Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive

[[:|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.

Attention: as of March 6, nominees need 4 votes per week to stay on the list.

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 20:49, 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 votecount 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 March 19, 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

Ego, superego, and id (33 votes, stays until March 21)

Nominated December 27, 2005; needs at least 37 votes by March 21, 2006

Support

Removed 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]

Homer Simpson (32 votes, stays until March 25)

Nominated January 7, 2006; needs at least 33 votes by March 25, 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]
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]
Dan M 03:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Newguineafan 22:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Litefantastic 15:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 16:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvbnm 17:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ubern00b 22:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Natebw 02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ter e nc e Ong 09:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matatigre36 02:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is happy 01:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

Andrew Levine 17:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC) -- Striking my own vote.[reply]

Comments

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]
        Whereas only a small social cohort will follow this with looking him up in Wikipedia ;) I also assure you that people will stop talking about Homer long before they stop talking about the Cold War, while the latter was talked about even 20 years ago more than Homer ever was. BigBlueFish 21:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Could be. But in either case it'll probably just be a relatively small number of students and historians. Besides, this is an insight into social culture of our time. I could see a perspective on American anti-intellectualism from this. ;-) — RJH 15:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A valid topic - I know some people will disagree with me here, but I've always felt that the brilliance of the Wikipedia lies in the fact that everyone is an expert at something. I, personally, specialize in Tab and FLCL, for instance. Homer Simpson is good because it's a relatively uncomplicated subject with a great deal of social weight. Someone can be an expert on Homer after seeing about a dozen episodes of The Simpsons, and by that definition there must be an awful lot of experts floating around out there. Having HS be the AID for a week allows all of them the chance to work together and improve the article. -Litefantastic 15:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin America (29 votes, stays until March 31)

Nominated January 13, 2006; needs at least 30 votes by March 31, 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]
TwilaStar 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpacemanAfrica 21:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carabinieri 05:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Ehouk1 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PDXblazers 04:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BorgQueen 15:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Levine 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bertilvidet 12:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nigelquinine 16:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed votes

SpandX 17:05, 7 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 (33 votes, stays until April 1)

Nominated January 14, 2006; needs at least 35 votes by April 1, 2006

Support

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.
Top level country articles should be of best quality.

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest (25 votes, stays until March 20)

Nominated January 16, 2006; needs at least 27 votes by March 20, 2006

Support

Removed votes

SpandX 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 (28 votes, stays until March 29)

Nominated January 18, 2006; needs at least 31 votes by March 29, 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]
This personal attack is utterly unwarranted and particularly rude with respect to a newcommer. -User:Silence has to refresh the whole right-side column of WP:CIVILITY. mikka (t) 01:31, 13 March 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 (23 votes, stays until March 17)

Nominated January 20, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by March 17, 2006

Support

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]
Surprisingly short. Duran 21:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human Genome Project (27 votes, stays until April 1)

Nominated January 21, 2006; needs at least 31 votes by April 1, 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]

Terracotta Army (21 votes, stays until March 19)

Nominated January 22, 2006; needs at least 25 votes by March 19, 2006

Support

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 (16 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]

Domestic violence (15 votes, stays until March 16)

Nominated February 2, 2006; needs at least 19 votes by March 16, 2006

Support

Djbaniel 08:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--DanielCD 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Melaen 12:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Joe Decker 21:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dafydd 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpacemanAfrica 04:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Durova 17:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Levine 21:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vir 17:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Metta Bubble 14:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spawn Man 01:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Help! JoshuaArgent 05:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Durova 15:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC) ~~apologies, forgot that I had voted earlier~~~~[reply]

~~Bertilvidet 15:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~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]

This could be one of the very few Wikipedia articles that actually saves lives: a very important subject that deserves attention. Durova 06:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Denmark (23 votes, stays until March 26)~~
~~Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by April 2, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Caponer 02:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jhohenzollern 03:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skurrkrow 06:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality^talk 07:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TwilaStar 08:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul James Cowie 10:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rokafela 18:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJH 15:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gflores ^Talk 16:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiacc (¶ | ∞) 21:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lbbzman 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobird 03:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

youngamerican (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vir 17:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukobe 05:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrbitOne 20:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valentinian 09:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maitch 18:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ter e nc e Ong 09:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilianmandolin 02:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snailwalker | talk 14:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jdcooper 15:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Istvan 15:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Removed votes~~

~~SpandX 08:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~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]

~~History of Florence (13 votes, stays until March 12)~~
~~Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by March 12, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Paul James Cowie 11:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rokafela 18:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Un sogno modesto 19:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 20:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jhohenzollern 23:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JoJan 09:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TwilaStar 23:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juppiter 21:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melaen 02:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard 13:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ham 20:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilianmandolin 02:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jmh 14:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Removed votes~~

~~SpandX 16:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~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]

~~Tectonic plate (20 votes, stays until March 26)~~
~~Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 21 votes by March 26, 2006~~
~~Support~~

APower 03:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TestPilot 11:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gflores ^Talk 16:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samsara _contrib ^talk 20:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TachyonP 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous | Talk 01:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobird 18:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanAfrica 18:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DanielCD 03:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durova 17:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven 02:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silence 23:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newguineafan 22:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lbbzman 16:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tcie 15:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Revolución hablar ver 17:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJH 18:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[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.~~

~~Wall Street Crash of 1929 (12 votes, stays until March 17)~~
~~Nominated February 10, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by March 17, 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]

Paul James Cowie 09:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silence 08:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 16:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mkaycomputer 22:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Levine 22:50, 7 March 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]

~~Gautama Buddha (13 votes, stays until March 15)~~
~~Nominated February 8, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by March 15, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Imperialles 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar 12:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jasminek 08:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vir 17:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlasticMan 06:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't not vote for this one. Samsara _contrib ^talk 22:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaldari 06:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

youngamerican (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Revolución hablar ver 17:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashibaka tock 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deeptrivia (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~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]

~~Asian American (12 votes, stays until March 21)~~
~~Nominated February 14, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by March 21, 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)[reply]

—Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 16:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bakphp 21:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Wizard 01:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HongQiGong 10:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilianmandolin 02:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lethal 12:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Revolución hablar ver 17:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 04:39, 6 March 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]

More recognition is needed for Asian Americans, as they are often a marginalised group in the US. - HongQiGong 10:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

~~Peanuts (9 votes, stays until March 15)~~
~~Nominated February 15, 2006; needs at least 13 votes by March 15, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Lukobe 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobird 02:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous | Talk 02:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mkaycomputer 22:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PDXblazers 04:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toonmon2005 21:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HaM 18:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silence 11:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaArgent 05:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~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 (11 votes, stays until March 15)~~
~~Nominated February 15, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 15, 2006~~
~~Support~~

ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elijahmeeks 22:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davidpk212 09:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul James Cowie 06:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rappo 01:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samsara _contrib ^talk 00:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobird 03:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--naught101 10:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ace of Risk 19:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cohesion^t 03:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lightdarkness^(talk) 14:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~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]

needs some pictures, of founders, logos, concept diagrams, to interest people --naught101 10:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Carpal tunnel syndrome (8 votes, stays until March 17)~~
~~Nominated February 17, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 17, 2006~~
~~Support~~

DanielCD 00:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous | Talk 00:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lightdarkness^(talk) 02:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samsara _contrib ^talk 16:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WS 17:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MarcoTolo 04:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Un sogno modesto 06:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vir 01:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~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]~~
~~If we move this article over to Medicine collaboration of the Week, with the same number of votes, it wins instantly! - Samsara 13:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Ancient Egypt (13 votes, stays until March 24)~~
~~Nominated February 17, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by March 24, 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]
~~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]

~~Amazon Rainforest (22 votes, stays until April 15)~~
~~Nominated February 18, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by April 15, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Hahnchen 01:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobird 03:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juppiter 03:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous | Talk 03:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samsara _contrib ^talk 14:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lbbzman 17:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PDXblazers 05:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukobe 03:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deditos 10:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masterdriverz 14:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spawn Man 01:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Taylor

Caponer 05:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Carneiro Pires 12:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RexNL 17:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lightdarkness^(talk) 21:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Revolución hablar ver 17:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matatigre36 01:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jdcooper 03:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~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]

~~Insect (10 votes, stays until March 18)~~
~~Nominated February 18, 2006; needs at least 13 votes by March 18, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Samsara _contrib ^talk 19:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous | Talk 19:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobird 04:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silence 05:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

liquidGhoul 09:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BigBlueFish 16:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Pedro 13:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HaM 18:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PDXblazers 06:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~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]~~

~~2003 UB313 (13 votes, stays until March 25)~~
~~Nominated February 18, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by March 25, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Aerobird 04:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

shaggy 06:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk 07:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro 02:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DMurphy 06:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 16:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

siafu 18:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Revolución hablar ver 16:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashibaka tock 01:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vir 19:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tom 16:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~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]
It's not the actual name, it's the temporary name until the IAU approves a permanent name. -DMurphy 23:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. I've finnished the Portuguese version, which is very different from this one. --Pedro 19:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article, certainly a topic that deserves to be a FA. -DMurphy 06:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rome (24 votes, stays until April 23)~~
~~Nominated February 19, 2006; needs at least 28 votes by April 23, 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]

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]
~~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]

~~Monsoon (7 votes, stays until March 15)~~
~~Nominated February 22, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 15, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Deditos 11:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous | Talk 20:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lightdarkness^(talk) 21:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobird 04:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cohesion★talk 05:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Currently an empty and confused article, factual errors, North American bias. This is a general and relatively uncontroverisal meteorological topic that affects many people in the world, so with a bit of work could be a very useful reference. (Deditos 11:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

~~Neolithic religion (12 votes, stays until March 22)~~
~~Nominated February 22, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by March 22, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Satanael^talkSatanael 20:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silence 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zserghei 10:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Ghelae^talk_contribs 07:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 16:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cohesion★talk 05:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Revolución hablar ver 03:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Knowledge Seeker দ 05:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jdcooper 02:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vir 19:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

youngamerican (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Re-nomination, this was removed because of too few votes not long ago, however as I feel this is too interesting a subject to be left behind, I want to contribute in any way I can to see to it that this article improves, especially since it constitutes, what I can see, a subject that is difficult to find information about unless one is working specifically on it. Satanael 20:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great candidate! Even more expansive than Proto-Indo-European religion. -Silence 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting topic. --Zserghei 10:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you guys, nice to know that somebody likes my work enough to nominate it for improvement. - Ghelae^talk_contribs 07:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating article! I know next to nothing on this topic, but I consider it quite important, and certainly worthy of the attention of the AID to help improve it even more. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I would like to see a lot more information about this topic, it is very interesting but pretty sparse.. Jdcooper 02:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement would seem to require starting from scratch, if not refocussing the article altogether, per my comments on its talk page.--cjllw | TALK 08:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Meiji Restoration (6 votes, stays until March 16)~~
~~Nominated February 23, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 16, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Juppiter 05:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silence 08:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Levine 03:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moonstone 01:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LordAmeth 06:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jdcooper 12:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Arguably the most event in shaping modern Japan. Can easily be brought to Featured Article Status

Great find. -Silence 09:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I haven't actually read the article yet, so I'm not positive on what is and is not included. Nevertheless, this is a subject that could easily have entire books written on it. Causes, effects, the details of the lead-up and the event itself. Discussion of the issue of whether or not the Emperor was really "restored" to power, being that the Diet or something very much equivalent was established, on a Prussian model of constitutional monarchy and not an absolute monarchic system as had existed centuries before. A discussion of the economic and cultural effects, which by themselves could easily be pages and pages - this is one of the most important and powerful events in shaping modern Japan. Also, we need to discuss the samurai class, and I suppose the class system as a whole which was abolished at this time. The samurai lost a lot of honor and face as well as power and status; but it is important to remember that those fighting on both sides, for and against the Restoration, were samurai. This was not a peasant uprising or a commoner revolution. And that is, in some respects, perhaps one of the most surprising and important elements of this event. Anyway, I think it's great what we have - but a lot more can be done. LordAmeth 06:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Gender (7 votes, stays until March 16)~~
~~Nominated February 23, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 16, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Samsara _contrib ^talk 22:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catamorphism 22:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous | Talk 23:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quixote go 19:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaldari 06:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fix it. Now. JoshuaArgent 05:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vir 19:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

We recently had male and female win on Wikipedia:Collaboration of the Week, but it seems this topic still needs further attention. It is a core topic for Wikipedia 1.0, but this article is in dire need of extensive cleanup and expansion. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 22:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wow, this article needs a lot of improvement, and it's such an important one. Quixote go 19:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~War (7 votes, stays until March 16)~~
~~Nominated February 23, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 16, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Silence 00:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RomeoVoid 04:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lbbzman 14:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJH 19:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durova 06:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Can you imagine how sexy it would be to have a Featured Article on this? We should at least have a good one, though; the current article, one of Wikipedia's (and any encyclopedia's) most basic and essential, needs a lot of expansion and clarification. -Silence 00:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It would be very, very difficult to get a NPOV article on this subject, with the 'war is evil, bad, evil, wrong, evil, immoral, and did I mention evil?' attitude too many people have these days. - Aerobird 01:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we need an AID to bring it up to par; thanks for helping support this nomination with that extra reason to AID it! Many individual editors will surely warp various bits of the article to match their own POV (even if by accident rather than deliberately), but we can hold the article to a consistent standard if we all work together in an organized, focused effort, rather than letting the thing wrack up inconsistencies and POV problems over a long course of time. And that's the perfect task for AID to tackle: NPOVing and expanding a controversial article like this! Then, once it's up to par, all that's left is maintenance, which is no harder (or less necessary) for this article than for any other major topic.

A similar line of logic, incidentally, was used for the Cold War article (people argued that it shouldn't be on AID because it would be "too hard" to make it better, operating under the rather strange assumption that most of the attention AID brings will be destructive rather than constructive and will worsen rather than improve POV problems, which I don't see any evidence for; assume good faith, guys). But considering that Cold War is currently this week's AID, obviously people won't be suckered into thinking that just because something's hard (as you said, "very, very difficult"), it shouldn't be even attempted; if anything, the opposite is true, and we need AID for tough, controversial jobs much more than for easy, safe ones! :) -Silence 07:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is exactly the sort of basic encyclopedic article that belongs in every encyclopedia. Durova 06:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~History of Iran (9 votes, stays until March 24)~~
~~Nominated February 24, 2006; needs at least 13 votes by March 24, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Amir85 18:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Un sogno modesto 06:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Zereshk 20:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiacc (?) 16:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaldari 06:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Revolución hablar ver 03:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Kash 10:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Zereshk 21:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SouthernComfort 15:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Persia (Iran) was one of the most influential civilizations in the ancient world. Right now, article quite brief and its not written well. It takes more than a person to improve. It requires a coordinated group work. Amir85 04:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with the previous statement. Very important topic, considering the massive amounts of attention surrounding it. Un sogno modesto 06:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran has already been nominated for AID. Vote for it instead; if it's successful, it will be easy to work on the history section and daughter article at the same time the rest of the page is improved. -Silence 09:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Kemal Ataturk (9 votes, stays until March 26)~~
~~Nominated February 26, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 26, 2006~~
~~Support~~

--Ugur Basak 01:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobird 16:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duran 20:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hippalus 14:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

siafu 15:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bertilvidet 09:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macukali14:17, 6 March 2006

Vir 01:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Kagan the Barbarian 10:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

This article is important because, he has a great role for the Turkish nation's birth. This article is already a featured article in Greek, Esperanto and Portuguese wikis. Deserves to be a featured article. Needs to be expanded. --Ugur Basak 01:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the nomination to Kemal Ataturk because my babybot can't cope with unicode yet... --Dijxtra 22:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Dale Earnhardt (4 votes, stays until March 12)~~
~~Nominated February 26, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 12, 2006~~
~~Support~~

--Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobird 15:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--RA64 17:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cooleyez229 09:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Horrible article on one of the most popular American athletes and clearly the most legendary NASCAR driver of all time, filled with likely copyvios and some horrible writing and lack of images. The Earnhardt article needs much more respect than this. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never again insult athletes by trying to call a NASCAR driver an athlete. And driving a car around in circles isn't a sport. It takes talent, yes, but it certainly isn't a sport. PDXblazers 07:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the fact that this comment is ridiculously out of place and completely irrelevant, most would argue that a sport is a competition involving a physical skill. This includes activities such as auto racing and billiards. Yes, some sports are more demanding then others, but to believe that considering a NASCAR racer an athlete is an insult to other athletes is absolutely ludicrous. On top of that, NASCAR racing is actually a relatively physically demanding sport, as races are often non-stop, 3-4 hours long. Should I argue that baseball is not a sport and baseball players are an insult to other athletes because they just stand around for 90% of the time? --RA64 06:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Olympic committee, chess is a sport, so you're picking the wrong battle here, my friend. And the wrong place. This is for discussing the article's merits as an AID candidate, not arguing over semantical trivialities. -Silence 07:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support upgrading this article, on THE most recognised race-car driver on the planet, and one of the most recognised atheletes in the world. - Aerobird 15:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the world or in the United States? I have heard of a lot of athletes, and am interested in a wide range of sports, but I have never even heard of this person. Compared to the vast majority of articles nominated here, this guy is utterly non-notable. Rome? Iran? Oppose Jdcooper 02:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of Kemal Atatürk, does that mean he's non-notable too? This guy is probably in the top 5 of best known racecar drivers in the United States. That should be notable enough. Would you consider Jim Clark non-notable? I wouldn't.--RA64 06:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, because one look at the Kemal Ataturk article and it is clearly obvious that he is very notable. The fact that this guy is only in the top 5 best known racing drivers, and most importantly, only in the United States implies to me that this article shouldn't waste the time of such a valuable WP resource as AID. I would consider Jim Clark non-notable as well, when compared to Rome and Iran. Its a case of priorities. Jdcooper 16:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your logic about priorities. But your criteria for notability seems very subjective. “one look at the Kemal Ataturk article and it is clearly obvious that he is very notable”?? Sorry, that’s a pretty weak argument. The six million google hits for dale earnhardt is enough notable to me. Right now people that view the dale earnhardt article (which is listed in the top 10 google results) will be treated to a cluttered mess of fan propaganda. This is IMO, unacceptable and an embarrassment for wikipedia if a guy as notable as Dale Earnhardt has such a poorly written article! BTW, are you going to vote oppose for John McLaughlin too?--RA64 22:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to, since that article only has one vote, and I can't see it staying for too many weeks. Re: Kemal Ataturk, he is notable for a person, and as an important statesman in 20th century history a case could be made to put him at AID, but I havn't voted support for him either, because even that article isn't as important to improve as those such as Rome. Compared to a racing driver who is only marginally known outside of America, someone such as Ataturk who has had a great effect on the make-up of a very important country like Turkey is very notable. Re: Google, the same could be said of thousands and thousands of articles, wikipedia ranks highly for many searches on google, and many of our articles aren't fantastic. Eventually we will doubtlessly get around to improving all of them, but for now it is important to sort out the most important stuff. Still, it doesn't particularly matter what I say, if this article gets enough votes, then it gets to be improved, and good luck to it! Jdcooper 15:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My Apologies as this certainly wasn't the best place for me to launch into my tirade about auto racing. However, while the late Dale Earnhardt is indeed popular, I would rather see articles such as Amazon Rainforest, Rome, and Recycling, topics that researchers are going to come to a general use encyclopedia for, improved to good quality before we put a lot of worry into (Gulp) it kills me to say this, athletes.
Considering that the structure of the article is pretty loose, I think this could use a good clean-up. I just haven't had time to assist in it. Hopefully I will soon. --Cooleyez229 10:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Recycling (10 votes, stays until March 26)~~
~~Nominated February 26, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 26, 2006~~
~~Support~~

PDXblazers 07:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silence 07:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobird 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous | Talk 16:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ter e nc e Ong 10:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurdygurdyman1234 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DanielCD 16:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Revolución hablar ver 03:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matatigre36 02:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[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]

~~Chinese mythology (9 votes, stays until March 20)~~
~~Nominated February 27, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 20, 2006~~
~~Support~~

jacoplane 23:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lux 02:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Qi Gong 16:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moonstone 01:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Revolución hablar ver 03:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jdcooper 19:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BlueShirts 10:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven 22:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

~~The article is mainly a list. There is an aweful lot of work that can be done here. jacoplane 23:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Singapore (5 votes, stays until March 13)~~
~~Nominated February 27, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 13, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Ter e nc e Ong 10:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 14:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Qi Gong 16:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mkaycomputer 01:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Un sogno modesto 04:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

~~Needs a lot of cleanup, though long and informative.~~

~~Sacred Heart Convent School (Jamshedpur) (4 votes, stays until March 13)~~
~~Nominated February 27, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 13, 2006~~
~~Support~~

(A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 13:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Victoria Eleanor 14:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 05:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJH 19:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

I think the article could be much better.

Oppose Not worth it, looks like another normal school article that needs cleanup to me --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. All articles could be much better. No rationale for AIDing provided. -Silence 10:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Many more important articles than this. I do not see any significance in this school. Duran 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the reasons above Lukobe 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It looks fine. I don't think it needs our help--SpacemanAfrica 02:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close to FA status. Just needs a little tuning. — RJH 19:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Wikipedia has people who vote "keep" for every kindergarten on the planet. Let them improve it. Durova 06:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Berlin Blockade (6 votes, stays until March 21)~~
~~Nominated February 28, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by March 21, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Paul James Cowie 04:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobird 01:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 05:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duran 21:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hippalus 14:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff 14:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

~~The first major crisis of the Cold War - the efforts and sacrifices of those involved deserve a much better article than this current coverage. Paul James Cowie 06:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Senate (4 votes, stays until March 14)~~
~~Nominated February 28, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 14, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Paul James Cowie 06:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

youngamerican (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 17:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanAfrica 02:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Extremely vague, disorganised treatment of Senate as a political concept.... More attention needed to background history and to the nature of various Senates around the world. Paul James Cowie 06:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Civilian Conservation Corps (4 votes, stays until March 14)~~
~~Nominated February 28, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 14, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Juppiter 07:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 14:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

youngamerican (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 05:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

~~Something that was in all parts of the country. The CCC's effect on our surroundings is still apparent today. Juppiter 07:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Internet (8 votes, stays until March 29)~~
~~Nominated March 1, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 29, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Duran 21:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BorgQueen 15:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jdcooper 16:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lbbzman 22:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanAfrica 18:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vir 02:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

~~Not as good as I would like it to be. For an article as important as this, it should at least not have stub articles in it. Duran 21:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Food (7 votes, stays until March 23)~~
~~Nominated March 2, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 23, 2006~~
~~Support~~

--Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PDXblazers 04:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gflores ^Talk 16:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silence 11:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ike9898 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

A horrible article on a basic enclypedia article, the first sentence of the article is completely wrong with Food is any substance that can be consumed, so sand can be cosumed is what that line says, and most of the article is lists and non-referenced. This needs some big-time help --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such a terrible article. Meat is the current COTW, and I think that this is even more important. Surely this could be made better. PDXblazers 04:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What they said. Gflores ^Talk 16:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Republic of Macedonia (9 votes, stays until March 23)~~
~~Nominated March 2, 2006; needs at least 11 votes by March 23, 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]
~~Comments~~

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]

~~Catapult (7 votes, stays until March 24)~~
~~Nominated March 3, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 24, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Spawn Man 04:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe I 05:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LordAmeth 06:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanAfrica 04:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durova 02:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven 22:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

For such an interesting & important subject (cliché, I know...) this article should have more to it. There's only one picture, & the information about it is lacking significantly. I hope it gets through, as many wars & many people have been squashed by a catapult... Spawn Man 04:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur completely with SpawnMan here. There's so much that could be said about catapults, given the proper resources. We could have diagrams of their design, and a discussion of the physics involved. The section on Chinese siege warfare is horrific, not that I blame anyone in particular; if I had the resources, which I do not, I would add it myself. LordAmeth 06:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~History of technology (6 votes, stays until March 17)~~
~~Nominated March 3, 2006; needs at least 7 votes by March 17, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Gflores ^Talk 06:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ragesoss 23:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silence 11:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metamagician3000 01:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven 22:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Very stubby, yet there's so much history! Gflores ^Talk 06:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across this article in the past and been amazed by the unexplored potential of it. Most of its daughter articles, like Ancient Roman technology, are in much better shape than this article. Could be a superb FA. -Silence 11:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially important article which is currently very messy and needs a lot of help. Metamagician3000 01:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Dog (9 votes, stays until March 25)~~
~~Nominated March 4, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 25, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Spawn Man 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous | Talk 23:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Un sogno modesto 19:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PDXblazers 06:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duran 20:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lightdarkness^(talk) 13:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Most of the article consists of one paragraph sections & photos of people's own pets, most of which are dark & shabby or out of focus. Compared to Cat, this article sucks. All you so called "dog lovers" should not want the cat to get all the glory? Surely cats & dogs should be equal. Well I think so too... Spawn Man 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spawn Man is right about the photos; there is the potential for wonderful pictures adding to the text, but what is there isn't very good. Joyous | Talk 23:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dog lovers everywhere unite!! Make Dog a featured article! PDXblazers 06:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Bird (7 votes, stays until March 25)~~
~~Nominated March 4, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 25, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Spawn Man 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobird 17:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous | Talk 18:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RexNL 21:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metta Bubble 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—Eternal Equinox | talk 14:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Very close to becoming a "Featured Article". It is already classified as a "Good Article", so I feel that with a final push that AID can give, the article could easily make it to the main page. All the starters are there it just needs some... pruning. Get it? Birds, pruning... Never mind... Spawn Man 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll place my nest here! :-) —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rapid transit (5 vote, stays until March 18)~~
~~Nominated March 4, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by March 18, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Foxmulder 03:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Revolución hablar ver 03:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty2005 10:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven 22:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Un sogno modesto 23:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

It's an interesting subject, and certainly worth having a good article. The current one is good, but kind of choppy. It's very clear where one user's contribution ends and another's begins. Also, everyone seems to want to get in a mention of his or her home city's transit system. With a little work, I think this could become a featured article. Foxmulder 03:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important subject. --Revolución hablar ver 03:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Fidel Castro (8 votes, stays until March 25)~~
~~Nominated March 4, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 25, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Llamadog903 17:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 17:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jdcooper 03:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tom 23:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelW 10:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul James Cowie 10:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

I would like to raise this article up to featured article status, but I think it still needs some work.Llamadog903 17:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most powerful and well-known leaders of the Americas deserves an article worthy of featured article status, and this one is definitely close to reaching that level. --Caponer 03:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Some work' is an understatement - it needs a whole hod before it will be close to featured article status, but Caponer is right - the subject deserves it. Question is who will be recognised as sufficiently impartial to judge the balance of viewpoints.MichaelW 10:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Howard Hughes (4 votes, stays until March 26)~~
~~Nominated March 5, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 26, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Jeff 06:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wackymacs 09:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 00:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vir 01:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

I came accross this article and saw that in the recent past it was a nominated to be a featured article but failed. The article is great, but it doesn't meet FA standards.. It would be great to see this article, about such an interesting person as Hughes, become a featured article. The article itself is quite good, but it's missing the annotation and footnotes that are expected these days. --Jeff 06:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hamas (9 votes, stays until March 26)~~
~~Nominated March 5, 2006; needs at least 10 votes by March 26, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Bertilvidet 09:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mkaycomputer 16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hooperbloob 03:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous | Talk 00:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AladdinSE 14:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq

Silence 18:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul James Cowie 11:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006, and is thus a very important factor in contemporary Middle Eastern politics, which deserves a clear, comprehensive and balanced article on Wikipedia. Unfortunately the current article is not very well-written, and is caracterized by being written by a few people who had too many edit fights. I believe this article can become much more clear with some people coming fresh to the problem. Bertilvidet 09:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think it would be interesting to weigh the justifications of this organization's existence...Mkaycomputer 16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~No, I disagree. Wikipedia is not a place for moral judgments or for estimating "justifications". Tazmaniacs 17:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
Hamas have invested a lot in a PR makeover [2] and surly they need it in Wikipedia as well. It is just that reality changes faster than Wikipedia edits. At list the history remain the same. Zeq 15:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Corpus Juris Civilis (2 votes, stays until March 13)~~
~~Nominated March 6, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 13, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Caponer 05:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silence 11:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

I was surprised to find when randomly looking up the article on the Justinian Code (AKA Corpus Juris Civilis) that it's article was nothing but a mere glorified stub! The Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law) served as the basis of the revival of Roman law in the Middle Ages, so it most definitely merits more than the honorable mention it receives in its Wikipedia article. The Byzantine Empire is a featured article, so it is only fitting that its codes and laws, as important as they are, be featured as well! I realize that the list of nominations on this page are getting longer and longer but I just had to include this one! ;) --Caponer 05:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Myotragus balearicus (1 vote, stays until March 13)~~
~~Nominated March 6, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 13, 2006~~
~~Support~~

~~--Francisco Valverde 15:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Comments~~

It needs to be rewritten in correct English. The article is interesting for all the paleotologists and zoologists out there. --Francisco Valverde 15:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "correct English"? --Lukobe 19:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Bangladesh (2 vote, stays until March 13)~~
~~Nominated March 6, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 13, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Ragib 19:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heartofgoldfish 21:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Bangladesh is a nation of 150 million people, in one of the most densely populated regions of the world. It is the 7th most populous country in the world. Often ravaged by floods and cyclones, Bangladesh is a secular democracy, achieved via years of struggle. The article needs a lot of improvement to get up to FA status. Thanks. --Ragib 19:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Michelangelo (7 votes, stays until March 20)~~
~~Nominated March 6, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 20, 2006~~
~~Support~~

HaM 19:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 05:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty2005 21:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silence 22:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metta Bubble 00:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaArgent 04:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Where do I begin? The opening section is an embarrassment and what follows is horribly uneven. The commission for Pope Julius II's tomb is only mentioned in passing, for instance – that's over 30 years of Michelangelo's life brushed over! This needs all the attention it can get. HaM 19:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could do with some copyediting for consistency also. Metta Bubble 00:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Linux (5 votes, stays until March 20)~~
~~Nominated March 6, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 20, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Dijxtra 22:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metta Bubble 00:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A rundhati Bakshi 13:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vir 01:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is happy 00:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Reason? Windows XP is featured :-)))) No, seriously, this one is failed featured article candidate, therefore we have list of things which should be done to improve it. This one should be very easy to lift to featured status, and article about one of 2 major operating systems today deservs it... --Dijxtra 22:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm opposing, but if it's very easy and so close to becoming featured, why do many editors have to work over a week to bring it to FA status? I think all the article really needs is a *few* expirenced editors to correct the problems raised in the failed FA nom. --lightdarkness^(talk) 15:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. You have a point. I'll try to improve it and will remove the nomination when it reaches the FA status. --Dijxtra 16:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll toss in my knowledge and try to improve where the FA nom failed. --lightdarkness^(talk) 14:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it is a good candidate for Wikipedia:Join in --liquidGhoul 11:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~National emblem of Belarus (5 votes, stays until March 20)~~
~~Nominated March 6, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 20, 2006~~
~~Support~~

User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 01:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mikka (t) 01:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 05:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Irpen --19:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Vote by User:Irpen at [3]. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—Eternal Equinox | talk 14:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

This article was nominated by me for WP:FAC, but Wikipedian User:Mikkalai asked for the article to be placed here for any improvement, such as possible POV removal, source issues, grammar issues and perhaps get more eyeballs on this article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 01:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is a really good article and has the potential to be promoted to WP:FAC. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~The Name of the Rose (2 votes, stays until March 15)~~
~~Nominated March 8, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 15, 2006~~
~~Support~~

BorgQueen 23:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—Eternal Equinox | talk 02:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

An encyclopedic work of Umberto Eco. Given its complexity and scope certainly more stuff can be added. In my native country this book was a huge bestseller and is still selling, and I've seen plenty of articles written about the book. The film adaptation - starring Sean Connery - wasn't very well liked if I remember correctly, nevertheless the book remains a true classic of all time. --BorgQueen 23:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Mathematics (13 votes, stays until April 7)~~
~~Nominated March 9, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by April 7, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Durova 15:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tom 23:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mkaycomputer 23:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vir 01:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RexNL 18:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silence 18:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PDXblazers 00:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skinnyweed 00:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven 22:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Un sogno modesto 23:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hgilbert 01:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:35, 13 March 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]

~~Japan (4 votes, stays until March 23)~~
~~Nominated March 9, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 23, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Mkaycomputer 23:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 01:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Basak 00:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Un sogno modesto 23:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

~~Good article, but could use a little bit of work and referencing to make an excellent article out of a country with very interesting history and culture.~~

~~Care Bears (2 vote, stays until March 17)~~
~~Nominated March 10, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 17, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Slgrandson 03:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BlueShirts 10:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

After Avriette recommended I improve this main article to featured status instead of A New Generation, I have just started to work on it, and so we need more than just a few Wikipedians for this effort: Care Bear fans and collectors from all walks of life are welcome too!
However, please note that vandals abuse the page from time to time. So we'll see how this works out.
What needs filling in is information on fan clubs, events, and collectors. Also, we need more references and formatting.
When this is over, surely it will be Wikipedia's first FA on a toy line? Wish me luck, Bears and Cousins! And, Cheer Bear, give me a sweet kiss if I succeed! --Slgrandson 03:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comparison of bitmap graphics editors (1 vote, stays until March 17)~~
~~Nominated March 10, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 17, 2006~~
~~Support~~

~~--Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 04:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Comments~~

~~Important, useful article in dire need of expansion.--Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 04:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Nazi Mysticism (5 votes, stays until March 26)~~
~~Nominated March 12, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by March 26, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Hgilbert 01:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juppiter 06:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jacoplane 16:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer 19:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silence 20:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

~~Unbelievable hash of fictional imagination (Nazis had or have a space station on the Moon and interbred with aliens) with historical fact (occult connections of Nazi leaders).~~
~~Hgilbert 01:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
Horrible as the movement was, it was fascinating, particularly this aspect. Yes! Juppiter 06:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's a very interesting angle that has not been explored in depth. --Caponer 19:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Carnivorous plant (2 votes, stays until March 18)~~
~~Nominated March 11, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 18, 2006~~
~~Support~~

Litefantastic 01:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BorgQueen 08:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

Stumbled across this in my travels. It's actually in striking distance of greatness, with a nice long body of text flanked on all sides by snappy pictures. -Litefantastic 01:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Kurdish language (3 vote, stays until March 18)~~
~~Nominated March 11, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 18, 2006~~
~~Support~~

--Revolución hablar ver 03:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tom 20:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bertilvidet 22:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~

~~Article desperately need of some kind of organization. Too many comparison tables. --Revolución hablar ver 03:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Jimi Hendrix (1 vote, stays until March 18)~~
~~Nominated March 11, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 18, 2006~~
~~Support~~

~~RomeoVoid 02:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Comments~~

Needs inline citations and proofreading ("its" vs. "it's," "had accepted to promote," etc.). Lots of sentences are poorly written, e.g., "She later noticed his face on a record store album cover and began courting him during his Stockholm concerts (January 1968 and January 1969), leaving him love notes and flowers backstage, which Jimi would oblige by taking her along with him on his post-concert social engagements, the latter of which ended in an overnight stay at the Hotel Carlton." In terms of content and depth, this is very close to being an FA, and people have obviously worked very hard on it, but it needs more work. RomeoVoid 02:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Brazil (1 vote, stays until March 20)~~
~~Nominated March 13, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 20, 2006~~
~~Support~~

~~PDXblazers 06:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Comments~~

Brazil is the largest and arguably most important in South America. This article is pretty close to FA, the biggest issue being lack of references and citations. It appears that most of the references have been placed as "exteral links," but many of these are in Portugese and Spanish. An AID could make this article FA. It is already listed as a Good Article, lets push it over the top!! PDXblazers 06:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (1 vote, stays until March 20)~~
~~Nominated March 13, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by March 20, 2006~~
~~Support~~

~~Harris0 22:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Comments~~

~~Important organization in both the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam anti-war movement. Deserves better.~~

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