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.

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 with at least one contribution that is not a vote. Any and all articles may be nominated except:

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

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

{{User AID}} unfolds to

This user participated in the Article Creation and Improvement Drive.

How to nominate

Here is template for nominations:

===[[ARTICLE]] (1 vote, stays until [[DATE ONE WEEK LATER]])===
:''Nominated [[MONTH DAY]], [[YEAR]]; needs at least 4 votes by [[DATE ONE WEEK LATER]], [[YEAR]]''

; Support:
# (sign with four tildes)

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

----

Copy and paste the template to the bottom of the list of nominations on this page and fill it out. It is important to use UTC time; the current time and date now is 21:01, 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 both {{AIDnom}} and {{to do}} on the top of the article's talk page.

How to vote

Sign with "# ~~~~" on the end of the list of the article you want to vote for and then update the vote count in the subhead. Opposing votes are not counted; see approval voting. You can vote for as many articles as you like. If the vote count equaled the "needs at least xx votes by", then add 4 to "needs at least xx votes" and add a week to date in vote count and "needs at least xx votes by" notice.

Example. You encounter this situation and decide to vote:

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

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

===[[History of the world]] (24 votes, stays until [[February 14]], [[2006]])===
:''Nominated [[December 8]], [[2005]]; needs at least 28 votes by [[February 14]], [[2006]]''

How the article is elected

Article with most votes on each Sunday in 00:00 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 May 14, 2006. 00:00 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

Tectonic plate (47 votes, stays until May 14)

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 48 votes by May 14, 2006

Support

Removed Votes

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

Comments

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

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

This should be an easy fix, once you get a bunch of people looking at it. J. Finkelstein 20:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plate tectonics is already a featured article. Perhaps tectonic plate should simply be merged into (and redirect to) plate tectonics. -Scottwiki 01:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support such a merge. The two subjects are too closely-linked, and the number of votes here demonstrates very well how many people this subtle distinction can mislead into thinking that there's no comprehensive article on the subject. However, I do not strongly support the merge, because if this article was expanded another page or two it would be a worthy daughter article of plate tectonics. Until then, though, it is kind of stubesque. -Silence 04:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it should be merged with plate tectonics for the simple reason that the plates can be better explained in their own article rather than as a section of another(the current article is already a little long to merge). BioTube 20:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tectonic movement is a fascinating and large subject, it would be easy to enlarge wiki's tiny article on them into a full feature. Skaterblo 14:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned just above, it already is. Plate tectonics is a featured article.
Currently, there are two deadlines listed for this article: April 30 and May 7. Which is correct? -Scottwiki 06:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the merge proposal. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 02:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egypt (46 votes, stays until May 19)

Nominated February 17, 2006; needs at least 48 votes by May 19, 2006

Support

Paul James Cowie 07:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lukobe 08:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steven 23:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Pedro 13:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spawn Man 01:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mido 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hippalus 14:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
siafu 15:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Revolución hablar ver 17:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mkaycomputer 16:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vir 19:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugur Basak 00:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jazriel 12:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phileas 05:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PDXblazers 06:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sicilianmandolin 14:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Passdoubt | Talk 08:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Psiphim6 13:59, 27 March 2006
User:Nicholassayshi 14:44, 29 March 2006
Iggle
Gflor e s^Talk 22:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Underneath-it-All 15:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lakinekaki 18:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Jklin 02:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Silence 04:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Connection 23:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Tom 13:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Argon233 ^T C U _{_@ ¶ ∠} 22:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RexNL 12:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SunDog 17:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forthright 13:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 14:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--HolyRomanEmperor 15:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew m plamondon 02:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tutmøsis · (Msg Me) 18:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ante Perkovic 05:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thefourdotelipsis 08:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francisco Valverde 17:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
chemica 03:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Snailwalker | talk 19:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hemmingsen 06:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AndyZ _t 13:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, havin this article improved would be nice. --Ton e 23:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed votes

I've removed an anon vote by 69.120.246.50 --Mido 06:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
M.Karpov 19:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 22:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Felixboy 18:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

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

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

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

Recycling (41 votes, stays until May 21)

Nominated February 26, 2006; needs at least 44 votes by May 21, 2006

Support

Removed votes

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

Comments

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

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

Mathematics (52 votes, stays until June 15)

Nominated March 9, 2006; needs at least 56 votes by June 15, 2006

Support

Removed votes

Removed anon vote by 24.20.158.96 - Jazriel 08:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
150.250.84.214 18:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
150.250.43.239 22:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

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

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

Strongly suggest any intended improvements to Mathematics are first proposed on its talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. There is a historical controversy behind just about every sentence of this article, and large parts of the article are fragile compromise statements which have emerged out of long discussion. Gandalf61 10:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I second this comment. --Salix alba (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I second it also. Further, the reasons for nominating this article for AID no longer apply: it no longer suffers has many single sentence paragraphs, the introduction has been improved, and there are more citations. In fact, I think it shoudl be nominated for a featured article. Tompw 20:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, most of the later sections consist completely of a single sentence and a picture. Additionally, it is more aestetically pleasing to include pictures scattered throughout the article. Foxjwill 02:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So nominate it. However, the biggest thing keeping this from FA status is that there is only one reference and no inline citations. 67.171.247.182 05:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italy (30 votes, stays until May 10)

Nominated March 15, 2006; needs at least 32 votes by May 10, 2006

Support

Sicilianmandolin 11:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PDXblazers 03:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 23:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Un sogno modesto 01:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Salvo (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scottwiki 02:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Rory096 02:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gennaro Prota 00:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rikimaru 12:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 03:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CloudNine 13:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GhePeU 11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maurreen 08:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiragazzo 02:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Note: Editor's only contributions are to vote and comment here.[reply]
Cvene64 08:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tatonzolo 10:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
iceman 13:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chol X 03:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JR98664 03:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neoneo13 21:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JosephRJustice 21:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JustUser 22:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
badpazzword 20:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--SγωΩηΣ ^tαlk 18:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General Eisenhower 00:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pippotro 15:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HAM File:Icons-flag-wales.png 22:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Manwe 12:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matterbug 03:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed votes

Comments

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

Lewis and Clark Expedition (29 votes, stays until May 13)

Nominated March 18, 2006; needs at least 32 votes by May 13, 2006

Support

--Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is pathetic, we should be much better than this. --Rory096 01:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that needs help, badly -- Tawker 04:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does need work done to it. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 04:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the list of expedition members, and I've since kept an eye on this one for vandalism for a long time, but never had the oomph to really tackle it as it should be tackled; I'd definitely help in a community effort. — Catherine\^talk 04:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. This is an article that is of high importance, so it should be of high quality. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Truly in terrible shape. PDXblazers 03:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 19:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lightdarkness^(talk) 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*drew 15:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joyous | Talk 00:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sarge Baldy 01:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ClarkBHM 02:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is really not so great. User:Trevdawg
RomeoVoid 22:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 14:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--G Clark | Talk 16:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC) (no relation)[reply]
JosephRJustice 21:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gracielita 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. Where to begin... ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 21:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vint 03:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Big support 216.226.127.190 14:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--JorgeBeach 19:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alvin6226 03:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--π ᎠᏢ462090λ ^E=mc² 21:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lovemetendernow 03:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pruneau 16:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

Cuban Missile Crisis (27 votes, stays until May 9)

Nominated March 21, 2006; needs at least 28 votes by May 9, 2006

Support

Removed Votes

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

Epic of Gilgamesh (29 votes, stays until May 22)

Nominated March 27, 2006; needs at least 32 votes by May 22, 2006

Support

Removed Votes

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

Comments

The oldest surviving story in existence, a work of epic poetry nearly unparalleled in importance and influence in human history, and its article is barely more than a stub?! (And the article on its central character, Gilgamesh, is in even worse shape.) Compare this to the much, much more expansive articles on similarly important works like Iliad, The Book of One Thousand and One Nights, and Bible; it's embarrassing and a disservice to Wikipedia readers. So much work can, and needs, be done. -Silence 21:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to echo these sentiments and observations.... Andrew George's latest, definitive edition of Gilgamesh did not even appear in the Further Reading! (I plan to rectify this!) Paul James Cowie 13:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although not bad, the article should be better: immmortality is not so easily written off. Mir Harven 12:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is official. It is one. It has 28 votes. General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English language (21 votes, stays until May 11)

Nominated March 30, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by May 11, 2006

Support

BorgQueen 01:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tarret 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Silence 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lukobe 01:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 05:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CloudNine 17:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
darkliight^talk 00:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CG 05:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Khoikhoi 02:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 05:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already a good article, but if AID'ing this can push it to FA status why not. VegaDark 07:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
St jimmy 10:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will need a lot of work, it's in really bad shape. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 18:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sicilianmandolin 03:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
illuminatiscott 21:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JosephRJustice 22:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HAM File:Icons-flag-wales.png 16:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maurreen 17:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Avenue 14:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

Dungeons & Dragons (23 votes, stays until May 22)

Nominated April 3, 2006; needs at least 28 votes by May 22, 2006

Support

Covington 08:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lewis 08:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cazcaz 14:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sherool (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
InShaneee 22:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spenser 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SorryGuy 04:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Tom 13:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SWTrilman 20:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fairsing 05:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
George Le Chat 10:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wackymacs 11:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Genesis 08:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Percy Snoodle 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JosephRJustice 23:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
mad_cat_42 23:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Хајдук Еру ( Talk || Contributions) 06:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seahen 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jonas Karlsson 22:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
02:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC) -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrnaGora (talk • contribs) . --Sasa Stefanovic • 16:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Captainktainer * Talk 11:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caf3623 02:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Foxjwill 02:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Invalid Votes

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

Comments

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

Gagauzia (52 votes, stays until June 1)

Nominated April 6, 2006; needs at least 56 votes by June 1, 2006

Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zfr 21:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- tembelejderha 21:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Ugur Basak 13:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fcn 18:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Valodzka 18:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Alhen ♐... 14:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--RocketMaster 13:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar

--Nihan 22:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Toraman 22:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Asterion ^{talk to me} 07:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Mauco 12:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--BloodIce 14:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAR 14:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—Khoikhoi 01:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dzoni 12:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pietras1988 Pietras1988 16:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical articles are always good to be expanded. --Ton e 23:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Drivera90 20:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zocky | picture popups 23:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Needs expansion

Indeed General Eisenhower 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed vote

oscar 22:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (no link to User page -Scottwiki 08:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

But he voted, look: (cur) (last) 23:23, 1 May 2006 Oscar (→Gagauzia (39 votes, stays until June 15) - 40)

We should not have to search through the AID history in order to determine whether someone is a qualified voter. But since you have done so, and since Oscar is a qualified voter, I'm content with the restoration of his vote. -Scottwiki 19:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York City (22 votes, stays until May 20)

Nominated April 8, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by May 20, 2006

Support

--Whoshiwoo 14:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
estavisti 17:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steven 17:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Un sogno modesto 21:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Howrealisreal 17:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PDXblazers 05:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Manwe 08:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CloudNine 12:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jdcooper 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 19 April 2006 @ 01:45 UTC
Descent 17:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fantom 14:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mkaycomputer 19:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandrewb 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1652186 19:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duran 01:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CrnaGora 03:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
_└ ^VodkaJazz / _{02:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
Captainktainer * Talk 12:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Richard the Lion-Hearted 4:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Flymeoutofhere 13:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John R Murray 22:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The largest city in the English-speaking world.But in French Wikipedia and German Wikipedia it's more particular than in English Wikipedia.In French and German Wikipedia New York City is featured article, but in English Wikipedia it's not.Is it possble?We MUST improve it!
- Agreed --Manwe 08:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greatest city ever - needs to be the Greatest article ever! --Descent
- I concur with this. Alexandrewb 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think NYC could easily be judged as a good article already, in which case it would go to the other listing. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 02:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I may be biased, but New York City is one of the most important topics, and one of the easiest to draw a lot of loving attention to.

William Shakespeare (43 votes, stays until June 24)

Nominated April 8, 2006; needs at least 44 votes by June 24, 2006

Support

Removed Votes

EdmondDantes 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 23:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (No such users)[reply]
RainyDay17 13:24, 21 April 2006 (PST) by Steven on 21:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (no other contribution)[reply]

Comments

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

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

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

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

Jesus (21 votes, stays until May 25)

Nominated April 13, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by May 25, 2006

Support

Oppose

Removed

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

Comments

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

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

Any other recommendations for improvement would also be useful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jimi Hendrix (12 votes, stays until May 13)

Nominated April 15, 2006; needs at least 16 votes by May 13, 2006

Support

Comments

"In his brief four-year reign as a superstar, Jimi Hendrix expanded the vocabulary of the electric rock guitar more than anyone before or since." Hendrix is one of the most important and highly regarded musician of all time, and needs to have a featured article. RomeoVoid 07:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Silence supported this article in a earlier nomination. RomeoVoid 16:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North America (10 votes, stays until May 12)

Nominated April 21, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by May 12, 2006

Support

Comments

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

Gone With The Wind (film) (7 votes, stays until May 10)

Nominated April 26, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 10, 2006

Support

Comments

Possibly the greatest American film ever, certainly the most popular, yet this article is sadly lacking .... 05:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. With a huge haul of Academy Awards and massive, long-lived influence within film-making, this article is a great candidate! Paul James Cowie 09:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping that the good people of Wikipedia will give a damn..... 22:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy (4 votes, stays until May 10)

Nominated April 26, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 10, 2006

Support

Comments

An increasingly important subject deserves an excellent article explaning legal, historical and philosophical bases. The existing article is poorly organized, lacks cites, and is full of points of view. See a list of issues and a proposed revision at Talk:Privacy. --Smintsaredelicious 13:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States immigration debate (5 votes, stays until May 10)

Nominated April 26, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 10, 2006

Support

Comments

Timely topic.
Timely indeed (it was on the April 10 cover of Time Magazine!) The United States is a nation of immigrants, yet US immigration policy has become more restrictive in recent decades (no more Ellis Island). Some who are in the US are here illegally are merely seeking a better life, while others are drug smugglers and other criminals. This is a controversial topic in US politics today. Arch O. La ^Grigrory ^Deepdelver 19:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Željko Ražnatović (6 votes, stays until May 11)

Nominated April 27, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 11, 2006

Support

Comments

The subject of this article, better known as Arkan, was a major figure in the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s. Yet the article is in incredibly bad shape. There is plenty of information, but very little is verifiable, and the structure is completely disorganized. Stylistically and grammatically, it's also in need of a great deal of improvement, much of it having likely been written by non-native English speakers. This is a very interesting historical figure who still inspires a lot of interest today and this could easily become a great FA despite the controversial subject.

Sweden (5 votes, stays until May 11)

Nominated April 27, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 11, 2006

Support

Comments

This is a country with a small population, both today and in its long history, but its contributions to mankind in throughout its history and even today are very, very numerous and quite incredible. A fascinating country, culture, and more. It's listed on the most visited articles list near the top, as well as a 'good article' now. I think that it's a very important article to improve further. Daniel 02:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (6 votes, stays until May 14)

Nominated April 30, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 14, 2006

Support

Removed votes

ColtsMelloBR 04:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 16:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC) (no other contributions)[reply]

Comments

Surely, in the 250th anniversary of the great man's birth, the article for Mozart should be elevated to Featured status. Paul James Cowie 17:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently this article was once a Featured Article, but fell by the wayside..... Let's get it back to where it belongs! Paul James Cowie 17:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now in pretty good shape, being regularly maintained and polished by several competent editors. It is quite comprehensive, and well furnished with appropriate links and references; its comparative level of accuracy is certainly quite high, now. Noetica 07:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "fell by the wayside....." What do you mean? How can a Featured article degrade? Doesn't Wikipedia ensure that articles don't deteriorate instead of improve? Mandel 20:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the article hasn't degraded, but it was promoted to a featured article long ago, under a previous set of less stringent criteria, and it was felt that it no longer quite matched up to the featured article current criteria. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Hardware (7 votes, stays until May 14)

Nominated April 30, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 14, 2006

Support

Comments

This article, being the core article for computer hardware, needs to have some bulk and organization which, at the moment, it lacks almost completely. It consists almost entirely of links and has very little text. It definitely needs work. Foxjwill 17:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Death (6 votes, stays until May 15)

Nominated May 1, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 15, 2006

Support

Comments

Killed one third of humanity in the Old World at least... In these days of worry over bird flu and other potential pandemics, it could be worthwhile upgrading this article to Featured status.... (It's already been judged to be a Good article, so it shouldn't require too much effort!) Paul James Cowie 06:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the failed FA review has information regarding the improvements needed. — RJH 18:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Tesla (9 votes, stays until May 22)

Nominated May 1, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by May 22, 2006

Support

(^'-')^ Covington 07:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
estavisti 11:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 15:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kris12 21:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Over-long, full of goo and dribble, probably suffers from a residue of Reddi-isation and Tesla-philia. Badly in need of improvement William M. Connolley 19:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Asterion ^{talk to me} 01:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steven 22:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BabaRera 07:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ante Perkovic 13:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This entry on one of the best modern scientists was a a former featured article. Let's get it back to featured status. (^'-')^ Covington 07:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen Colonies (3 vote, stays until May 9)

Nominated May 2, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 9, 2006

Support

Comments

The beginnings of the United States needs more than this! Felixboy 19:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Proteus Steinmetz (1 vote, stays until May 9)

Nominated May 2, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 9, 2006

Support

--Kbh3^rd talk 20:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Steinmetz was a truly significant giant of the industrial revolution and a fascinating character with an unusual and compelling life story.

Aeronautics (4 votes, stays until May 16)

Nominated May 2, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 16, 2006

Support

Comments

Important and interesting subject that deserves more development. Thanks.

Sitting Bull (2 votes, stays until May 9)

Nominated May 2, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 9, 2006

Support

Comments

This article about a significant historical figure has often been vandalized. It seems the article is relatively unwatched, so much vandalism has been unreverted, hence some sections contain many blatant errors. Many complaints as to its accuracy have been made on it's talk page. The article, and one section, has been marked for a complete rewrite, but no one taken the challenge. After a discussion on the it's talk page, it was decided that the article be stripped down somewhat, and that assistance be sought from this place. It is shameful that an article about Sitting Bull, one of the most famous Native American warriors, and a famous person in the history of the United States, cannot be of better quality.

Stock exchange (6 votes, stays until May 17)

Nominated May 3, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 17, 2006

Support

Comments: This article has a good template but needs so much more to be complete and informative. Felixboy 15:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive species (2 votes, stays until May 10)

Nominated May 3, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 10, 2006

Support

Jonthecheet 05:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Votes

Cow790 00:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC) by Steven on 16:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC) (no other contributions other then votes)[reply]

Comments

I found this page to be extremely interesting, but I believe it should be reviewed and some sort of media (i.e. examples of Invasive Species) should be added. In addition to this page, the obviously related List of invasive species needs work. I am thinking in terms of adding more species and creating a clearer format for the list. My idea was to list the species by region of origin which can easily be found by just visiting the sites of reference. Overall, I would just like these pages to be brought up to a higher level.--Jonthecheet 05:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nile River (3 votes, stays until May 10)

Nominated May 4, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 11, 2006

Support

Comments

Surely deserving of Featured Status on Wikipedia, as both the longest river and one of the most influential rivers in human history - to the present day. Paul James Cowie 08:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest that a move to Nile River as the title of the article should be implemented, in keeping with the vast majority of other major world rivers. What do others think on this score? Paul James Cowie 08:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October Revolution (4 votes, stays until May 19)

Nominated May 5, 2006; needs at least 8 votes by May 19, 2006

Support

Comments

I couldn't believe the state this article was in when I saw it. This is definately an article that needs to be featured material but instead is very short and undescriptive.--Jersey Devil 05:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Liszt (2 votes, stays until May 14)

Nominated May 7, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 14, 2006

Support

Comments

This man is the father of romantic music, such as Liebesträume No 3 and Hungarian Rhapsody No 2. There are houndreds of hundreds biographies of Liszt and over thousand letters written by Liszt, but despite this, his article is only 3 pages long.

Ethanol fuel (2 votes, stays until May 15)

Nominated May 8, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 15, 2006

Support

Comments

Ethanol fuel was a subject of 60 Minutes and Dateline NBC on May 7 in the US -- rising gasoline prices make this a hot topic. The article needs significant improvement, as suggested by the cleanup tags currently at the top of it. (I haven't co-nominated Ethanol fuel in the US only because it is a more limited topic; but it certainly needs work too. E85, while better, is also far from ideal.) -Scottwiki 03:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interrogation (2 votes, stays until May 15)

Nominated May 8, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 15, 2006

Support

Comments

Its been around for hundreds of years and hasn’t had an edit in had an edit in about half a year. People are being interrogated every day.

Guy Fawkes Night (1 vote, stays until May 16)

Nominated May 9, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by May 16, 2006

Support

Paul James Cowie 14:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Highly scant treatment for this annual event, redolent with historical and religious associations, and still popular in many parts of the Englsih-speaking world. Needs a careful balanced treatment. Paul James Cowie 07:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne (1 vote, stays until Tuesday May 16, 2006)

Nominated 11:07, Tuesday May 9, 2006 (UTC).; needs at least 4 votes by 11:07, Tuesday May 16, 2006 (UTC).

Support

Stevage 11:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

His fame and impact on Hollywood history is virtually unstated, lacks real lead, lacks photos, structure, references. Stevage 11:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Left (1 vote, stays until Tuesday May 16, 2006)

Nominated 11:07, Tuesday May 9, 2006 (UTC).; needs at least 4 votes by 11:07, Tuesday May 16, 2006 (UTC).

Support

Harris0 19:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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