Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Summary chart

Currently accepting requests from July 12 to August 11 (only up to August 1 if the entry would have five or more points). The chart will be updated regularly by editors who follow this page:

Requests

July 12

The 2006 Westchester County tornado was an F2 tornado that touched down in Rockland County, New York on July 12, 2006. It traveled 13 miles (21 km) into southwestern Connecticut during a 33-minute span through two states. The tornado touched down at 3:30 p.m. EDT (19:30 UTC) on the shore of the Hudson River before becoming a waterspout and traveling 3 mi (5 km) across the river. Coming ashore, the tornado entered Westchester County and struck the town of Sleepy Hollow at F1 intensity. After passing through the town, it intensified into an F2 tornado and grew to almost a quarter mile (400 m) in diameter, making it both the strongest and largest tornado in the county's history. The tornado continued through the county, causing damage to numerous structures, until it crossed into Connecticut at 4:01 p.m. EDT (20:01 UTC). Not long after entering the state, it dissipated in the town of Greenwich at 4:03 p.m. EDT (20:03 UTC). When the tornado entered Westchester County, it was the eighth known tornado to either touch down or enter the county since 1950.

The tornado left significant damage in its wake. Two barns and a warehouse were destroyed, and a large stained-glass window was shattered. Numerous homes and businesses were damaged and thousands of trees were uprooted. There were no fatalities and only six minor injuries were associated with the storm. Damages from the tornado totaled $12.1 million (2006 USD; $12.9 million 2008 USD). (more….)

I'm new at the main page things but I wanted to propose an article to be put up on July 12 and replace Sirius. The 2006 Westchester County tornado, the strongest to ever impact the county and eighth recorded, has four points according to the point system; one for annual date (July 12), one for importance and two for TFA recent as no tornado articles have made it to the main page as far as I know. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Seems to be a good article for the main page.Jason Rees (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment It's a close call, but I'm inclined to say 2 points. I would tend to say that any weather event of this type is similar to hurricanes, cyclones, and the like. While I agree, there are differences of scale, causation, whether rain falls out the bottom or wrecked Oldsmobiles, etc., I'm still inclined to think we have to draw lines in categories somewhere, and that all air-that-moves-in-a-circle should be treated as part of a category. I also note that it's covered by WikiProject: Severe weather, as are the hurricanes and cyclones. Other points look good.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The severe weather project doesn't include tropical cyclones in their scope of articles and same for the opposite. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa. But you don't have to be a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing, and when it is blowing in a circle, I think it's part of the same category. A hurricane and a tornado are at least as similar as noble gas and atom, which is the example we have in the rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

They might be in the same realm of meteorology, but the requirements for the two to form are much different. Cold air is needed for the formation of a tornado, the exact opposite of a hurricane. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, just like the mechanism for a noble gas is very different form that of an atom (I think!). I'm just trying to figure out if rules I didn't write apply to this situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Aren't noble gasses atoms? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly made up of them ... but the articles would be written rather differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support at two points. While tornadoes != hurricanes for obvious reasons, they are rather similar in that they are both severe weather. Your argument above is like saying an aircraft carrier article should not lower the points for a battleship because one kills things with airplanes and the other kills things with rather large guns. :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Agree with 2 points... the idea of mixing up what's on the main page isn't motivated by what's covered by which WikiProject and the like, it's motivated by keeping readers interested; no matter what the technicality, most readers will consider tornado articles and hurricane articles to be pretty similar. That doesn't mean this shouldn't be featured because of it; it just means it doesn't get those extra points. (In the grand scheme of things, though, the points aren't a big deal anyway.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I've been a semi-professional weather enthusiast for years, so I might have a bias in saying this, but tornadoes are definitely not hurricanes. Meteorology is a huge topic. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Good article, interesting topic. Awesome exchange above between Wehwalt and Cyclonebiskit. Nice Weather Underground / Bob Dylan reference. Witty, civil, classy. Maybe we could split the difference and call it three points?  Ahodges7   ^talk 11:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

July 13

The Talyllyn Railway is a narrow-gauge preserved railway running for 7.25 miles (11.67 km) from Tywyn on the Mid-Wales coast to Nant Gwernol near the village of Abergynolwyn. The line was opened in 1866 to carry slate from the quarries at Bryn Eglwys to Tywyn, and was the first narrow gauge railway in Britain authorised by Act of Parliament to carry passengers using steam haulage. Despite severe under-investment, the line remained open, and in 1951 it became the first railway in the world to be preserved as a heritage railway by volunteers.

Since preservation, the railway has operated as a tourist attraction, significantly expanding its rolling stock through acquisition and an engineering programme to build new locomotives and carriages. In 1976 an extension was opened along the former mineral line from Abergynolwyn to the new station at Nant Gwernol. In 2001 the preservation society celebrated its 50th anniversary, and in 2005 a major rebuilding and extension of Tywyn Wharf station took place, including a much expanded facility for the Narrow Gauge Railway Museum.

The fictional Skarloey Railway, which formed part of the Railway Series of children's books by the Rev. W Awdry, was based on the Talyllyn Railway. The preservation of the line inspired the Ealing Comedy film The Titfield Thunderbolt. (more….)

One point for date (new station building and museum opened by Prince Charles and Duchess of Cornwall in 2005), one point for >1 year since promotion, plus one point as I haven't had a TFA before. I tried to get this through in May without success, so hopefully I'll have better luck this time.

• Support as nominator. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Points look good, good article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Points look good, persistence pays around here!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Rjanag. Smallbones (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support per high quality of the article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - this is a great article and deserves a day on the Main Page Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

July 17

The Port Chicago disaster was a deadly explosion that took place on July 17, 1944 at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine in Port Chicago, California. Munitions being loaded aboard a cargo vessel bound for the Pacific Theater of Operations detonated, killing 320 sailors and civilians and injuring 390 others. Most of the dead and injured were enlisted African American sailors.

A month later, continuing unsafe conditions inspired hundreds of servicemen to refuse to load munitions, an act known as the Port Chicago Mutiny. Fifty men, called the Port Chicago 50, were convicted of mutiny and sentenced to long prison terms. Forty-seven of the 50 were released in January 1946; the remaining three served additional months in prison.

During and after the trial, questions were raised about the fairness and legality of the court-martial proceedings.^[1] Due to public pressure, the United States Navy reconvened the courts-martial board in 1945; the court affirmed the guilt of the convicted men. Widespread publicity surrounding the case turned it into a cause celebre among African Americans and liberal white Americans making it, along with other race-related Navy protests of 1944–1945, a significant motivator for the Navy to change its practices and begin in February 1946 to desegregate its forces.

2 points; 3 if you're a teenager from Northern California; another point if you see this primarily as an article about race relations, an underrepresented topic, rather than one of many military events. 1 for relevant date connection (65th anniversary of explosion), 1 point because I have not brought an article here before, 1 point for basic topic for schoolchildren in Northern California, especially the San Francisco Bay Area: they use this event as a study subject, per this link from a local school system. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, but at 2 points. I think the "basic topic" point should only be given if it's basic in a pretty large area (such as nationwide), and it seems to me to be more of a milhist article than a race relations article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support, 3 points is ok with me:1 date, 1 nominator, 1 underrepresented topic (race relations). Smallbones (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support, but at 2 points per Rjanag (talk · contribs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment two points. Many schools have local history. And I note you mention "teenager from northern California"; unless they've changed the qualifications to become a teenager, twelve year olds do not qualify. And as for underrepresented, we go strictly by the categories for FA, and this article doesn't get a point that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I accept the two points level. Just for clarity, it was my own application of the word 'teenager' to the local school link, but the k-thru-12 link does not specify age of student. It leaves that decision to the teacher. Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, high-quality article on noteworthy topic, high encyclopedia and educational value. Cirt (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support This is an excellent article that covers an important and controversial event well. As for the points, the subject of this article was most definately an important event in the history of race relations in the United States much more so than a significant event in military history (except as regards race relations in the US military). I believe a case could be made for basic subject matter as well, and as for the 12 year old vs. teenager comment, I think that shows a fundamental problem with the basic subject matter rule, which I intend to take up on the talk page for this project presently. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

July 25

The Battle of Verrières Ridge was a series of engagements fought as part of the Battle of Normandy, in western France, during the Second World War. The main combatants were two Canadian infantry divisions, with additional support from the 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade, against elements of three German SS Panzer divisions. The battle was part of the British and Canadian attempts to break out of Caen, and took place during July 19–25, 1944, being part of both Operation Atlantic (July 18–21) and Operation Spring (July 25–27).

The immediate Allied objective was Verrières Ridge, a belt of high ground which dominates the route from Caen to Falaise. The ridge was invested by battle-hardened German veterans, who had fallen back from Caen and entrenched to form a strong defensive position. Over the course of six days, substantial Canadian and British forces made repeated attempts to capture the ridge. Strict German adherence to defensive doctrine, as well as strong and effective counterattacks by Panzer formations, resulted in heavy Allied casualties for little strategic gain.

From the perspective of the First Canadian Army, the battle is remembered for its tactical and strategic miscalculations—the most notable being a highly controversial attack by the Royal Highland Regiment (Black Watch) of Canada on July 25. This attack, the costliest single day for a Canadian battalion since the 1942 Dieppe Raid, has become one of the most contentious and critically analysed events in Canadian military history.

3 Points, one because it is the 65th anniversary of the main offensive during the battle, one as I have never had anything else on the main page, and one because this article was promoted over a year ago (June 15, 2008). I'm not sure as to whether similar topics have been mentioned or whether the topic is underrepresented, but at the moment Verrieres Ridge stands at three points. Cam ^(Chat) 21:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Military history isn't an underrepresented topic, so I agree with three points. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - a Canadian article, how odd. ;P Commenting on the blurb: do the dates need to be linked? They seem more distracting than anything else to me. If they do, July 25 is linked three times... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support It is a very good article, and while the topics of military history in general and of WWII history in particular have probably been severly over represented on the main page, Canadian military history has not. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support with comment points should be at 1. You are correct in your assessment above, but Operation Epsom is slated for tomorrow and that's less than a month apart from the requested date here; that's -2 points, unfortunately. Don't worry too much though, Raul tries to accommodate the requests of article writers when he can. Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  Comment quite right, points adjusted.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, 1 point. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)