Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights/Archive 3

Reproductive rights as human rights?
A discussion at Talk:Reproductive rights might be of interest to people here. Users are trying to rewrite the lead of Reproductive rights and are disputing whether the assertion that reproductive rights is a human rights needs to be attributed to, for instance, Amnesty International, or whether it can be stated that reproductive rights are a human right based on human rights documents and declarations. See the discussion here-- Cailil  talk 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing attention to the dispute, Cailil. A concise and neutral overview of the issues can be found at Talk:Reproductive rights. Phyesalis (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

European Union??
The European Union was recently tagged as an article within this project. However I doubt whether it is covered by this project. Can a member of this project check whether it falls within this project, or if not, remove the tag from the EU talk page. Thanks. Arnoutf 10:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Arnoutf. I checked out the article. It has explicit mentions of human rights under the sub-section "Fundamental rights". I think this makes the tag appropriate. Thanks for taking the time to check up on this. Phyesalis (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I think there's more to it than that. European Union is a summary page and the piece mentioning the Fundamental rights is summarizing European Convention on Human Rights.  The tag belongs (and already exists) at Talk:European Convention on Human Rights - there's no reason to have it at Talk:European Union.  similarly the tag exists at Talk:Human rights in the People's Republic of China but not at Talk:People's Republic of China-- Cailil   talk 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks for pointing that out. Categories aren't my strong suit. Phyesalis (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the above, I've added quite a lot of articles, and also added classifications to the template. I've tried to be consistent about which to add and what classification to use, but it probably needs some discussion as to whether its right. I included the EU as it does have a role in Human rights, similarly I included some other regional bodies (Organization of American States, African Union) as they have a role in administering human rights. They might also not be appropriate, although they do, unlike the EU, directly administer the regional human rights treaties, organisations and courts.Tkn20 (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not saying it's right or wrong to do this, as such. I'd view it as best practice to tag article talk pages directly about human rights (in the African Union case; African Court of Justice; African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights; African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights; African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights or for the OAS, Inter-American_Commission_on_Human_Rights and American Convention on Human Rights).

The question to ask is are these organizations founded for doing human rights work? Amnesty International is a human rights organization but as regards the EU, the OAS and the AU it's not quite the case - they have more functions than that. Also you would end up having to tag every government who gives international aid - which could become untenable.

We could however build a navbox template like Jmyth navbox long or a footer like Discrimination. In something like that we could create a section for "regional bodies involved in human rights activities" - we could list organizations like that there. What do you think?-- Cailil  talk 18:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sound like a great idea. Phyesalis (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agreeTkn20 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have started a template at Template:Human rights, but it needs a lot more work... Tkn20 (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a great start. Well done-- Cailil   talk 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of alphabetizing and capitalizing the concepts section and added a "reproductive rights" section. If there are issues with this, please correct them or let me know, I'd fix them if need be. Thanks. Phyesalis (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't mind - go for it. There's loads left to do on it Tkn20 (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Importance assessment
I have set up WikiProject Human rights/Importance - as a first stab at some criteria. Do they look about right? Tkn20 (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Way to be bold! Great job. I tweaked the wording a bit, but overall I think you've got the basic hierarchy down. Phyesalis (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights
Is this wikiproject still active? I've noticed little activity on the wikiproject page. Let me know if its still active because I am a member of this project. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Human rights and the United States
I am writing to solicit broader editorial involvement in the article Human rights and the United States, which is the ongoing subject of a rather extensive content dispute with User:Raggz, who has a very tendentious editing style. As I myself am not an expert in human rights, I have been doing the best I can. But many of the content disputes might be more easily addressed if the wider community would weigh in with their opinions. Thanks, Silly rabbit (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Needing Sources/References
I would be willing to create the following human rights articles: Human rights in Canada, Human Rights in Chile, Human rights in Italy, Human rights in Poland, and Human rights in South Africa. However, I need sources/references. If somebody could list some references or sources for me to use for the articles, I would gladly create the articles. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Human rights section in Egypt
Hello,

An editor has expressed concern that two sections in which I have been especially involved in writing on the Egypt page might be giving undue weight to human rights abuses, namely Egypt and Egypt. I have proposed to trim them a bit down, especially the religion section which is beginning to ramble, by moving some of the material to the main articles, but I am concerned it will take away from the integrity of these sections. I was hoping to get a third opinion at on how to go about reaching some sort of compromise, or suggestions for better organization of these sections. Thanks, — Zerida 03:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles for assessment
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights IdiotSavant (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put some work into th eInternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights page, and put it up for peer review; anyone able to have a look at it? IdiotSavant (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Children's rights disputes
I would like to invite any interested editors in contributing to the children's rights (CR) article I recently created and that is currently in dispute between myself and an editor who identifies herself as a leader of a Canadian CR org. There are a few contentions:
 * Whether the Convention on the Rights of the Child is the only document that needs to be cited in the article
 * Whether Hillary Clinton should be cited at a CR expert
 * Whether the Child Rights Information Network is the only expert organization worth citing, and
 * Whether the article is too Americanized.

Any input, feedback or considerations on the article's talk page are duly appreciated. • Freechild   'sup?   01:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
you might be interested in the human rights barnstar. It is found here-- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

League of Nations at WP:FAR
League of Nations has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Testing times (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

New form of human trafficking
In February, a travel agent in Ghana chartered a Ghana International Airlines aircraft on the pretext that a group of 'Ghanian' tourists would be spending two weeks in Barbados. The aircraft left Ghana around 1 Feb 08, and was supposed to return to Barbados to 1) deliver any group of 'tourists' and 2) take the first lot back to Ghana. The aircraft didn't arrive as expected on 15 February, and to this day (15 April 08) most of those 'tourists', who turned out end up coming from both Ghana and Nigeria, are still stranded in Barbados, with the Ghanian government dragging its heels on their return. The rest have basically left Barbados for other countries (not long after arriving there). Due to the fact many of these 'tourists' are now working in Barbados (construction, etc), and some have gone on the record that they don't want to go back to Ghana, they want to be allowed to stay in Barbados to work, it is now believed that this is a new form of human trafficking. I think this would make an interesting addition to the Human trafficking article, and could also help build a Barbados-Ghana relations article as well. Having little time to add this, I am posting this at the following: Talk:Human trafficking, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Sociology, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject African diaspora, WikiProject Human rights. Perhaps contributors to the Human trafficking article or wikiprojects could look at it further and include it in the article, as this hasn't gathered much attention outside of Barbados and Ghana, and if it is human trafficking, it will change the modus operandi of traffickers. Searches of google and google news for barbados+ghana will return plenty of results, mainly from Ghana or Barbados which can be used. --Россавиа Диалог 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Convention on the Rights of the Child
I just removed two sentences from the controversy section of that article. I would appreciate your thoughts at that article's talk page. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Massacres by Americans, etc.
A CFD is under way for Category:Massacres by Americans. The scope of the discussion is actually much broader, as it necessarily involves the question of whether to create a new category tree for "Massacres committed by country Xyz". Currently we have categories for "Massacres in country Xyz", which is, of course, quite different. Please join this very important discussion. Cgingold (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

North Star (Newspaper)
Could someone expand and watch (rather, protect) this article? Even take the article under wings of this project? Not my expertise, but I found it needing expansion, the talk page pointless, and spamming (in the form of swearing) in the article. Colonel Marksman (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral editors wanted
I just wanted to recruit the most neutral, unbiased possible editors to come and take a look at Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination) and leave any comments they might have, and I figured that I might find some impartial editors right here. Thanks. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

History of slavery in...
There has been a minor attempt to create articles regarding slavery in various states. History of slavery in Indiana, History of slavery in Kentucky, and History of slavery in Louisiana are just three examples of fourteen already started. Would they fall under this WikiProject?-- Bedford Pray  05:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Prisons
If anyone's interested, I've proposed a new wikiproject for the creation of articles regarding specific prisons here. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Help request: Martin Luther King, Jr.
Hello, I would like to request some help with this article, which is under the scope of this project. I fully sourced it over the past week, and I would like to help it get to GA or FA status. It would be great if any editors from this project could look it over, possibly do some copyediting, and give some feedback in the peer review. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration template
First attempt:

Anyone want to tweak it? And what do we use it on first? --IdiotSavant (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

New C-class
From the discussion on assessment, it looks like there's now a new C-class of article. So we'll need to go back and reassess the low-B's / high-starts into this category. --IdiotSavant (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Bollocks. When I looked, it was implemented; now its not.  But it looks like it'll be up and running soon.  In the meantime, C-class articles will go into the "unassessed" pile for a few days. --IdiotSavant (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Culture GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Culture and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a few issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with another WikiProject. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination)
This deletion discussion: Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination) may interest your members. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Request review of Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
I've just banged this together; can someone take a look at it, correct any MoS errors etc and give feedback on its talk page on what to add before nominating it for Good Article status? --IdiotSavant (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

My first Good Article
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has finally been promoted to Good Article status!

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 904 articles are assigned to this project, of which 419, or 46.3%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move of Female genital cutting requested move
Please help reach a consensus to a move of Female genital cutting. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  08:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Gay marriage in spain
I would like this article removed from the human wights wikiproject becuase I do not think it is a human right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexNebraska (talk • contribs) 03:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Humans wishing to marry typically choose a consenting adult. I do not believe the right to marry a non-human exists at present. The advent of artificial intelligence may change that. Romanfall (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

PS Gay people fall in the human categoryRomanfall (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Feminism
Portal:Feminism has had a lot of changes and work recently and is currently up for portal peer review. Comments would be appreciated at Portal peer review/Feminism/archive1. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
I just wanted to introduce myself. I am a professor of law and am a member of both the human rights faculty and national security faculty at a graduate school of international studies. I teach "International Law," International Law & Human Rights," "International Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict (IHL/LOAC)," "Contemporary Slavery & Human Trafficking," and "Homeland Security, Civil Society & Human Rights" amongst others. I will be contributing from time to time on these subjects.  I noticed that the article on Human Trafficking had not been adopted by the WikiProject Human Rights.  Might I suggest it as a possible adoption?  --Cdestree (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and add the tag then. --IdiotSavant (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do I need to have some consensus from the other project members before doing that? --Cdestree (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really. I certainly haven't been asking when adding stuff.  If you think it fits within the project (and its a pretty broad topic), then add it.  If someone notices and disagrees, they'll remove it or ask why here.  Be bold! --IdiotSavant (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities
This new Wikiproject is now up and running. I've noticed a fair amount of cross-over with WikiProject Human rights. Perhaps they should be sister projects?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Human rights
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

United Nations peer review
A peer review has been requested for the United Nations article here. You are welcome to add any suggestions/feedback on how to improve the page. Many thanks, --Joowwww (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Guess it makes sense to notify the project that I just created Category:History of human rights and started populating it. I'm tempted to add in there the subcategories Category:Civil rights history of Canada and Category:History of civil rights in the United States but I'm not sure. In any case, I think it would be interesting to create a few categories relating to human rights history. I'll let people from the project decide though as I don't really have specific expertise on the subject. Pichpich (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Scope of this project, and organization
Hello everyone. I am interested in joining up with this project, as I have already begun some extensive work reorganizing and cleaning up a number of Rights-related articles, including some organizational formatting of the Rights sidebar template. However, I have a question about the scope of this project, and a related issue about organization.

While human rights and rights simpliciter are largely coextensive topics, humans being the things whose rights most of us humans are most concerned about, they are not technically cointensive. Particularly, there is the issue of animal rights, and (less prominently in the literature, but hypothetically problematic) the rights of non-human persons such as extraterrestrials or artificial intelligences. Basically, there are two sub-problems here: the possibility of non-human people (e.g. ETs and AIs, possibly Great Apes and dolphins too), and the possibility of non-person moral entities (e.g. 'lower' animals like cats and dogs). For the practical purposes of Wikipedia, only one article, as far as I can tell, is questionable as to its inclusion within this project on this basis, and that is Animal rights; the rest of my concern there is purely theoretical, as there don't seem to be any articles on possible non-human right holders to worry about.

However, I do have a related issue to raise that may be of greater practical significance. According to the civil rights article, one notion of civil rights distinguishes it from human rights: ""In common law jurisdiction, the term civil right is distinguished from "human rights" or "natural rights". Civil rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their boundaries, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars claim that individuals have by nature of being born."

This is how I have recently reorganized things on the (previously unorganized) Rights sidebar template: among the list of theoretical distinctions, such as negative and positive rights, claim rights and liberty rights, and natural rights & legal rights, I've listed human rights & civil rights. However, even in doing so I was somewhat uncertain of that decision because that distinction seems to simply mirror that between natural and legal rights. There have apparently been discussions on various pages about merging the human rights and natural rights articles; however, as per the above paragraph, that would not be entirely appropriate in my opinion, because non-humans might, in concept, have natural rights. Likewise, civil rights (in the common law sense of rights in virtue of citizenship) and legal rights are not entirely cointensive because non-citizens may still have legal rights granted to them by various foreign polities.

By another possible distinction, as mentioned on the human rights article itself, "civil and political rights" may be contrasted with "economic, social and cultural rights". The latter article exists, but the former article currently only redirects to civil rights. Earlier today I suggested on the talk page for the latter article that it, being very stubby, should perhaps be split up into related articles and deleted; but now I'm thinking that it would perhaps make more sense to flesh out that article and the civil rights article, perhaps with content from the main human rights article, which is very large and could use some splitting.

However, that would then leave the human rights article itself difficult to categorize. Strictly speaking it is not a theoretical distinction except in the sense where it is used roughly synonymous with natural rights, but the article itself does not seem to cover that topic (that's what natural rights is for). It seems like it should be listed under "areas of concern", inasmuch as it is concerned about the particular rights of a particular group (c.f. womens rights, gay rights, etc); however, almost all other areas of concern are subsets of the human rights category. I'm thinking now - and I know this will likely be a very controversial proposal - that the best course of action might be to split the content of the human rights article up into an assortment of other articles, and redirect human rights to just rights as the main page for summarizing the subject.

However, now that I look at all these pages, I'm realizing a broader problem. Portal:Human_rights uses the "human" designator as well, and a lot of good work seems to have been done under this WikiProject which uses it as well. It would be a shame, and a real hassle, to have change all of that because of some minor issues like these. But I notice now that much of the emphasis on the human rights article, portal, etc, is coming from a legal or political angle and focusing primarily on the legal or political issues - indeed, the portal is a sub-portal of the Law portal - whereas I am approaching this topic peripherally through the more philosophically-oriented, theoretical articles (my degree is in philosophy, hence the focus there).

I honestly have little interested in many of the articles concerning the legal instruments, political organizations, and regional statistics of human rights, as valuable as they are to Wikipedia; I am here to work on theoretical articles. But I would like to cooperate with the efforts that this project is undertaking, somehow. I wonder now if perhaps it might be better to organize these theoretical articles around the Right article as I had been thinking of before, and leave human rights as a mere "area of concern" in that organizational scheme. But something still sits wrong with me about that. Your feedback is warmly welcomed. Thank you. -Pfhorrest (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * An update, if anybody cares: work in various theoretical rights articles is proceeding nicely. Civil rights has been changed to Civil and political right and contrasted with Economic, social and cultural rights; meanwhile Civil rights now disambiguates between different senses of the term. Inalienable rights has been merged into Natural rights, and that has been merged with Legal rights to created Natural and legal rights. The proposal is still standing about merging Individual rights with Group rights unto a similar article about the distinction between them, but that looks unlikely to happen from the little feedback garnered so far. Conversely, the proposal to move Right to Rights is greatly supported and only waiting for an admin to get to it in the backlog of move requests.


 * I am still interested in integrating this effort with the efforts of WikiProject Human rights, though I don't have any new ideas about how to accomplish that beyond the above. Of particular concern to be is the partial redundancy of the Rights sidebar template and the Human Rights footer template. "Humans" are listed as a group of particular concern in the current Rights sidebar, which just seems... odd somehow. Also, it has come to my attention that the relationship between Human rights and Group rights is also contentious, so that is another issue to be discussed if anyone else has any interest in this. -Pfhorrest (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the overlap between rights side-bar and human rights footer probably better discussed on talk page of one or the other of those templates. (With a pointer to the discussion from the other).
 * Plant rights (and similar) are also within the scope of rights, but outside scope of human rights.   Not only are there recent references on the matter  , but various beliefs hold that entities like trees, rivers, lakes, forests, etc. have spirits, which should be honored/thanked/appeased/protected in particular ways.  (e.g. Jainism, various beliefs by American Indians, etc.)  From a modern western philosophical perspective you could look at some of this in terms of stewardship, self-interest (i.e. protect the plants because without them we lack food, air, etc.), or rights.  (Haven't found much coverage of this aspect here though.)  Zodon (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nascent human rights
Does this project declare or make any statement with regard to the inclusion of very young people in the category of human beings (and therefore deserving of human rights)? -Zahd (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

joining
How do you join this group? I can't find anywhere on the page about this


 * Add your name to the list of participants on the Project Page. --IdiotSavant (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools FAR
nominated French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)