Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests: Difference between revisions
→Nonspecific date (1 only): deemed withdrawn as not selected by Raul who did not select it while selecting 7 or more other articles |
|||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
==Date requests (5 max)== |
==Date requests (5 max)== |
||
<!-- There is a limit of five requests at any time. Do not add a request if there are already five requests in submission, unless the new request is replacing another request with lower points. Add the request in date order. --> |
<!-- There is a limit of five requests at any time. Do not add a request if there are already five requests in submission, unless the new request is replacing another request with lower points. Add the request in date order. --> |
||
===9 February=== |
|||
<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"> |
|||
[[File:German destroyer Z33 in Forde Fjord 9 Feb 1945.jpg|100px|alt=Two ships close to the shore of a body of water near steep snow-covered hills. Much of the body of water is covered by sheets of ice.|''Z33'' under attack by Allied aircraft on 9 February 1945]] |
|||
</div> |
|||
In the "'''[[Black Friday (1945)|Black Friday]]'''" air attack of [[World War II]] a force of Allied [[Bristol Beaufighter]] aircraft suffered heavy casualties during an unsuccessful attack on [[German destroyer Z33|German destroyer ''Z33'']] and her escorting vessels on 9 February 1945. The German ships were sheltering in a strong defensive position in [[Førdefjorden|Førde Fjord]], [[Norway]], forcing the Allied aircraft to attack through heavy [[Anti-aircraft warfare|anti-aircraft]] fire. The Beaufighters and their escort of [[North American P-51 Mustang]] fighters were also surprised by twelve German [[Focke-Wulf Fw 190]] fighters. In the resulting attack the Allies damaged at least two of the German ships for the loss of seven Beaufighters shot down by [[Anti-aircraft warfare|flak guns]]. Another two Beaufighters and one Mustang were destroyed by the Fw 190s. Either four or five German fighters were shot down by the Allied aircraft, including one flown by an [[flying ace|ace]]. Due to the losses suffered in this raid the Allied anti-shipping force adopted new tactics which placed a lower priority on attacking [[warship]]s. ([[Black Friday (1945)|'''more…''']]) |
|||
</div></div> |
|||
2 points - the article was promoted on 15 December 2010 and this will be the anniversary of the battle. I'm not sure when the last article on a World War II battle was the TFA, but I think that this is one of very few concerning aerial battles, which may also be worth another one or two points. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 06:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Minus one point'''. I would say that this is similar to [[John Lerew]], TFA very recently, as being about WWII aviation. So one point date connection (65th anniversary, 1 pt), minus two.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 13:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*I'm inclined to say let it run anyway, regardless of negative points. The two recent WWII TFAs were on a battle between the US and Japan in New Guinea, and a biography of an Australian pilot; while this is "similar" in the strict sense, it's different enough to avoid the "Wikipedia is obsessed with XXX this week!" issue, and has a clear date significance. '''Support'''. – [[User:Iridescent|<font color="#660066">iridescent</font>]] 17:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
:::Not quite—he rejected it because he ran Guadalcanal Campaign on the 15th and (rightly) said the battle (part of said campaign) was too similar to that. There isn't the same degree of similarity here. – [[User:Iridescent|<font color="#660066">iridescent</font>]] 19:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::You are right, my mistake.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 19:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' Interesting article, It is short and easy to read. [[User:Paulista01|Paulista01]] ([[User talk:Paulista01|talk]]) 18:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
===13 February=== |
|||
<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"> |
|||
[[File:JacktheRipper1888.jpg|100px|alt=A black-and-white newspaper illustration of a "suspicious-looking" man in a dark coat and hat walking past a poster marked "murder". A group of people in Victorian clothing are together looking speculatively at him|A contemporary newspaper illustration of "Jack the Ripper"]]</div> |
|||
The '''[[Whitechapel murders]]''' are eleven unsolved brutal murders of women, committed in or near the impoverished [[Whitechapel District (Metropolis)|Whitechapel District]] in the [[East End]] of London between 3 April 1888 and 13 February 1891. At various points some or all of the killings have been ascribed to the notorious, but elusive, individual known as [[Jack the Ripper]]. Most, if not all, of the victims were prostitutes. The [[Metropolitan Police Service]], [[City of London Police]], and private organisations such as the [[Whitechapel Vigilance Committee]] were involved in the search for the killer or killers. Despite extensive inquiries and several arrests, the culprit or culprits evaded identification and capture. The murders drew attention to the poor living conditions in the East End slums, which were subsequently improved. The enduring mystery of who committed the crimes has captured the imagination of writers to the present day. ([[Whitechapel murders|'''more…''']]) |
|||
</div></div> |
|||
2 points as 120 (multiple of 10) anniversary of the final Whitechapel murder. The last crime-based FA was [[1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing]] on December 15, so no points either way on the "similar topics" front. [[User:GeeJo|GeeJo]] <sup>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]]</sup>⁄<sub>[[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>• 11:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)</small> |
|||
===March 1=== |
===March 1=== |
||
<div style="width:55%; background-color:#f5fffa; border:1px solid #cef2e0;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em; color: black"> |
<div style="width:55%; background-color:#f5fffa; border:1px solid #cef2e0;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em; color: black"> |
||
<div style="float:left;margin:0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0;"> |
<div style="float:left;margin:0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0;"> |
||
Line 74: | Line 46: | ||
The '''[[posting system]]''' is a [[baseball]] player transfer system which operates between [[Japan]]'s [[Nippon Professional Baseball]] (NPB) and the [[United States]]' [[Major League Baseball]] (MLB). Despite the drafting of the United States – Japanese Player Contract Agreement in 1967 designed to regulate NPB players moving to MLB, problems arose in the late 1990s. Some NPB teams lost star players without compensation, an issue highlighted when NPB stars [[Hideo Nomo]] ''(pictured)'' and [[Alfonso Soriano]] left to play in MLB after using loopholes to void their existing contracts. A further problem was that NPB players had very little negotiating power if their teams decided to deal them to MLB, as when pitcher [[Hideki Irabu]] was traded to an MLB team for which he had no desire to play. In 1998, the Agreement was rewritten to address both problems and was dubbed the "posting system". Under this system, when an NPB player is "posted", MLB holds a four-day-long [[silent auction]] during which MLB teams can submit sealed bids in an attempt to win the exclusive rights to negotiate with the player for a period of 30 days. If the MLB team with the winning bid and the NPB player agree on contract terms before the 30-day period has expired, the NPB team receives the bid amount as a transfer fee, and the player is free to play in MLB. ([[Posting system|'''more...''']])</div> |
The '''[[posting system]]''' is a [[baseball]] player transfer system which operates between [[Japan]]'s [[Nippon Professional Baseball]] (NPB) and the [[United States]]' [[Major League Baseball]] (MLB). Despite the drafting of the United States – Japanese Player Contract Agreement in 1967 designed to regulate NPB players moving to MLB, problems arose in the late 1990s. Some NPB teams lost star players without compensation, an issue highlighted when NPB stars [[Hideo Nomo]] ''(pictured)'' and [[Alfonso Soriano]] left to play in MLB after using loopholes to void their existing contracts. A further problem was that NPB players had very little negotiating power if their teams decided to deal them to MLB, as when pitcher [[Hideki Irabu]] was traded to an MLB team for which he had no desire to play. In 1998, the Agreement was rewritten to address both problems and was dubbed the "posting system". Under this system, when an NPB player is "posted", MLB holds a four-day-long [[silent auction]] during which MLB teams can submit sealed bids in an attempt to win the exclusive rights to negotiate with the player for a period of 30 days. If the MLB team with the winning bid and the NPB player agree on contract terms before the 30-day period has expired, the NPB team receives the bid amount as a transfer fee, and the player is free to play in MLB. ([[Posting system|'''more...''']])</div> |
||
March 1st marks the end of the posting system's 11th posting period and the article was promoted over 1 year ago---Total: 2 pts. I really like this article. I think it's a good mix of sports and culture and is a relatively unknown part of baseball. --[[User:Torsodog|<font color="#000000">'''T'''</font><font color="#993300">orsodo</font><font color="#000000">'''g'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Torsodog|Talk]]</sup> 06:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC) |
March 1st marks the end of the posting system's 11th posting period and the article was promoted over 1 year ago---Total: 2 pts. I really like this article. I think it's a good mix of sports and culture and is a relatively unknown part of baseball. --[[User:Torsodog|<font color="#000000">'''T'''</font><font color="#993300">orsodo</font><font color="#000000">'''g'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Torsodog|Talk]]</sup> 06:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
⚫ |
Revision as of 18:26, 31 January 2011
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 June 17 to July 17.
Date | Article | Points | Notes | Supports† | Opposes† |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nonspecific | |||||
Mar 1 | Posting system | 2 | Promoted over a year ago, anniversary | 1 | 0 |
† Tally may not be up to date; please do not use these tallies for removing a nomination according to criteria 1 or 3 above unless you have verified the numbers.
Nonspecific date (1 only)
Date requests (5 max)
March 1
March 1st marks the end of the posting system's 11th posting period and the article was promoted over 1 year ago---Total: 2 pts. I really like this article. I think it's a good mix of sports and culture and is a relatively unknown part of baseball. --TorsodogTalk 06:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Comment points look good. I should note that the advocates of this article have been asking for it to run since 2009. Perhaps now is its time?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)