Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2004

John Holmes
Self-nom. A short article, but the best anyone can find on the Internet. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:33, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I'd support, except I really wanted it to be about the other one.  -- GWO 12:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Don't get me wrong - it is a good article, but it's just too short to be comprehensive. I write articles this length all the time. Maybe a bit of offline research would be useful. Ambi 12:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. The fact there is nothing better on the internet says more about the internet than about this article: it's very far from being a featured article. The article is lacking on sufficient detail on all fronts: personal life, career, the book he wrote, context etc. The available text has some silly content as well, such as the prize of his book today ($150) and "opposed to Andrew Jackson (an "Anti-Jackson").". Also, the images have no source information. Judging by the text and sources, this is little more than a summary of all that could be found about him on the web, rather than a serious attempt to write an encyclopedia article about the man, which should involve use of further sources than just the web. Jeronimo 12:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object - Too short--Evil Monkey 20:58, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Am I the only one who thought of the porn star before clicking the link? &rarr;Raul654 08:58, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * No. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:03, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * No *cough*. I'm up there, at the top.  (I guess no one would be saying "too short" if it were about the other John Holmes) -- GWO
 * Yeah, I thought about the accused murderer too. (That's why he's famous, right?  We don't watch his movies, right?)  Geogre 14:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Object: Same objections as others. At the very least, in terms of content, we need to know his principles.  What did he fight for?  What against?  Not being a Democrat at that time had a specific meaning (alluded to by the link), but what did that mean to him?  How did it represent his state?  What about the book?  What did it advocate?  (Incidentally, $150 isn't all that much in the bibliophile world.  I say that not to denigrate, but to say that it's not a remarkable enough price to warrant a mention in the article.)  Geogre 14:31, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vatican City
I've come across this one too - seems good to me. jguk 21:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. The "Transportation" and "Communications" sections need to be de-CIAfied (i.e. converted into prose) since encyclopedia articles should not be almanacs or factbooks. --Jiang 09:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object strongly. This article needs far more content. Only the history and politics sections are somewhat reasonable, but they could use some expansion too. The Transportation and Communication articles (from the CIA book) are not in the country template, and should be moved to separate articles (again, according to the template). Furthermore we need pictures. It shouldn't be to hard to get some pictures of the St. Peter, a pope, and the Swiss Guards. Jeronimo 07:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The Vatican City is so small that Transportation and Communication do not deserve their own articles. The template does not need to be strictly followed. --Jiang 02:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe they don't deserve their own article, but the information certainly doesn't belong in this article as it stands. Jeronimo 08:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Does content exist to combat the above complaints?--ZayZayEM 03:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pope
--jguk 21:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. It's long enough and detailed enough but the article could do with better organisation. It seems that the paragraphs are in random order. With such a complicated subject some subclauses are inevitable but to have the very first sentence include a subclause in brackets which is longer than the part outside the brackets is an example of how the article is in need of some copyediting. Dbiv 01:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Internet
--Randy Johnston 17:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: What exactly is the difference between Internet and the World Wide Web featured on November 1? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:13, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * The World Wide Web is just one application of the Internet. There is a world of difference between the two terms. The Internet is 35 years old or something like that. The World Wide Web was created in the early 1990s. &mdash; David Remahl 13:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. 1) The image in the lead section of Internet is rather misleading, contributing to the misconception that the Internet == the WWW &mdash; it should really be a topological map of the structure of the Internet, not a map of the hyperlink structure of the WWW surrounding Wikipedia. 2) The history section could be expanded using some info from the main history article. 3) The role of the various core protocols such for example as IP and DNS should be expanded. 4) Censorship should be dealt with. By oppressive regimes and so-called voluntary censorship by censorware. 5) The Security section is lacking. Should mention some historically notable worm outbreaks. 6) The way that the Internet is decentralised, and delegates complexity to the edges of the network should be mentioned. Advantages and disadvantages. 7) The systems that form the backend of the Internet should be described in greater detail. Are there any potential vulnerabilities or single-points-of-failure? &mdash; 8) On top of all of this; references?David Remahl 13:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. I agree mostly with David Remahl. Some additional comments: 1) The section on "Child abuse" is vague. What is the connection? Has child abuse increased because of the internet? Or only the number of convictions, perhaps with thanks to the internet? A (scientific) reference would also be useful here, since there may not be a relation at all. 2) There are no references, just a bunch of links. I would very much like some offline references or further reading as well. 3) The "See also" list needs to be cleaned up. Some articles are linked from within the article, others are more relevant to WWW than to Internet in general, others are contained within the Category scheme. Jeronimo 12:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object on similar reasons. Also, The section on viruses seems to suggest they are natural entities. Not malicious code actually introduced into a system by programmers.--ZayZayEM 09:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP
--Randy Johnston 17:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. The article does present a lot of information in a fairly organized fashion, but it looks more like a PC World feature rundown than anything substantive. The later sections on criticisms etc. are detailed but need better organization, and there should be more information about the key differences between XP and predecessors. This article is good, but not (yet) great. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here is its previous FAC nomination. Rhobite 04:40, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support: It presents a lot of information in a fairly organized fashion, and is very comparable if not better than most operation system articles on the Wiki, by my quick check of the 'pedia, and based on edits I have made to other Windows articles. Overall I think this an article worthy of note. PPGMD 04:25, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object, it is not complete enough on the technologies that power Windows XP and what Windows XP has borrowed from other OSs. It also seems a bit pro-micrososft and the writting is not well focused or organized. If these issues are rectified, I would happily support it. -Exigentsky 01:20, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * These are very general complaints. Could you please be more specific about what technologies you'd like to see mentioned? And I'm not sure that the "borrowing" issue is relevant, since (a) all OSes copy each other and (b) we already have Comparison of operating systems and (c) Windows XP is already very large. Rhobite 05:29, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that chart, in that case forget it. However, I think there should be more talk about Win2k features that are now in XP (which people do not know so well because Win2k was mostly for business.) NTFS is one such example, there should be a wiki link to the NTFS article and a brief explanation. Also, maybe a section on the future of the OS, how Indigo and Avalon will run on it for example. -Exigentsky 01:21, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
-- Alterego 3:56, 26 Nov 2004; self-nomination Outlines the proper usage and dynamics of the MBTI. A unique resource not found elsewhere and unparalleled on the Internet, both in thoroughness, resources, and neutrality. Politely and neutrally describes the often-heated differences between the MBTI and Keirsey Temperament Sorter. Received very few suggested corrections on Peer Review. Includes custom-made images, complex tables, and authoritative citations.
 * Object. First there's a few facts that even I (with limited understanding of Psychology) realise are missing, such as the unusual tale of the development of the test (a particularly strong shortcoming with no pages written on its developers) and what it means when you score a '0' (or nearly a 0) on one of the attributes. Actually it doesn't seem to have much of a description on the numerical score system at all, which seems fairly important to me, seeing as that's how the results are reported to the people who take the test. In addition the paragraphs under "type dynamic and table type" are full of jargon and is written in a way that I find hard to understand. I have had the MBTI types explained to me in terms that make sense, why not pitch the explanation at the level of organisational psychology explanations rather than in technical terms. And I'm sure there's a reason, but why are only 8 of the 16 categories given detailed explanations (under "descriptions of function-attributes")? If there is a reason, it should be explained because the tables attached to the section show all 16 types. It's got some good points (like the tables), but it's not quite there, I think. Psychobabble 21:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It is possible to include a section on the development of the test, if that was viewed as important. I have perused around many other subjects, a few of which briefly mention their developments (notably not Microsoft Windows).  It could be an entire article, or merely a couple of sentences (as is currently used).  The unique history consists mostly of the fact that she and her family created the first version by writing likely items on note cards and then consulting with psychometricians from Educational Testing Services (sp).  She considered other fields such as anthropology, biology, etc.. as unnecessary in the development in an indicator based on the premise that everyone knows people, therefore it should be the layman that describes them and not the doctor.  I'm not sure what facts you are aware of, but it doesn't mean anything if you have a PCI score of 0.  Especially on Form M, this is quite literally near impossible due to Item Response Theory. Because I am aware of the tests workings and structure I scored 0 on intuition and extroversion on my last taking.  It means nothing. The "numerical score system" has been described.  The article talks about the PCI score and emphasize that the "score system" you speak of is firstly nearly non-existant and secondly does not matter at all.  It only matters what side of the line you fall on due to midpoint discrimination.  There is a link to Psychometrics which touches on some of the key concepts used in the test's development.  The jargon may be a key point here.  I don't believe I have used any esoteric terms without describing them explicitly.  The "fuction-attitudes" (not function-attributes) correctly point out a fact not found elsewhere on the internet: that the MBTI is highly dynamic and is very hard to properly understand. There is more than just Sensing/Intuition Thinking/Feeling.  The first letter of the acronym tells you which attitude S/I T/F is in (e.g. if it is introverted or extroverted) and the last letter, J/P, tells you which is dominant in the personality. Understandably it was explained to you in the way that it would be explained to a lay client, and I took this into consideration.  However, this is an encyclopedia and this information needs to be documented.  This is the way the indicator actually is.  When you are initially given the test you are not shown the dynamic qualities of type.  The main interest is simply in figuring out which acronym best suits you so that you can move on to the description.  Regarding the descriptions of the 16 types - we face a copyright issue here.  I point out in the article that licensed psychologists with years of experience in interviewing and access to ~ a million tests taken write the descriptions.   Many of those found on the internet were written for the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, a system in many ways incompatable with the MBTI. The best WP can do is link to the brief descriptions provided by CAPT, which is done.  Not including inaccurate and custom made descriptions further and accurately emphasizes the dynamic activity of myersian typology, something which is very unique.  You do not find it in this extremety in jungian typology or keirsey typology, which is often a source of oversimplification and confusion.  Am taking your advice and will come up with a way to make the jargon more user friendly. Thank you. -- Alterego 07:00, 27 Nov 2004


 * Wow long reply. I'll only address the development point. I think mentioning the fact that one of the most widely used psychometric tests was developed by two women with no formal knowledge of psychology is worth mentioning even if in passing, as an interesting and salient fact. there doesn't need to be an essay on it. Psychobabble 01:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Object. All it really does is discuss the types, although it does that reasonably well. Briefly mentions skepticism about the MBTI, although this could stand a better discussion (the article is pretty NPOV in tone, but not in terms of balancing the content volume). But above all, what is glaringly absent from this article is any discussion of how the MBTI is actually used in the real world - what kinds of people use it, what they use it for, and what they do with the results. The article needs to address MBTI in contexts like pedagogy and employment screening, consider whether particular MBTI types suggest certain things socially or professionally, and deal with the possibility of cultural biases affecting the test. --Michael Snow 01:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you very much. You will see that I have revamped the Skeptical view section and will carry out the rest of your suggestions. --[User:Alterego|Alterego]] 5:16 12/1/2004

Genghis Khan
This is a perfect complete and un-biased article on Genghis Khan and his life that most people are very curious about. I think his life and achievements will be very academic. I think Wikipedia users would definitely enjoy it on front page. Let's show it! (nominated by article candidates&diff=7807674&oldid=7807612 an anon &rarr;Raul654 08:39, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC))


 * Oppose. Only two inline references, which I think hardly covers all the material in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 09:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * There isn't much "all the material" on the topic of Genghis Khan per se. This is all we got and it is good. Can you suggest some more "material"? Try Google-ing "Genghis Khan" and compare the articles out there with this Wikipedia one.
 * The issue is not the content; the issue is that the article insufficiently cites third-party sources; only two references are provided, each for specific parts of the article; the rest of the article's content has no sources. For why we need references, see Cite sources. Johnleemk | Talk 09:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't like seeing a hideous infobox taking up half the width of the page at the very beginning of the article. Remove it, or at least shrink it. Everyking 11:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As mentioned before, the references are severely lacking, the modest infobox does not bother me, but the lead section could use some work, it is not too readable nor does it do a great job summarising the article. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:48, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. GeneralPatton 18:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A list of website homepages as sources is not suffiencent for a featured article. Thousands of books and articles have been written about Genghis Khan&mdash;Go cite some! &mdash;Neutralitytalk ]] 03:26, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Can you? Talk is cheap.
 * Object. 1) I find the article to be rather short for a person this important, but I find it hard to indicate what exactly is missing. However, most topics can be probably be treated with more depth. 2) As others have pointed out, we need references. Also, some books and articles are definitely needed, if only as further reading. 3) There are several uncredited claims and vague sentences. E.g.  "Asia is certainly quite different today than it would have been without the brief Mongol Empire.", "Some people argue ", "He is often associated", "He was one of the most charismatic leaders in the world", "probably was the founding father". The "Values of Genghis Khan" section is full of this kind of statements. 4) See also contains mostly terms that were already treated in the article. 5) The infobox is non-standard, and doesn't give much information. Also, I find it a bit strange to see his Mongolian names in Cyrillic; I'd much rather see his name in the real Mongolian script (not the communist-enforced Cyrillic). 6) Given his importance, and the fact that he has been dead for centuries, there must be more illustrations to add. Jeronimo 08:38, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I would expect at least a mention of The Secret History of the Mongols (a.k.a. The History and Life of Chinggis Khan, which, BTW, could certainly use an article). -- Jmabel | Talk 09:09, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. I agree that references section needs to be expanded. Also most of the 'see also' should be incorporated into the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:39, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. While its big and certainly informative, it is lacking genuine references, and uses too many "some sources", "other sources", "some people" ambiguous phrasing.--ZayZayEM 08:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dragon Rouge
In my opinion, it is a very intersting topic and there has much work done in very short time. Please have a look at it, it is worth it to be at wikipedia'S front page!
 * Object. Lead section too short. No references. Some instances of POV (e.g. calling the critical press "tabloid"). The whole section about opposition is poorly balanced. Again, references are needed. I live in Sweden but have never heard of this movement, despite the claim of "fame" in Sweden. Link to some of the "tabloid" articles. See also links to several articles that have already been mentioned. Do 500 members really make it the "leading magical organization" in northern Europe? Says who? Alchemy is listed in see also. Why? Does the movement have any official religious texts? The section The Initiatoric Draconian Magic is not clear on what each step actually constitutes; what does a follower have to do to achieve each step? How is the movement financed? What do the different elements in the "official logo" symbolise? In short: this article has some way to go before featured status. &mdash; David Remahl 13:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. "Initiatoric Draconian Magic" section is unintelligible to a reader with no prior knowledge of this group. The section also needs to be formatted properly. "Opposing Views" is POV. Section headers shouldn't capitalize every word. Rhobite 17:12, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Lead needs expansion. See also section needs to be more carefully linked (magic is a disambiguation) and info on why these "see-also links" are related needs to be included. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 17:38, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Impossible to understand for people unfamiliar with the subject. Needs references, for example in regard to Swedish fame. Haven't heard of it, and a find a worldwide organization with only 500 members quite small. I doubt it's as famous as the author would like it to be. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:10, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. is this for real? article reads more like a very bad joke. Are we sure this actually exists? Can we get soem verifyable sources. Perhaps a list of famous members? Some reason why this is even worthy of inclusion on Wiki? Alkivar 00:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object: Lead is almost non existent, but even if it were not, the content of the article is insubstantial. There are no references.  At various times I've lived all over Europe and never heard of it.  It may exist. It may be notable; but it is not featured article material. Giano 08:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object: No lead, POV issues, references--ZayZayEM 03:42, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)Support. 04:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)