Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

Summary chart

Currently accepting requests from October 14 to November 13.

The chart will be updated regularly by editors who follow this page:

Requests

October 15

Anniversy of the opening of the battleship as a muesum in Camden. I've never had to score under this current system, but if I have done my math right then its 1 point for date relevence, 1 point for age, and depending on specificuty 1 point for main page representation (the last military ship according to a quick check of the logs was HMS Cardiff on June 20). That should be three points, unless I have miscalculated something. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Two points, 1 for Age, 1 for Timing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever nominated an article before? That would be another point. Is this date in the article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated articles before, but that was prior to the introduction of the five point system. This is the first time I have ever had a shot at getting the article here on this date without removing someone else's article or going over the five article limit. Not sure how exactly your counting "first nom", but I hope this info helps :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The system is retroactive, so it is a two point article, date relevance and age. We had The Glorious First of June as well as that Francis Harvey article, so I don't think it gets a point for main page representation.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's why I added the qulifier about specificty. If you look at this in the broad context of military history, then no, this article gets no points, but if you narrow down the parameter to an article on a single ship then I get a point because the last ship I saw was HMS Cardiff back on June 22. If you want to get even more specific and look just at the battleships then I think I get two points becuase (if memory serves) we haven't had a battleship article up for over six monthes. I am not going to whine or complain becuase I trust that everyone else has a better idea of how the system works. Also, Tony, I apologize for not having the source needed in hand immediately to prove that the 15th is the anniversy date, but I did find the link and that info is now making its way into the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is tendency to want to split things infinitely finely to get those bonus points. What I look at is, would it make it possible to have a long string of very similar articles without Raul's intervention? I'd tend to separate land and air military history out, but we've still had three articles at least impacting naval military history (counting Alanya's last minute thing to get the main page by claiming the 400th anniversary of a minor naval engagement) in the last three months. I'd suggest you put the October 15 date in the lede, if you can.

Support, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Noted and adressed. And Thanks :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support as a two-point nomination. Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Seems good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 03:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Took the date I wanted to try to get T-26 on the main page, but I will try against next year. JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • How many points would T-26 get? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Not enough, since 26 September has just been scheduled with Verdeja (tank). JonCatalán^(Talk) 13:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sure, seems appropriate. GlassCobra 22:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support and nice work! –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support, looks good. (With the standard caveat that if something with more points comes along, it can be replaced.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

October 17

The history of Stoke City F.C., an English association football club based in Stoke-on-Trent, covers the years from the club's formation to the present day. The Stoke Ramblers were formed in 1863, playing their first documented match on 17 October 1868 at the Victoria Cricket Club ground. In 1878 the club moved to the Victoria Ground, its home for the next 119 years, and merged with Stoke Victoria Cricket Club to become Stoke Football Club. The club joined the Football League upon its formation in 1888, making it the second oldest club in the Football League. In 1928, the club's name was changed for the final time to Stoke City Football Club when Stoke-on-Trent was granted city status. The club moved in 1997 to the Britannia Stadium, a 28,383 all-seater stadium; the Victoria Ground was demolished later that year. In the 2007–08 season, Stoke won promotion from the Football League Championship, the second tier of English football, and as of 2008-2009 are playing in the top flight (currently English Premier League) for the first time since 1985, when they were relegated with just 17 points, a record low unsurpassed for 21 years. Stoke's only major trophy was the 1972 League Cup, won by beating Chelsea 2–1 in the final before a crowd of 97,852. (more…)

• Points:

Promoted over a year, but less than two years, ago: 1 point (promoted 17Sep07) Date relevant to article topic:[1] 1 point (17th October is first ever game) Decennary anniversary (10-year multiples): 2 points (140 years ago) Last sport topic, a little over a month previously, 0 points

I make a total of 4 points MickO'Bants (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Three points (there's a double counting here on date relevance). Age, 1 point; date relevance, 2 points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

One point for -2 due to the Oct 4 scheduling. Nergaal (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support as a 3-pt nomination. Karanacs (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a second here. You don't get points both for the anniversary and for date relevance, it is one or the other. October 17, 1868 seems to be the first documented game, so that would be two points. One point for a year's promotion, total is three points. I note that if Tyrone Wheatley is successful, that may negatively impact the number of points. I've suggested divvying up the sports articles so that teams are sectioned of from individuals, but we don't have a consensus on that yet. Also, the proposer might want to go through the article and make sure it is phrased in the present tense so far as the current Premiership season is concerned; after all, the season has started. Right now the blurb and I guess the article talks about the Premiership in the future tense.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I didn't realise about the exclusivity of date thing - could it be made clearer? I've updated the article as you have suggested; should have done it sooner. Thank you for considering it for TFA everyone MickO'Bants (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickO'Bants (talk • contribs)

(ec)I didn't realize about the date points being exclusive - thanks for catching that Wehwalt! I've modified my support on that basis. Karanacs (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Not necessarily a Stokes City F.C. fan, especially since they refused to lose to Liverpool! But, I'd love to see a football-related article on the main page. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support as a 3-point nomination. Decennary date relevance is cool. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: tweaked the image to remove the thumb parameter and resize it based on the other image sizes here. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support 3-pointer. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support: What a fantastic addition this will be to the TFAR family! –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Have updated the suggested writing MickO'Bants (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support: I've been looking at a lot of "history of English football club" pages recently - this is an outstanding example. Full Disclosure: I made the graph that appears on the page - but this was before I knew that the page had been nominated as a featured article.--Payo (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC) (p.s: I'm not a Stoke City fan)

October 18

Keep in mind I've never nominated an article before so bare with me. Age (since promotion to featured article): 1pt, Timing (relevance to main page date request): 1 pt (subject's birthdate), Importance: 1pt (notable topic?), Contributor history: 1 pt. I am not the significant contributor, that person - User:Jeffpw, recently passed away. Diversity: 1pt (there are very few LGBT related FAs). So 4 pts? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Three points: Age, 1; Timing 1; Contributor history, 1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support, in honor of Jeffpw. I'm not sure on the points; notable doesn't get a point here. I think it's 3 points, but others should check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Point count (three) looks solid, except that I'm not sure if Jeffpw was a significant contributor to any other TFAs, just that this is the only "star" he's given credit for. Looks good to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, this was Jeff's only FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that if another author is scheduled, the article could lose points on similarity grounds.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support as a three-pointer. Karanacs (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Kinda oppose if even the picture was removed due to copyright. Nergaal (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The image hasn't been removed; it simply isn't being shown on this page because it's fair use. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Any particular reason for opposing the article? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't that be solved before getting on the main page? Nergaal (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
      • um, Nergaal, it appears you don't understand image policy. It is solved. Fair Use images can be used in an article, but not on the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Underrepresented topic and a nice gesture remembering a fine Wikipedian. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Pic was apparently a non-free image and was removed. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wow right after I typed that it disappeared. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good gesture. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nice choice. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment In view of the concerns about blurbs which are not written (in this case necessarily) by the principal editor, I took a close look at the blurb, which in this case is the lede. I have two concerns. First, the statement about the three of his novels being either filmed or optioned for filming. That is literally true, but the article body says the filmed one was a failure and the other two options seem to have not been acted upon. Perhaps this could be modified a bit. Second, more importantly, the statement at the end of the first paragraph that the failure to get stuff published was a contributing factor in his suicide. That may be true, but the ref which supports that in the article (the NY Times obit) doesn't actually give a reason for the death. That needs clearing up. It could probably be sourced to the Baker website, as an opinion attributed to Baker's partner, who seems to say that in the bio section.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for taking the time to verify the blurb, Wehwalt; much appreciated in honor of my dear friend Jeff. It's probably good to flag to Raul blurbs that weren't written by primary contributors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment You're welcome. I'll look more fully into the article when I get the chance. I suspect it's been a bit adrift since Jeff's death, and may need a little bit of TLC. It isn't an area I'm familiar with, but I have eyes and can read and can compare with references. There isn't any rocket science here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support for Jeff's memory. GlassCobra 22:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support at three points. I'd say that the article would be lumped with "writers" rather than "LGBT", and writers as a whole aren't *hugely* underrepresented (though we could always do with a few more). GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Fear not, The Bookkeeper, I will "bare" with you. Hmm, that sounds dirty. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

October 21

Natalee Ann Holloway (born October 21, 1986) disappeared on May 30, 2005, during a high school graduation trip to Aruba, a Caribbean country in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. An American student from Mountain Brook, Alabama, Holloway graduated from Mountain Brook High School on May 24, 2005, shortly before the trip. The disappearance caused a media sensation in the United States.

Holloway was scheduled to fly home later on May 30 but failed to appear for her flight. She was last seen by her classmates outside Carlos'n Charlie's, a Caribbean chain restaurant and nightclub in Oranjestad, with locals Joran van der Sloot and brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe. When questioned, the three men denied knowing what became of Holloway. Upon further investigation by authorities, Van der Sloot was arrested twice on suspicion of involvement in her disappearance, and the Kalpoes were each arrested three times. However, due to lack of evidence, the three men were released without charge after each arrest. (more...)

One point for underrepresented topic, one for relevant date (birthday) two points for no similar articles within six months, one point for no previous mainpage by editor (submitted on behalf of Kww), total five points.

This article was nominated in late August, but Raul chose not to run it on the requested date of September 3. AuburnPilot and I asked Raul why, since it had had wide support. Raul indicated that he had no strong feelings about the article, and even having it run on Natalee's birthday, but did not want it running while he was away (as he was Labor Day weekend) because it might be controversial and he wanted to be around.[1].

Note that we replaced New Jersey with all respect to it, when Khan clears, it can get back on the page. Right now, of the three principal editors, I'm logging in from the Netherlands (not inappropriate, considering the article), Kww is busy with his nomination to become an Admin, and AuburnPilot's been having trouble with his internet access. So again, with great respect to the NJ article, which I support, we'd rather place the burden of watching the page and getting back on on someone who has proved they can do it once before. And if it proves to be the Stoke City article which should be removed, it can all be adjusted.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support as 5 points. A great deal of work went into reaching FA status on this article, so it'd be great to see it on the Main Page. - auburnpilot talk 14:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment With respect, last time I had help getting the article back up here, and last time I was not preoocupied with a a weeks worth of school and multiple suggestions for imprivements to an FAC I have open. I do apreciate the vote of confidence though; and I would ask that if you happen to spot an open spot before I do you would be so kind as to restore big J to the lineup. Otherwise, I wish you luck with the article, although with 5 points in your favor you should have little trouble getting your day in the sun. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment on points: As I stated on the talk page [2], I think this and Jena Six are similar since they are both about criminal cases. So I don’t think it can get 2 points for nothing similar in 6 months. This article was listed as a 3-5 pt on the pending [3] that way. Halgin (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Halgin that this should not get the two points for nothing similar in the last 6 months. I support this as a 3 point article. Karanacs (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • No harm, no foul, as I see NJ is back on the template. I'm sorry Tom, the options were to replace NJ with a chance of it getting back on, or the serious risk of having to replace it with no chance of getting it back on. I do not feel articles should be nominated with less than ten days left to go, to allow for full discussion and the uncertainties of Raul's scheduling.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If this and Jena Six are similar, then for sure Stoke City should lose points because of Wheatley. After all, they are both articles about sports played on a similar sized rectangular field, where the object is to advance the ball and place it in the end of the field the opponent is defending, where there are teams of 11 players and the sport is called "football". However, I believe that this and Jena Six are not similar in the least. One of the complaints against Jena Six was that it was too similar to Manzanar or To Kill a Mockingbird, so I guess Natalee Holloway is too similar to To Kill a Mockingbird, too? Jena Six is about a civil rights rally and the public perception of it, arising out of a criminal case. There is no civil rights here. There is no criminal case here. No one has been charged in Holloway's disappearance. While there have been investigative detentions under the Dutch system, that is not the same as charges under ours.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support as 5-pointer. I don't think the similarities between Jena Six and Natalee Holloway are strong enough. One is a story of racial unrest in small southern US town, one is a disappearance in Aruba. Certainly police and lawyers got involved in both, but police and lawyers get involved in a lot of disputes. I think we should look at the underlying nature of the activities, not the presence of police.—Kww(talk) 02:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support as 5-pointer; I too don't think this is "similar" to Jena Six. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support as a 3-pointer. I agree with Karanacs and Halgin. Both this and Jena Six are criminal cases with heavy media involvement. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support as 5-pointer. I guess I can see the argument that Natalee Holloway and Jena Six are both, in a sense minor incidents, about young people, that took on broader lives as media phenomena. But I think it's a stretch to call them similar on this basis alone. It would be strange to think of a context outside this one where Natalee Holloway and Jena Six would be mentioned in the same breath. Quite unlike two films. --JayHenry (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

October 22

The 1995 Pacific Grand Prix (formally the II Pacific Grand Prix) was a Formula One motor race held on October 22, 1995 at the TI Circuit, Aida, Japan. It was the 15th race of the 1995 Formula One season. The race, contested over 83 laps, was won by Michael Schumacher for the Benetton team after starting from third position. David Coulthard, who started the Grand Prix from pole position, finished second in a Williams car, with Damon Hill third in the other Williams. Schumacher's win confirmed him as 1995 Drivers' Champion as Hill could not pass Schumacher's points total with only two races remaining. Hill started the race alongside Coulthard on the front row, amidst pressure from the British media for not being "forceful" enough in battles. Schumacher attempted to drive around the outside of Hill at the first corner, but Hill held Schumacher off as Jean Alesi, driving for Ferrari got past both on the inside line to take second position. As a result, Hill dropped down to third and Schumacher dropped down to fifth behind Gerhard Berger. Schumacher managed to get past Alesi and Hill during the first of three pit stops. This allowed him, on a new set of slick tyres, to close on Coulthard who was on a two-stop strategy. Schumacher opened up a gap of 21 seconds by lapping two seconds faster per lap than Coulthard, so that when his third stop came, he still led the race. (more…)

• 1 point for anniversary; 2 for no related articles. 2nd point though disputed. D.M.N. (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support and what a vibrant picture! –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I am confused on why October 26th was too soon to have another sports article (CM Punk), but October 22nd is not. In addition, auto racing has had several TFAs (including Damon Hill, Alain Prost} and wrestling had not. This seems like a very illogical choice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I nominated Punk for FA. I nominated this article also for FA. Having both articles I've worked on the mainpage within the space of a few days would get strongly opposed. I'd prefer to have this article on the main page rather than the Punk one. I don't find your reasoning to with Punk a good one in regards to TFA, WP:PW have had two TFA's in the last year (December to Dismember (2006) [also worked on by me] on March 30, 2008 and Montreal Screwjob on November 9, 2007) while WP:F1 have had three TFAs, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Featured material, the last article WP:F1 had on the main page was on May 1, 2007. Also, even though Punk's article has been an FA for 1 1/2 years, it suffers from several MOS problems, as well as reliable sources problems. D.M.N. (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support as 3 points. Consensus so far has been grouping athletes in one category and events in a different one. CM Punk is an athlete, and we've had a lot of athlete bios on the main page recently. We have not had a lot of sporting event articles. Karanacs (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support As a 3-pointer. Good enough for me. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• How? So if this is removed, basically it won't be TFA on October 21st, even though people are supporting it?? D.M.N. (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily. Raul sometimes schedules articles that have been nominated for a date but which get knocked off the list for some reason. Tyrone Wheatley was one such article — nominated, but knocked off by something with more points. But Raul put it on the main page anyway. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support. Current discussion on the talk page suggests that in future articles about sporting events and sports teams would be considered "similar", but I'm OK with this being "grandfathered" in. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 10 October 2008, at 01:53.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.