Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations/Archived nominations

This is an record of articles that were recently nominated for Wikipedia Version 0.5, but were not accepted due to concerns regarding the articles' quality. Articles are listed in the category in which they were nominated, with the most recent entires at the bottom of each section. The reasons for an article's archival can be found on the article's talk page.

Nomination categories

 * Miscellaneous
 * Arts
 * Language & Communication
 * Philosophy & Religion
 * Everyday Life
 * Social Sciences & Society
 * Geography
 * History
 * Engineering & Technology
 * Mathematics
 * Natural Sciences

Arts

 * 1)  ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 10:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ''failed on techinal quality, mainly due to lack of refs, it has a lack of referneces tag. see talk page for suggestions. Rlevse 16:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Start-Class, not too important. Eyu100 03:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyday Life

 * 1)  VA and FA. Nifboy 06:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Severe need of copyediting, may qualify for FARCing, unencyclopedic prose, too many redlinks, external links in the main body of the text, unsourced statements. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 02:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  VA and FA. Nifboy 06:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality: too many external links, no inline refs and with that very few references, and too many lists in-article. Ch u ck(척뉴넘) 02:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:GA, one of the best known American Football players Jaranda wat's sup 04:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed due to length, neutrality, and lack of detail. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 05:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Very popular Japanese cooking style, the article has a nice picture too. Mackan 09:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed because of length, article a little more than a stub, no refs Jaranda wat's sup 19:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Social Sciences & Society

 * 1)  VA and FA. Nifboy 06:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality: cleanup tag for refs section is not discussed on talk, but is still valid. Cleanup refs and renominate. Ch u ck(척뉴넘) 02:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  whicky1978talk 04:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)  Nomination "frozen" I have requested a wider world view. Walkerma 03:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Still not addressed by 11 Aug so failed. Walkerma 16:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Geography

 * 1)  – Alensha 寫 词 12:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed because of having no refs as well as sloppy writing and the article is mostly lists or one sentence paragraphs Jaranda wat's sup 01:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1)  NCurse 08:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed because article has no refs, heavy linkfarm, barely any prose, mostly lists Jaranda wat's sup 06:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1)  FA, Walkerma 04:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality: Lots of unsourced info, needs some cleanup, qualifies for FARCing. Jaranda wat's sup 03:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

History

 * , was one of the largest campaign scenes during WWI. Included vital battles, Spawn Man 11:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC).
 * ''Failed on quality: stub no refs Jaranda wat's sup 06:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  On the "10 most important battle's" list here on Wikipedia. Spawn Man 11:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ''Failed on quality: too short Jaranda wat's sup 06:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Part of a set of 3 important WWI battles. Well written. Spawn Man 11:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ''Failed on quality: stub no refs Jaranda wat's sup 06:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Part of a set of 3 important WWI battles. Well written. Spawn Man 11:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ''Failed on quality: no refs Jaranda wat's sup 06:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Part of a set of 3 important WWI battles. Well written. Spawn Man 11:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ''Failed on quality: no refs Jaranda wat's sup 06:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  GA, & one of the important ancient Egyptian Pharaohs. -- llywrch 00:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ''Failed on quality: no inline citation mess in refrences and I don't consider further reading as one, also feels like it's too short Jaranda wat's sup 17:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Tradition central to Spartan culture, an important state in Classical Greece. Haiduc 05:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality and importance. Not comprehensively written, nor of sufficient importance. Kaldari 02:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Engineering & Technology

 * 1)  Technlogy that is radically evolving...Imagine controlling objects by thought...Science, not fiction!
 * Failed on quality and importance - article is way to technical for a normal reader Jaranda wat's sup 06:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  NCursework 19:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality - no refs Jaranda wat's sup 05:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 
 * 1)  (VA. NCursework 19:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality - Already failed by Walkerma, few refs, short lead, section stubs, needs some severe cleanup Jaranda wat's sup 02:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  WP:GA, Walkerma 18:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality - too many unsourced statements, stripped of GA status to boot. Tito xd (?!?) 05:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Partial self-nom. This failed before, but has been overhauled. Maurreen 00:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed renom on quality - stubby sections, few citations, bare links on prose. Tito xd (?!?) 17:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics

 * 1)  NCurse 10:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality: Not comprehensive. Could use sections on: Awards, Family, Education, as well as needing more references. Lastly, border-line on the importance factors. Ch u ck(척뉴넘) 07:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 

Natural Sciences

 * 1)  VA and FA. Nifboy 06:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality: not up to par with the clean-up tag still there, which is valid based on article talk. Ch u ck(척뉴넘) 21:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Current protection as well Jaranda wat's sup 16:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  FA. NCurse 08:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality: (Not really a FA) failed for same reason it was at FARC. Ch u ck(척뉴넘) 21:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  NCurse 10:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed beacause of having no refs Jaranda wat's sup 02:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  WP:VA. NCursework 19:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality: stubby section, only one reference. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 01:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  NCurse 10:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality: poorly referenced, poorly structured, and not comprehensive. -- bcasterline • talk 05:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1)  WP:VA. NCursework 19:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality: no references whatsoever. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 05:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Good article which shows complex relations between ants & butterfly. Spawn Man 11:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality and notabilty article is a little more than a stub, one ref only Jaranda wat's sup 03:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Featured in other languages & is pretty well informed. Spawn Man 11:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality and notablity The article is well-written, but it's a little more than a stub, and the trivia section moved me away, try to import info from the FAs. Jaranda wat's sup 03:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  WP:FA. NCursework 20:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed per the comments at its FARC. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 05:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Largest meteorite found on Earth. Spawn Man 11:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed because it's too short, one ref and no structure to the article Jaranda wat's sup 07:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Spawn Man 11:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC).
 * Failed because it's too short and no refs Jaranda wat's sup 07:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  WP:VA, The four telescopes which provided the greatest impact on modern astronomy. Rnt20 13:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality: First not a va, no refs, poor prose, poor lead Jaranda wat's sup 22:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  WP:VA, The successor to the Hubble Space Telescope, when launched will be the most important astronomical telescope Rnt20 11:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality: Not a VA, not very comprehensive, no inline refs, and not that important either. --Rory096 05:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  NCurse 08:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Too technical for general audience. Maurreen 06:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Ryan! 22:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality because it has three section stubs. NCursework 08:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Looks decent, popular/important topic, on the SOS CD, Walkerma 05:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed on quality because it has two section stubs. NCursework 21:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)