Wikinews:Featured article candidates/archive/3

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hurricane Jimena approaches Baja California

Here's one of me own. It's fairly short and there's no OR, but it's among my most in-depth articles and covers the event quite well I think. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Weak oppose It's a solid, well-written article, but at five kilobytes, it's not very "in-depth" - hardly any longer than our average piece. Imho, it just doesn't "stand out" enough for FA status. Sorry. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose because it's not dramatically better than average weather-related news. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose—this article is on the upper boundary of our average work. It is not as exceptional as a FA ought to be, and does not have quite enough depth. Dendodge _T\^C 17:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per the three above - I like this, it's well written and above-average, but it doesn't have that wow factor we're looking for. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• ty, Tempo Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Result: Not promoted per strong consensus that this is not as in-depth as an FA should be Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shooting rampage in Orlando, Florida leaves one dead, seven injured

This was worked on quite quickly and by several editors. Rayboy8 (my talk) 21:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Support as nomiator. Rayboy8 (my talk) 21:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose While it's a fairly collaborative piece and written well, it's not very long - at .3.5 kilobytes in size, it's hardly any longer than our usual article. I'm of the opinion that featured articles should cover the event very comprehensively (i.e. "in depth"). I don't think it stands out enough from our average work enough to be an FA. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose in current state—sorry, but it's far too short, and doesn't cover the topic in enough depth. I suggest waiting until the news is no longer breaking. Dendodge _T\^C 21:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, nothing special and still breaking. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - simply not stable enough. This could go down the tubes and be an embarrassment. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Not long happened, not a stable article. Also, not in depth enough. If you want an FA on this, my advice would be to give a day or two, then run with Details emerge on Orlando, Florida spree shooting or similar. There should be plenty to talk about. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Result: Cadidacy failed per strong consensus of the lack of depth Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thirteen dead, several wounded in Fort Hood, Texas shooting

A lot of people worked on this and it developed very quickly - in just a few hours actually, if you look at the revision history. It has no original reporting in it, but has a large amount of collaboration. I think that this article should achieve Featured article status, based on how brilliantly and quickly this article was worked on. Rayboy8 (my talk) 23:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment I am abstaining. I made some copyedits to this but never got beyond the fourth paragraph otherwise. It really needed those copyedits, and was initially published with a title that did not match WN:SG. I would tend to oppose because of persistent 'encyclopedisation' as this was developed. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 03:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In what way do you think the article is "encyclopedic"? I tried to maintain as much of a "newsy" tone as i could when expanding the article. Tempodivalse [talk] 04:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Look at the points where I edited. I don't want to pick on anyone in particular over this article; a good job was done finding and monitoring sources for information. The presentation left a lot to be desired and I know you were one of the people trying to improve that. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Support—I was involved in the collaboration on this article, and it was—in my opinion—exemplary. The article is in-depth and covers all aspects of the event. The lack of OR isn't a major issue to me: While it would be a positive if it were there, it doesn't make me think any less of the article if it is lacking. Dendodge _T\^C 00:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Disclaimer - I was quite involved in writing the article (having contributed around 10kb). However, I think it's "in-depth" enough to qualify as an FA,; also, it was a collaborative piece, having been worked upon significantly by at least three contributors, and edited by many more. There's no OR or exclusive images, but nonetheless I think this meets FA standard. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support as nominatior. Rayboy8 (my talk) 07:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support --Very detailed and Ilove the speed and collaboration on it. Good job"    Tris   20:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral although the coverage and collaboration is very good on this, I agree with Brian in that I can see where he's coming from. It is as in-depth as you would expect given the subject, but bits and pieces of style are a concern. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Result: Promoted, no opposition Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Afghan presidential candidate Abdullah withdraws from elections

One of my own articles, written quite recently. While it doesn't have much in the way of images, there's no OR, and only one person (me) worked on it, it's very in-depth and reasonably well-written, and i think it qualifies as FA-standard. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment Article dated Sunday, and uses Sunday in preference to Today within the body. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Someone - is it you, Tempo? - keeps doing that to things I write. I'd advocate a note in the style guide noting news stories are immediate things. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's usually me. I wasn't aware what WN:SG had to say about it: If something happened or is happening on the day you are writing your article, state it is happening today. My reason for using days of the week was to avoid possible ambiguity - i.e. "today" could be Friday in one part of the world, but already "Saturday" in another - but then again, that should already be made clear from {{date}}. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Now I feel stupid for suggesting we change the style guide to say something it already did. That was why I never reverted; you liked it, there was (I thought) no guideline... so I kept leaving it. Good to clear that up, and by the way, you do a great job copyediting pretty much everything Tempo. :) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't voted because I haven't yet settled down to read through this. However, I would like to note that this appears to be very well written and good coverage of an issue that is under-reported despite being what I would deem as one of the biggest stories out there. I also feel that the issue with the today/sunday thing, provided it is the only problem, should not be enough to single-handedly stop an FAC. I wonder if the hange is minor enough to get consensus to 'break' the archive, since meaning is unchanged? That way we could eradicate the issue entirely. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  I would say so. It's not a content change and only involves changing a single word, it doesn't even change the meaning. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  I was bold and changed the article text based on your suggestion. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Support as nominator. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Very in-depth. The lack of OR shouldn't stop this from being grant FA status--RockerballAustralia (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. Pmlineditor^Talk 11:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support This is very well written. I don't think it would matter in this case that there is no original reporting in this article. Rayboy8 (my talk) 07:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support—very good article. Dendodge _T\^C 16:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support --   Tris   20:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Result: Promoted with unanimous support Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anniversary of Tak Bai incident marked with lawsuits

This is one of the quite in-depth pieces I've worked on. It was a while back, and - regrettably - I didn't follow up on it. It lacks images, but I think it's a good, solid piece. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Neutral It's a good, solid piece, and well-written. However, i don't think it's quite "in depth" enough to qualify for WN:FA standards. While we do have some featured articles that are around this size, text-wise, they usually make up for it with extra images, video, or original reporting - none of which are present in this article. I think FA should consist of the "best of the best", and consist only of articles that stand out significantly from our average work. While this is a good piece, i don't think it meets those standards. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral I think think this borderline FA standard. I would consider supporting if swayed --RockerballAustralia (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Yes, traditionally we expect images, quotes, and original research in our FAs; however, in my opinion, where Wikinews shines is its ability to produce good, neutral, and comprehensive articles by mixing and matching information from other external sources. It seems clear to me that this article demonstrates and showcases that. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support I would say yeah. It is quite good. Rayboy8 (my talk) 07:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support—Could be more in-depth, and there's a lack of images and OR, but overall it's good enough. Dendodge _T\^C 16:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Yeah, alright, although it is a tad short and a bit lacking in images etc. What is there is nice and solid. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Result: Successful, no opposition and a fair amount of support after a week. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AFL provides insufficient support for European leagues: Germany

I think this is pretty in depth. Definitly my best non-technical article relatung to Aussie Rules (common complaint with my last 2 FACs)--RockerballAustralia (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Support Some good OR, seems fairly in-depth too. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support A lot of work went into this, steers away from the 'sport journo' jargon and puts together a good story. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support - Seems rather dry, but I suppose it technically meets all the standards –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Seems pretty good to me. Rayboy8 (my talk) 07:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Result: Successful. Been over a week with no objections, unanimous support. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

US Nazi leader talks about Barack Obama, the economy and more

I'm still working on a major special report project, but until that's out then I feel that this is the best piece of work I've ever done. Achieving NPOV with a neo-Nazi interview was hard and the result predictably controversial - this was very much sticking my head out on the block for my journalistic beliefs, that we should always get all the facts from every source without judging, and leave that to the reader. I also made a serious effort to mix up Nazi-based questions as well as some general political questions - when was the last time you saw someone get the Nazi candidate for US pres to discuss electric cars? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support but disappointed you didn't ask, "will you make the trains run on time?". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Tempodivalse [talk] 22:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support --Very interesting as well.    Tris   07:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent work! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support—even the effort it must hare required to keep this NPOV makes it worthy of FA status, and the fact thta the other criteria are met too is an added bonus. Dendodge _T\^C 00:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Very nice interview. --Rayboy8 (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support, great interview! the wub "?!" 10:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Result:Promoted, per unanimous support. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Listening to you at last: EU plans to tap cell phones

I'm nominating this, my own work, because I think it shows the potential Wikinews has to engage in real investigate journalism. It's possibly [edit:a] weak [edit:candidate] due to limited collaboration (although there were frequent complaints about the volume of mail I was sending to scoop). --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

My Google-foo tells me that despite our current screwup, and not being indexed in Google News, some people noticed this story.

• Adam Smith Institute

Nice! :-) --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I would not describe the title as tabloidesque, as some have done below. That would be E-ewwwww is watching you! Eurasia implementing Big Brother. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Two people have clearly challenged the title on POV grounds; While I did not propose it, I stand by it. From the 'lede', "Project INDECT aims to mine data from television, internet traffic, cellphone conversations, p2p file sharing and a range of other sources for crime prevention and threat prediction." This is in the documents, and I am not going to go through them with a fine-tooth comb to pick out direct quotes to back it up. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not disputing the lede, but there is a significant difference between technology to mine data from voice conversations, and the actual act of TAPPING phones to obtain such conversations in the first place which is what the title suggests. the wub "?!" 15:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "plans" indicates it is not yet a fait-accomplit. Seriously, I will go to a 3RR block over renaming of this now. Partly per WN:ARCHIVE, but equally so because it is an accurate generalisation of how the public would view INDECT. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Support A seriously well-researched article. I hope to soon back up this with my own major original piece, should be a good double strike for WN. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support as nom. (My own little bit of vote-stacking.) --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Tempodivalse [talk] 22:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose --I'm sorry, but I just don't agree that it is NPOV enough, as I've said on the talk page. It is an excellently researched and lengthy article however.    Tris   07:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment' I'm going to have to call you on that — as I did when you made a similarly vague comment on the article's talk page. Where does it fail WN:NPOV? How does it fail WN:NPOV? Can you actually cite a passage that is clearly my POV, and not expressed through clearly attributed quotes? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Replied on the talk page so this page can be used for what it's meant to be used for.    Tris   11:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Interview, original reporting, image and multimedia, interesting sources, good stuff. Cirt (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support—well written, and the OR is a bonus. Plus, I love the title: really tabloid-y. Dendodge _T\^C 21:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.118.181.35 (talk • contribs)
• Support I love this article - it's well written, with a tabloid-style title, quite in-depth but doesn't ramble and is the first special report that Wikinews has done for some time. Well done. --Rayboy8 (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose with current title, it may be clever but "Listening to you at last" is certainly not NPOV. More worryingly I can't even find the source for tapping of cell phones, the leaked report seems to only refer to mining public data. Perhaps I've missed something, could you point me in the right direction Brian? (I have some other minor concerns, but I'll put them on the talk page tomorrow, need to sleep now). the wub "?!" 22:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support One of the important functions of journalism is to point to the problems in society. It should be sourced, it should be NPOV as more as it is possible, but by its nature it is not possible to be NPOV in the strict sense. Choosing news is not NPOV; saying that something is a problem is not NPOV. Such articles should be marked properly, but we need such articles if we want Wikinews as relevant source of information. --millosh (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• support, I honestly don't see any real issues with NPOV here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Result: Successful. It's been over a week since this opened and consensus is 80% in support of promotion - seems clear enough. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

U.K. National Portrait Gallery threatens U.S. citizen with legal action over Wikimedia images

One of our "best" stories in my opinion. Incredible amount of depth, neutral coverage, and some good OR. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Good article, deserving of FA. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Fully agree, good article, comprehensive, FA quality. Cirt (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support definitely up there amongst our best coverage. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support a great example of what Wikinewsies are capable of. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support—great article that certainly showcases the best Wikinews has to offer. Dendodge _T\^C 16:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Very good article. I'll support. --Rayboy8 (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Result: Closed as successful, per unanimous support. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Minor tears found in Gordon Brown's retina

The article contains six paragraphs, a picture, was worked on by a maximum of 7 Wikinews members and, in my opinion, is really well sourced. --Rayboy8 (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: nice article, but not as in-depth as FAs should be. Also, there's little or no OR, which is somewhat of a requirement. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose FA articles should be very in-depth, at least a dozen paragraphs imo. This article is good quality, but I think it's just not long enough. Original reporting, although not required, can also be seen as a plus. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a good 'staple' article, of a standard that most Wikinews publishes should reach. I would not push to the same extent for original reporting to be a prerequisite, but there would have to be something quite remarkable about a story purely drawn from other mainstream news sites for me to think it eligible for FA status. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose—sorry, but there's not enough detail, and no OR (not a requirement, but it helps). Dendodge _T\^C 16:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for the lack of detail as above, although it is a good article. I would take the view that a lack of OR shouldn't count against an article, although having OR would be in favour of one. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Result:Failed, no support to promote article. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Geelong win 2009 Australian Football League Grand Final

Alot of in depth pre event coverage and alot of in depth game coverage. It is atleast 90% OR and was worked on by two contributors - one being myself --RockerballAustralia (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support as nom --RockerballAustralia (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Style is odd, with text pushed about due to overabundance of images and things, which looks a bit tacky. There could be more context given to the body text - instead it appears to be written specifically for local fans who already have an inside knowledge of the topic. The wording of the body text proceeds as such: "this happened, then this, then this ..." - could have had a more professional tone. Cirt (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Cirt brings up good points. While the article is fairly in-depth and contains some OR, the style could have been more professional. Also, the the article's topic seems to be aimed at a very specific audience that, as Cirt says, already have inside knowledge of. Sorry. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose due to style and limited interest, as noted above. Dendodge _T\^C 18:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Result: failed, not enough support to promote. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Australian rules football: West Gippsland Latrobe Football League Grand Final

Alot of work went into this to get it to FA standard prior to the event. I's got some quotes, plenty of pictures and a score box placed appropriately --RockerballAustralia (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Seems fairly short, but more importantly is very specific and doesn't have a lot of broad, general information. The content seems too encyclopedic. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral I'm undecided over this and may yet change my vote either way. I dunno what Julian is getting at, I think this is a decent match report (do you call it that if its not football/soccer?). I'm just wavering on if its FA standard. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Images and video are high quality and it's got OR, but I'm of the opinion that FAs should be very in-depth and detailed, and have lots of prose in addition to media. As far as text goes, this article is hardly any longer than our average article. It's a good article, i just don't consider it up to featured article standard. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - sorry, but it's just not quite up to standard, for the reasons above. Dendodge _T\^C(en.wp) 15:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support as nom. News articles lways have background - this one has more that the usual. It's covered comprehesive;y --RockerballAustralia (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• If you nominate an article, you support of its promotion is presumed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Result: Unsuccessful, not enough support for promotion. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Searching for asteroids, extraterrestrial life a little more rocky: Budget cuts threaten to close Arecibo, world's largest radio telescope

Not sure why it's not. I know it's my own work, but I still think it's worthy. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 07:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Good quality, in-depth story with lots of images and original reporting. Certainly deserves being an FA. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support—a great article. Definitely deserves it. Dendodge _T\^C(en.wp) 15:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support, certainly meets WN:WIAFA. Cirt (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Result: Promoted. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi released on compassionate grounds August 20, 2009

This article deals very well with a very controversial issue IMHO. There is new, original content, and we even had some previous original material to refer back to, as well as a chance to correct a mistake made by a major mainstream UK newspaper (for which credit goes really to SVTCobra, who thought to question that 'fact' earlier). It was collaborative; Adambro, Brian McNeil and myself worked on the article as well as that earlier comment by Cobra that became OR. Although it is towards the shorter end of featured articles, I still feel it covers the news very well, noting that the controversy about the homecoming came after this article; it ends "are ongoing in Tripoli." Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support It's rather short by FA standards, but I think it still qualifies as "in-depth" enough to be a featured article. A very nice piece of OR. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Looks great to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Great work by all involved. Cirt (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - significantly more researched than many MSM reports. Minor niggle is there seems to have been a cut and paste or edit error in one of the later paragraphs. A sentence fragment is duplicated and it isn't quite clear what's been meant to go in. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done here. Thanks. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Result: Successful, unanimous support. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

---

Over 100 people protest exclusion of gender identity protection in ENDA outside HRC dinner July 29, 2008

This article is a work of first-hand journalism, and includes free-use pictures as well as video from the event, as well as audio interviews, located at commons:Left OUT Party. I believe it is a high quality piece. Cirt (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Cirt (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral It's a good, well-written article, no doubt about it, but I'm not sure it is sufficiently long or "in-depth" to qualify for FA standards. Images and video are high-quality, but I don't feel there's enough text or detail here. The story is only about half the size of our average featured article. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Valid points, I just think it satisfies many of our standard featured criteria: free-use pictures, other free-use media, original reporting, actual reporting from the event itself, etc. etc. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral I agree that the article meets the criteria and OR is always a plus, but for me it is the title, not the length, that puts me off. Americans may well know what the ENDA is and who HRC are, but most of the rest of the world doesn't. Nowadays I doubt it would be published with that title. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral, tending towards oppose for similar reasons to BRS - that title is god-awful-gibberish to someone unfamiliar with the acronyms. I could never see this getting through now without someone getting a rap on the knuckles for that, it simply isn't informative and considerate of the project's supposed audience. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Archived, insufficient support for promotion. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.