism and Islam! That's an article I'd support, even though it too is a very heavily-visited article. -Silence 03:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone were to nominate Christianity, than I would vote for it. You'd have a point about starting at the top if I had nominated Christian views of Jesus. I didn't, though. I nominated Jesus. This article isn't just about Christianity. It's also about the historical views, the Muslim Isa, those Hindus who see Jesus as a guru or an incarnation of Vishnu, the new age A Course in Miracles program, &c, &c, &c and a variety of other perspectives. It isn't just about Christianity. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 12:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, the article isn't just about the Christian Jesus. But lets not be coy about this: obviously Jesus' main objective claim to fame is as the founder (of sorts) of Christianity. If someone nominated Gautama Buddha when Buddhism was in much worse shape and I pointed out that Buddhism might be a better place to start from, would the nominator be justified in pointing out that Siddhartha has had an enormous amount of influence outside of Buddhism, and that he also plays a role in other religions, such as Hinduism? Sort of, but it would be missing the point on a technicality of sorts; obviously you nominated Jesus primarily because of his importance to the largest religion in the world today, Christianity. Your own user page indicates that you are a devout Christian. So, let's be real here. :) -Silence 16:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Yes, I am a Christian (Lutheran, to be precise). However, I have not been involved in the Christianity article, and I wouldn't know where to begin to create a to do list for that article. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 17:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. In any case, though I don't think this is the best choice for AID, I'll at least concede that it's better than most nominees. Good luck with the article, whichever way it goes. -Silence 08:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a broad subject that a lot of participation from different editors is needed to make sure it is properly NPOV and balanced. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 22:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SOPHIA. In particular, we've done significant work on the "Life and Teachings" and "Religious views" sections (although we should check these for redundancies), but we haven't done as much for the historicity section. More attention has been paid to the second paragraph of the intro, which is meant to summarize the historicity section, than has been paid to the historicity section itself. Thus I'm driving to improve the historicity section of the article. We should also ask for additional attention to the overall balance of the article (some have said that it leans too far towards religious perspectives). I think that's appropriate for an AID drive. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 08:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the news of the Gospel of Judas coming out earlier this week, some attention should be devoted to alternate views of the life of Jesus. Perhaps some extra time should be spent on alternate gospels. Furthermore, a lot of literature has recently come out on historical interpretations of the life of Jesus. The book "The Dynasty of Jesus" is one such example that discusses possible explanations for why Jesus ate bread on Passover (it was the day beforehand), what the transformation of the early church did to Jesus' ideas, and an alternative view of historical documents on the virgin birth that point to a father named Partena. An interesting addition might also be the recent CNN article about the cold conditions that might have frosted over Galilee for Jesus to walk on ice instead of water, though it is not too convincing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I think the gospel of Judas would go in a "Gnostic views" section since, you know, im pretty sure they were the ones who wrote it (In addition to several other works, they really were churning out stuff fast to discredit Jesus to my knowladge), don't we already mention the gnostics? :/ Homestarmy 03:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnostic section, maybe also a mention in the historicity of the texts section. GOJ has been in the news, and people will be looking for it. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 12:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty Springfield (2 votes, stays until April 21)

Nominated April 14, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 21, 2006

Support

Comments

A noteworthy and highly respected performer, known in Europe, North America and the Southern Hemisphere, whose early death was now long enough ago to avoid eulogy. Parts of the current biography seem almost plagiarised: I think Wikipedians can do better. - Stevecov 17:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican League (1 vote, stays until April 21)

Nominated April 14, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 21, 2006

Support

Yadin twelve 21:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The entry is partly plagiarized and does not contain sufficient information regarding the topic. This topic is relevant not only for those interested in the culture of Mexico, but also for those interested in the history of professional baseball. Yadin twelve 21:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix (4 votes, stays until April 29)

Nominated April 15, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by April 29, 2006

Support

Comments

"In his brief four-year reign as a superstar, Jimi Hendrix expanded the vocabulary of the electric rock guitar more than anyone before or since." Hendrix is one of the most important and highly regarded musician of all time, and needs to have a featured article. RomeoVoid 07:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Army Knife (3 votes, stays until April 24)

Nominated April 17, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 24, 2006

Support

Comments

Come on! Who doesn't have one of these at home? ...okay, neither do I, but it's still an important topic. A solid article that needs only lengthening. -Litefantastic 23:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Olivier (2 votes, stays until April 25)

Nominated April 18, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 25, 2006

Support

Comments

Article about important figure in the entertainment industry, needs more information about life and times. Thefourdotelipsis 09:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingda Ka (1 vote, stays until April 26)

Nominated April 19, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 26, 2006

Support

Dusso Janladde 07:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's definitely Wikipedia's best article on a roller coaster, but it needs a lot of help to get it up to featured article standards. As it is, I've written most of the article (and taken all of the pictures) myself, and it would be great to get more people involved. Dusso Janladde 07:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Canadian Army Cadets (1 vote, stays until April 26)

Nominated April 19, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 26, 2006

Support

mad_cat_42 17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

As an Army Cadet myself, I was quite disappointed to see the article in the shape that it is now. The Army Cadet movement has had a positive impact on Canadian youth and on communities and the nation as a whole, whether or not it gets noticed. The organization deserves a featured article. mad_cat_42 17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North America (2 votes, stays until April 28)

Nominated April 21, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 28, 2006

Support

Comments

Shortest article of all the continents. Article consists of about 13 paragraphs on geography, a table of nations and other regions, and several pictures.
Further to that, IMO, all the continent articles should share a similar layout ... a la countries (Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global War On Terrorism (1 votes, stays until April 28)

Nominated April 21, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by April 28, 2006

Support

Harris0

Comments

@@ Line 1,315: / Line 1,315: @@
 * Further to that, IMO, ''all'' the continent articles should share a similar layout ... a la countries ([[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries]]). [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 04:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
+----
+===[[Global War On Terrorism]] (1 votes, stays until [[April 28]])===
+:''Nominated [[April 21]], [[2006]]; needs at least 4 votes by [[April 28]], [[2006]]''
+; Support:
+#[[User:Harris0|Harris0]]
+; Comments:
 ----

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