|
|
| Line 161: |
Line 161: |
| | | | |
| | {{fa|Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America| | | {{fa|Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America| |
| − | :* Disagree. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sup>[[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']]</sup> 03:19, 7 April 2009 (EDT) | + | :* Disagree. (''It is a very good article, well written and reasoned. My primary concern, looking at it within the context of the featured article is that it is more of an "opinion piece" and I felt that on those grounds it did not really suit my criteria for a "featured article". Where I do think it could be used, would be under the mainpage's "Highlighted article", which would mean that not only could it be featured for longer, but would be more in line with the aims of that section.'')--[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sup>[[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']]</sup> 03:19, 7 April 2009 (EDT) |
| | :* Agree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 09:55, 7 April 2009 (EDT) | | :* Agree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 09:55, 7 April 2009 (EDT) |
| | }} | | }} |
Revision as of 09:28, April 8, 2009
Featured articles
The Featured articles are posted on the Main Page each week.
Articles may be submitted to the list of featured articles by listing them on the talk page. Please add them to the end of the list.
Articles will normally be featured in the order listed, but the order may be changed by the committee in some cases.
- Articles listed here will be considered for featuring and voted on by the committee members. Editors may offer their own comments (on the talk page) and are welcome to help improve the listed articles!
Past articles
Featured articles. Past articles. 2007/08
- because of his 200 years anniversary.
Current article
|
|
- Agree, I made it. --Joaquín Martínez 09:22, 3 March 2009 (EST)
- Agree. --₮K/Admin/Talk 08:10, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
- Agree. --DeanStalk 09:18, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
- Agree tentatively, although would it be possible to expand more on the artist's life? --KotomiTnandeyanen? 07:24, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
|
Future articles
The following articles should be checked for any improvements that can be made before they are posted to the Main Page.
Proposed for featuring
The following articles will probably be moved to the list above in the order listed if nobody has any objection or alternative suggestion.
New suggestions can be added at the end of this list.
|
|
- Agree. Probably the most exemplary article on how to pitch math at multiple levels of understanding. -Foxtrot 18:32, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
- Agree. --KotomiTnandeyanen? 07:24, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
- Agree. --DeanStalk 10:46, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
- Agree. --₮K/Admin/Talk 14:07, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
|
|
|
- Agree. It would not be the lengthiest article but good nonetheless--jpatt 01:47, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
- Agree. I like the idea of highlighting the "unsung" heroes. --KotomiTnandeyanen? 06:30, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
- Agree. --₮K/Admin/Talk 08:10, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
- Agree. --DeanStalk 09:18, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
|
|
|
- Agree. Resubmitting. Editor has put a tremendous amount of effort into this and has fixed the red-links, which led to its previous exclusion. --KotomiTnandeyanen? 04:40, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
- Agree. --DeanStalk 10:46, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
- Agree. --₮K/Admin/Talk 14:07, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
|
|
|
- Agree. --KotomiTnandeyanen? 03:19, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
- Disagree. Too many redlinks. At least start stubs for the roster members. --DeanStalk 09:55, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
|
|
|
- Agree. --₮K/Admin/Talk 14:07, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
- Agree. --DeanStalk 09:55, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
|
|
|
- Disagree. (It is a very good article, well written and reasoned. My primary concern, looking at it within the context of the featured article is that it is more of an "opinion piece" and I felt that on those grounds it did not really suit my criteria for a "featured article". Where I do think it could be used, would be under the mainpage's "Highlighted article", which would mean that not only could it be featured for longer, but would be more in line with the aims of that section.)--KotomiTnandeyanen? 03:19, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
- Agree. --DeanStalk 09:55, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
|
Past Nominations
The following articles were proposed and determined not to be suitable for featuring. If the article has been improved to the point where it is of sufficient quality to be featured, move it back to Proposed for Featuring. Click the show link after each entry to see why it was rejected.
|
|
- Agree. A math article with detailed explanation and examples. -Foxtrot 18:27, 1 March 2009 (EST)
- Disagree. It is certainly detailed, but seems to explain things at a fairly advanced level (but that is a non-math person speaking). Also, items that seem necessary for the proof (Square pyramidal numbers, etc) are redlinks. --KotomiTnandeyanen? 07:24, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
- Disagree. --DeanStalk 10:46, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
- Disagree. --₮K/Admin/Talk 14:07, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
|
|
|
- Disagree. Too short. Too many red links. TonyT 12:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. Too short; a good start but needs more info; too many red links. Taj 21:21, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. Too short. Philip J. Rayment 10:29, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 10:09, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
|
|
|
- Disagree. Too short. TonyT 12:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. Underdeveloped. Foxtrot 22:01, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree Unfortunately this article is far too short to feature at this time. Geoff PlourdeComplain! 19:35, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. Too short. Philip J. Rayment 10:29, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
|
|
|
- Disagree. Unimportant topic and drug influenced album. This isn't Wikipedia. TonyT 12:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 10:10, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. Poorly written, unimportant topic. Serious rewrite needed before featuring. #1denverfan 19:32, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. --DeanStalk 19:49, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree, per what #1denverfan said. Philip J. Rayment 06:13, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
|
|
|
- Disagree; I do not feel that this article fully covers the battle, particularly the 20th Maine. Geoff PlourdeComplain! 00:06, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
- Agree. -Foxtrot 00:08, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
- Agree. --DeanStalk 00:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree; I do not think that public domain material from the U.S. government should be featured material (such as country articles, ship articles, etc) unless the article has been extensively re-worked by any of the editors to make it better. Mexico (see above) may fall into that category. Karajou 01:06, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree, for the same reason as Karajou, and in fact we rejected this article once before for the same reason, so I'm moving it to the "Past nominations" section now. Now that we have that "Past nominations" sections, hopefully this won't happen again with this article.
|
|
|
- Disagree. Too short. Too many red links. TonyT 12:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. No references despite questionable statements and too many red links. I don't think the length is a problem. Philip J. Rayment
- Disagree. Nothing against sausages, but hardly a front page Big Theme. Bugler 07:00, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. Too short. Too many red links. --DeanStalk 20:09, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. User:Joaquín Martínez
|
|
|
- Disagree. Unimportant topic of interest mostly to liberals. TonyT 12:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. Important topic, but not described correctly. Article contains at least one contradiction ("reader response" both wrong and right). --Ed Poor Talk 16:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
- Agree. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:14, 26 August 2008 (EDT) Fixed red links and improved. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 00:16, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. I'm not qualified to judge it's accuracy, but it is too obscure and not written at a suitable level. Philip J. Rayment 10:24, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. Not long enough, too many red links, not nearly enough images that explain the text, I just didn't understand what was going on in that article. JY23 21:31, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. --DeanStalk 14:01, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
|
|
|
- Disagree. Too short. Too many red links. TonyT 12:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. Too short. Philip J. Rayment 10:29, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
- Agree, will be improved. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:21, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree, too short, far too many red links JY23 18:31, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
- Neutral. Would like to see what it looks like after more information added; it could be a good article. Learn together 16:02, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree for now. --DeanStalk 14:01, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree Geoff PlourdeComplain! 21:44, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
|
|
|
- Agree. Taj 22:36, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. Essential topic, but far too short. Anything about the history of the Bell that someone can put? JY23 21:37, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. --DeanStalk 01:22, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
|
|
|
- Agree. Taj 22:36, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Agree. Didn't realize I had to voice agreement when I added it to the list. -Foxtrot 00:08, 28 September 2008 (EDT) Disagree. Now that the copywritten text has been removed this article is hardly as comprehensive. -Foxtrot 21:06, 24 October 2008 (EDT)- Disagree Geoff PlourdeComplain! 21:44, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree-hardly a good theme and way too short. Far too many red links. Duncantalk 10:42, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
|
|
|
- Agree. -Foxtrot 00:08, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
- Agree. Good length, citations, and images. DuncanB 21:28, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- Agree. --DeanStalk 01:22, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Agree. --TK 05:56, 3 December 2008 (EST)
- Disagree
|
|
|
- Agree. Found very informative, anti-Communist topic, but far too many red links. #1denverfan 19:31, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. --DeanStalk 11:00, 28 November 2008 (EST)
- Disagree. A bit more work, will do it. --TK 05:56, 3 December 2008 (EST)
|
|
|
- Agree. Haven't had a science article in a while and this one seems fairly well-developed. -Foxtrot 00:00, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree. --DeanStalk 01:22, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Disagree-- red links. DuncanTalk 07:31, 15 November 2008 (EST)
- Disagree. Too many red links for a featured article. --₮K/Talk! 13:34, 5 December 2008 (EST)
|
|
|
- Neutral. Fix the redlinks and it would be a good article, but the section lengths need some work. JY23 17:28, 16 November 2008 (EST)
- Disagree. --DeanStalk 11:00, 28 November 2008 (EST)
|
|
|
- Disagree. One section, no photos, unimportant topic. JY23 17:21, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Disagree. Way too short; I agree with JY23.DuncanTalk 07:31, 15 November 2008 (EST)
- Disagree. --DeanStalk 11:00, 28 November 2008 (EST)
- Disagree. --₮K/Talk! 13:34, 5 December 2008 (EST)
|
|
|
- Disagree. Reads like an essay, possibly should be moved to essay section. JY23 18:54, 12 November 2008 (EST)
- Disagree. --DeanStalk 11:00, 28 November 2008 (EST)
- Disagree. I think this was on Main Page before. --₮K/Talk! 13:34, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- Agree, of course. This was not on main page. This was - Korean Airlines Flight 007. I think the remark above about this reading like an essay may be right. I just don't know the exact line between "essay" and "article". Can there be a "featured essay" as a "featured article"
|
|
|
- Disagree. Reads too much like a schematic. -Foxtrot 18:26, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
- Disagree. Not a bad article per se, but not convinced it is worthy of front page. Maybe with an expansion of the history of the plane? --KotomiTnandeyanen? 06:30, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
- Disagree. --DeanStalk 07:18, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
|
