Kung Fu Man (talk | contribs) m →April 21: removing Fair-use image |
→April 14: remove lowest point article as there are now six on page |
||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
*'''Support''', per {{user|NuclearWarfare}}. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 06:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Support''', per {{user|NuclearWarfare}}. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 06:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' nice soothing picture...[[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 11:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' nice soothing picture...[[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 11:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
===April 14=== |
|||
<div style="width:55%; background-color:#f5fffa; border:1px solid #cef2e0;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em; color: black"> |
|||
<div style="float:left;margin-right:0.9em"> |
|||
{{Listen |
|||
|filename=Alyssa_Veteto_-_George_Frideric_Handel_-_Bel_piacere_(Agrippina).ogg |
|||
|title="Bel piacere" |
|||
|description=[[Poppaea]]'s Act III aria, sung by Alyssa Veteto. |
|||
|pos=left |
|||
}} |
|||
</div> |
|||
'''''[[Agrippina (opera)|Agrippina]]''''' ([[Händel-Werke-Verzeichnis|HWV]] 6) is an ''[[opera seria]]'' in three acts by [[George Frideric Handel]], from a [[libretto]] by Cardinal [[Vincenzo Grimani]]. Composed for the 1709–10 Venice [[Carnival|''Carnevale'']] season, the [[opera]] tells the story of [[Agrippina the younger|Agrippina]], the mother of [[Nero]], as she plots the downfall of the [[Roman Emperor]] [[Claudius]] and the installation of her son as emperor. Grimani's libretto, considered one of the best that Handel set, is an "anti-heroic satirical comedy",<ref name=Brown3578>Brown, pp. 357–58</ref> full of topical political allusions. Some analysts believe that it reflects the rivalry of Grimani with [[Pope Clement XI]]. Handel composed ''Agrippina'' at the end of a three-year visit to Italy. It premiered in Venice at the [[Teatro San Giovanni Grisostomo]] on 26 December 1709, and was an immediate success. From its opening night it was given a then-unprecedented run of 27 consecutive performances, and received much critical acclaim. Observers were full of praise for the quality of the music—much of which, in keeping with the contemporary custom, had been borrowed and adapted from other works, including some from other composers. Despite the evident public enthusiasm for the work, Handel did not promote further stagings. There were occasional productions in the years following its premiere but, when Handel's operas fell out of fashion in the mid-18th century, it and his other dramatic works were generally forgotten. In the 20th century, Handelian opera began a revival([[Agrippina (opera)|'''more…''']].) </div> |
|||
</div> |
|||
*250th anniversary of Handel's death: 4 points (This was one of the big reasons for the FA push) |
|||
*Subject underrepresented at [[WP:FA]] (Only two other opera articles, ([[Trial by Jury]] and (arguably - Thespis is more of a burlesque than an opera) [[Thespis (opera)]], both of which are Gilbert and Sullivan): 1 point |
|||
*A similar article has not been featured within three months of requested date (Last was ''[[Thespis (opera)]]'', December 26th): 1 point |
|||
Total: 6 points |
|||
These are conservative point estimates: ''Thespis'' is a 19th century [[burlesque]] (it's very different from later G&S collaborations), and this is an 18th century opera, so arguably no similar article has ''ever'' run on the main page, particularly as ''[[Trial by Jury]]'' has not yet run. This is also the first opera under the bailiwick of [[WP:WikiProject Opera]] to ever become featured (Gilbert and Sullivan is considered a sub-project, and has its own rules). |
|||
If you'd rather use a picture than a sound, [[:File:Handel Denner 1726.jpg]] is probably the best picture we have of Handel. [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday|talk]]) 08:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support as nominator''' (Don't know if I should be voting, but, eh, if I am, I am, if I ain't, please delete this) [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday|talk]]) 08:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support<s> neutral</s> as two points''' I'm sorry, we are fairly strict with the multiple point anniversary points, and the opera doesn't have anything to do with Handel's death. If it is a Turandot situation, that would be different, where the death made a difference to the opera, but that is not here. And for underrepresentaion, we go very strictly by the categories at WP:FA, and music has many more than fifty articles. One point date connection, one point no similar three months.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 09:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
**Oh, come on. All those giant lists go to show is that [[WP:FA]] is way overdue a cleanup. I have taken the liberty of making a start. [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday|talk]]) 10:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
***The rules are the rules. We go strictly by number of articles in categories. If there is a change, then obviously we'll adjust. The rules for this page have been stable for months. An opera is an opera, I'm afraid. Otherwise, we could have a long line of articles, 18th, 19th, 20th, operetta, cantata, you name it, each claiming no similar in six months. Please doublecheck the rules at the top of the page and be guided accordingly. ''Thespis'' is at least as similar to ''Agrippina'' as atom is to noble gas. I'm temporarily withdrawing my support until we get the point matter scheduled, though I certainly think it is appropriate to the day. However, that does not mean that that it is entitled to 50 year points, there is a date connection, but it is not strong enough to entitle it to semicentennial points. It must be an important event ''in this article''. The death of the composer, after the opera was completed and launched, does not qualify, I am afraid.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 11:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
****I see from the blurb that the 300th anniversary of the premiere happens in December. Why not run it then? No question on minimum of six points, and on this page, four and infinity are much the same.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 11:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*****I'm not arguing over the semicentenial points, even though this collaboration was set up specifically to make sure the 250th anniversary of Handel's death was honoured. However, as far as I can tell, there are 9 articles covering the ''entire field of classical music''. To claim that because some pop hits and rock and roll got featured that opera isn't under-represented is institutionalising recentism. [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday|talk]]) 11:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
******Then you need to propose a rule change here or in the category breakdown at WP:FA. But as things stand, the points are what they are. Look, I see your point, but I don't know the policy behind the categories, and this is not the place to resolve that. Come up with a rule proposal and we'll see if it flies. I don't want to be in an edit war over the summary chart, so I've stated the points I think it is, the points you think it is, and simply referred users to this discussion. Let's see what other editors think. Incidently, I agree with Timedshambo, it would be great to have a sound file instead of a pic, and I would welcome this article running. But I'm not going to put my thumb on one or the other side of the scales because I like or dislike an article. I try to give fair opinions, and incidently, they are just that, opinions. Other editors may differ.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 12:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*******Fair enough. Sorry, it's my first time really working with this, and it's a bit of a downer to go straight from YES! Finally we're able to have something for Handel's 250th anniversary!" to "Wait, you mean that we're likely to end up not having it run on Handel's anniversary after all?" |
|||
(outdent)Don't be worried. I think it likely that Raul would run this even if it got replaced. And I haven't read the whole thing through yet, but it looks like an excellent article. Having nursed articles through this process myself, I know how stressful this is. But we have to apply a consistant standard, or the system will revert to the chaos it was in a year ago. Ask Sandy for details, she will gladly share.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 12:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' (regardless of how many points) - I like the idea of having a sound file instead of an image for a change, and while it may not get the point for date connection, the 250th anniversary of Handel's death should be commemorated in some way. — [[User:Tivedshambo|<span style="color:#7F0000">''' Tivedshambo '''</span>]] ([[User Talk:Tivedshambo|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Tivedshambo|c]]) 11:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' at 2 points. No special pleading referring to any perceived under-representation of "classical music" is required. It's simply an excellent article, and an appropriate date. --[[User:RobertG|RobertG]] ♬ [[User talk:RobertG|talk]] 12:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' at 2 points. I have reverted the changes to the FA page, btw, until there is consensus on that talk page that the changes are needed. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs|talk]]) 12:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' per RobertG.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 13:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' This is a superb article and the fact that only two other operas (and both of them G&S musical commedies) have been featured on the main page should definately count in its favor. Some how we need to find a way for articles on genuinely under represented topics to get a point. It probably won't matter for this article, but it might have helped [[I know why the caged bird sings]] stick on the page a little while longer. I realize why the categories in the current mechanism are broad, it keeps editors from claiming a point because say left handed cartoonists who worked in the 1960s are under represented, but something needs to be done. It is a real problem for the project if important sub topics like African American literature or operatic music are under represented on the main page. It should be possible to claim a point for addressing this kind of problem. [[User:Rusty Cashman|Rusty Cashman]] ([[User talk:Rusty Cashman|talk]]) 19:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:There is a difference between the "underrepresented category" point and the "no similar articles". This opera does not get the underrepresented category point because it is in the Music FA category. However, it does get a "no similar articles on the main page in X timeframe" point because there aren't a lot of operas. On this page, we get to define what a "similar" article is and vote accordingly, so that is hopefully already addressing your post. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs|talk]]) 19:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::No it really doesn't. It might have worked in this case but [[I know why the caged bird sings]] was heavily penalized because an article on a Steinbeck book had been featured a few days earlier. Since both were book they were considered similar. Even though the nominator pointed out that both autobiographies and African-American literature had been seriously under represented on the main page. As a result the nomination ended up with 0 points (even though it had been nominated for the author's birthday) and got bumped off this page. I won't clog the discussion of this nomination, which is more than deserving enough on its own, with anymore discussion of a general problem. Instead I will take the discussion to the talk page. [[User:Rusty Cashman|Rusty Cashman]] ([[User talk:Rusty Cashman|talk]]) 03:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''', per [[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]]. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' I think the article should be on the Main Page of its own merit. I also believe that the 250th anniversary of Handel's death would be a very good reason to run a Handel-related article that day, and this is the only FA and one of his best regarded operas. [[User:Ruhrfisch|Ruhrfisch]] '''[[User talk:Ruhrfisch|<sub><font color="green">><></font></sub><small>°</small><sup><small>°</small></sup>]]''' 01:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Strong support''' If this article isn't connected to Handel, I don't know what is. This is an excellent article to run on the 250th anniversary of his death. I would also like to emphasize that since we have so few classical music FAs, we should be chomping at the bit to put this on the main page - [[WP:IAR]] exists for cases like this. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 17:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:*No need for IAR. Two points and such strong support should be ample.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' –[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] [[User talk:Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''T'''alk</sup></font>]] '''·''' [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Juliancolton 3|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''R'''eview</sup></font>]] 17:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk:Ceoil|talk]]) 17:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
===April 15=== |
===April 15=== |
Revision as of 13:27, 3 April 2009
Here the community can nominate articles to be selected as "Today's featured article" (TFA) on the main page. The TFA section aims to highlight the range of articles that have "featured article" status, from Art and architecture through to Warfare, and wherever possible it tries to avoid similar topics appearing too close together without good reason. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling the TFA (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with the TFA coordinators: Wehwalt, Dank and Gog the Mild, who also select TFAs for dates where no suggestions are put forward. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not necessarily mean the article will appear on the requested date.
If you have an exceptional request that deviates from these instructions (for example, an article making a second appearance as TFA, or a "double-header"), please discuss the matter with the TFA coordinators beforehand. It can be helpful to add the article to the pending requests template, if the desired date for the article is beyond the 30-day period. This does not guarantee selection, but does help others see what nominations may be forthcoming. Requesters should still nominate the article here during the 30-day time-frame.
– Check TFAR nominations for dead links – Alt text |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools:
| ||||||||
How to post a new nomination:
Scheduling: In the absence of exceptional circumstances, TFAs are scheduled in date order, not according to how long nominations have been open or how many supportive comments they have. So, for example, January 31 will not be scheduled until January 30 has been scheduled (by TFAR nomination or otherwise). |
Summary chart
Currently accepting requests from July 1 to July 31.
Date | Article | Points | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Apr 13 | White Deer Hole Creek | 4 | 2 year FA, no similar 6 months. Date connection not claimed. |
Apr 14 | Agrippina (opera) | 2 | Date connection 250th anniv Handel's death; no similar articles since Dec. |
Apr 15 | Emma Watson | 3 | Birthday |
Apr 19 | USS Iowa turret explosion | 3 | 20th anniversary of the explosion |
Apr 21 | Alleyway | 3 | 20th anniversary of the Game Boy and game's release |
Apr 27 | A Vindication of the Rights of Woman | 6 | 250th anniversary of author's birth |
Requests
April 13
White Deer Hole Creek is a 20.5-mile (33.0 km) long tributary of the West Branch Susquehanna River in Clinton, Lycoming and Union counties in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. A part of the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin, the White Deer Hole Creek watershed drains parts of ten townships, and the creek flows east in a valley of the Ridge-and-valley Appalachians, through sandstone, limestone, and shale from the Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian periods. The creek and its 67.2-square-mile (174.0 km2) watershed are relatively undeveloped, with 28.4% of the watershed given to agriculture and 71.6% covered by forest, including part of Tiadaghton State Forest. The western part of White Deer Hole Creek has very high water quality and is the only major creek in Lycoming County classified as "Class A Wild Trout Waters". There are opportunities in the watershed for canoeing, hunting, and camping, and trails for hiking and horseback riding. Historically, two paths of the native indigenous peoples ran along parts of White Deer Hole Creek. Settlers arrived by 1770, but fled in 1778 during the American Revolutionary War. They returned and the creek served as the southern boundary of Lycoming County when it was formed on April 13, 1795. A logging railroad ran along the creek from 1901 to 1904 for timber clearcutting and small-scale lumbering continues. During World War II a TNT plant was built in the watershed, which became a federal prison in 1952. Most development is in the eastern end of the valley, with two unincorporated villages, the hamlet, and most of the farms (many Amish).
(more….)I am nominating White Deer Hole Creek for April 13th [which has at least 4 points]. I believe it has 5 points, though it may only be 4. It was promoted to FA on December 10, 2006, over two years ago (2 points). This also earns 2 points since it is well over six months (actually almost 18 months) since the last stream article appeared on the Main Page (Larrys Creek, which was Today's Featured Article on October 19, 2007). It served as the southern border of Lycoming County, Pennsylvania when that was formed on April 13, 1795, (mentioned in the lead and article) so I think it gets 1 point for a date relevant to article topic, but others have questioned the relevance of the date. I have recently made sure the article is still up to snuff, though other eyes are welcome. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is four points. Judging from the article, the stream was only a small part of the county boundary. Had there been some major controversy about the stream forming a part of the county line, then I'd feel differently. That isn't so. I think it is four. Note we have never bumped a four point or higher article, so no big deal either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support as either a 4 or 5-pointer, as it would be great to have an underrepresented topic on the main page. The article is in remarkably good shape for being promoted over two years ago, so that is good. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Though if I were the nominator I would back it down to 4 points. I think if you had to you could defend the date connection point because there are several mentions of Lycoming county and if it only had 1 or 2 other points it might be worth it, but since a 4 point article is already essentially unbumpable I would rather claim a solid 4 points rather than a debatable 5th point. That way people would be more likely to focus on the article itself, which is informative, well written and more interesting than most articles on geographical features, rather than argue about points. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Having copyedited it during the FAC I have been waiting a long time to see this one on the Main Page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Although it's already a great article, Ruhrfisch plans to do some extra clean-up before the main page. Therefore, the article has my full and unequivocal support. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I'm honestly surprised that this hasn't been on the main page yet. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Awadewit (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support inspiring article Smallbones (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support, per NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support nice soothing picture...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
April 15
Emma Watson Date she turns 19. 3 pts BUC (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment If Hamasaki runs, this nom could be in big trouble, as Hamasaki was an actress before turning to music, and I suspect a three point deduction would be in order. I can't say I'm enthusiastic about this article, seeing the two paragraph lede that isn't that wonderful, but I guess articles about young people are difficult, there is only so much you can say.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Popular subject for younger readers, good timing. A two-paragraph lead section is perfectly acceptable when the subject is so... uncomplex. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Hmm, perhaps we can run this when Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince comes out as a movie. Better connection there, I would think, and it avoids the whole issue with Hamasaki. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment If it comes down to a choice I would suggest going with the Japanese singer, as it is a more substantive, and more compelling article. I guess I could live with this one being run on a date connected to one of the HP movies as NuclearWarfare suggests even if like Wehwalt I find the article itself undewhelming. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with Rusty. It would look better for WP if we ran this article on the day of release, too. July 17 is not that far off. I am not a Harry Potter fan, don't get me started, but I think people would appreciate having it that day, rather than a random birthday.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd prefer something to do with Liverpool F.C. given the date connection to Hillsborough, but there's currently only one Liverpool FA, and that was on the main page a year ago. I'll try to get Liverpool F.C. to FA, but I'm not making any promises. Sceptre (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hillsborough Disaster would be a great project for someone. Unhappily, the 20th anniversary is likely to pass soon without it at FA, but there are other significant dates, like the issuance of the Taylor reports.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Or Liverpool F.C., which I think only needs some copyediting to get it to FA. Sceptre (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hillsborough Disaster would be a great project for someone. Unhappily, the 20th anniversary is likely to pass soon without it at FA, but there are other significant dates, like the issuance of the Taylor reports.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is fine in this date. Brianboulton and I, with various other people helping us (notably (but by no means exclusively) Ruhrfisch and Awadewit) managed to get Agrippina from GA to FA in a little over a month. A similar FA push for, say, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (or, for an easier time of it, one of the pre-existing GAs), would be sufficient to create a really relevant July 17 (or July 16th, the book's release date) TFA. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support, per Binksternet (talk · contribs), and Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I hope there's a better image than that traffic cone one for the front page. Jonathunder (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support broad interest article which may get some good anon edits, I quite like the pic - quirky. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
April 19
The 20th anniversary of this incident is just around the corner, and I think it would be nice have this up on the date. If I have scored correctly, its 3 points: 1 for date relevance and 2 for decennary anniversary. Although I am usually the editor behind the Iowa-class FAs, this one came to FA status under the capable arms of Cla68 (talk · contribs), so that may or may not account for additional points.
- Support per nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. A well-told story with lessons to learn. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral leaning oppose, pendng completion of Cary Bass/OTRS concerns laid out at Talk:Fred Moosally#Major concerns regarding the use of the Thompson book as a primary source. and the Featured Topic candidacy. Alternatively, the Thompson references could be removed from this paricular article. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Two points, date relevance and decennial is an either or. Third point if Cla68 cosponsors.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Any OTRS concerns are refuted by reliable sources which have been backed-up by the publisher upon questioning. -MBK004 21:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - the concern mentioned by Cary Bass doesn't bother me. It seems to have no basis. The topic is very interesting. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support as co-sponsor. The 20th anniversary of this event will likely receive press coverage. Cla68 (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking of press coverage, here (3/16/2009 post) is an announcment that KLTV will be doing a story on the event. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- I imagine the article will get somewhat expanded during its day on the Main page, with reports and photographs of memorial events coming in from participants. It will be good challenge. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Ameriquedialectics 22:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent article, and I don't really see any OTRS problems. Skinny87 (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wehwalt is correct about the date points, but it looks like it is three points anyway. Warship articles have been over represented on the main page, but this event was newsworthy enough and of broad enough interest beyond just military history, that commemorating its 20th anniversary is appropriate. I also agree that the concerns about the source seem without merit as the artice seems to cover all the controversies associated with the incident and its aftermath in a very balanced NPOV way. If there were an unresolved OTRS against this particular article that might be an issue, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: While I personally have no problems with the article; I think it is great, isn't it better if we make sure that this won't stir up any problems with communications between OTRS and Fred Mosally (the person)? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Great article with a good date connection. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. A timely showcase for an excellently-written article. ←Spidern→ 16:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
April 21
I am nominating Alleyway for April 21. It was promoted in August of 2008, and has 3 points. The date is the 20th anniversary of the game's release in Japan and also the 20th anniversary of the Game Boy itself, for which the game served as a launch title [2 points]. I am the article's main contributor and have not had any similar article appear on the front page [1 point], an in addition can confirm to the article's stability. The article is additionally basic subject matter for the main Game Boy subject, and is the only such article to attain FA status to this date [1 point]. The most recent video game article on the main page, Giants: Citizen Kabuto, was listed more than a month prior to the request date [-0 points].--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Fair use images are not allowed on the Main Page. I think the Anniversary is only 2 points (10 year multiple). I doubt most editors would agree this is "basic subject matter" (the idea is basic for the world, not just Game Boy). Finally, have you ever had an article on the Main Page where you were a main contributor? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Anniversary is 2 points, date relative to the actual anniversary date is 1 additional point.And no I haven't had an article appear on the main page where I was a significant contributor, excluding one "Did you know?" bit.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)- Correcting score to 3 points per comments.
April 27
A Vindication of the Rights of Woman: with Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects (1792), written by the eighteenth-century British feminist Mary Wollstonecraft, is one of the earliest works of feminist philosophy. In it, Wollstonecraft responds to the educational and political theorists of the eighteenth century who wanted to deny women an education. She argues that women ought to have an education commensurate with their position in society, claiming that women are essential to the nation because they educate its children and because they could be "companions" to their husbands, rather than mere wives. Instead of viewing women as ornaments to society or property to be traded in marriage, Wollstonecraft maintains that they are human beings deserving of the same fundamental rights as men. Wollstonecraft was prompted to write the Rights of Woman by Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord's 1791 report to the French National Assembly which stated that women should only receive a domestic education; she used her commentary on this specific event to launch a broad attack against sexual double standards and to indict men for encouraging women to indulge in excessive emotion. While Wollstonecraft does call for equality between the sexes in particular areas of life, such as morality, she does not explicitly state that men and women are equal. Her ambiguous statements regarding the equality of the sexes have since made it difficult to classify Wollstonecraft as a modern feminist, particularly since the word and the concept were unavailable to her. The Rights of Woman was well-received when it was first published in 1792. One biographer has called it "perhaps the most original book of [Wollstonecraft's] century". (more…)
6 points: April 27 is the 250th anniversary of Mary Wollstonecraft's birth. Mary Wollstonecraft has already appeared on the main page, so I would like to suggest A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, her most famous work.
- 2 points - Promoted over two years ago
- 1 point - Date relevant to topic (or possibly 4 points for 50-year anniversary)
- 1 point - Underrepresented subject (philosophy)
- 2 points - No philosophy articles have appeared on the main page for the last six months Awadewit (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support = 250th anniversary, and indeed an underrepresented subject - most appropriate. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: This is the only FA from the Philosophy and psychology subsection of the WP:FA page that has not yet been on the Main Page. Cirt (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Cirt. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
6 Points Per our discussion with the Handel opera, we only give out multiple date relevance articles for an anniversary of an event in the article itself. Other points look proper.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support One of the best FAs I've seen on this page. Smallbones (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)